Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 837, 838 and 839.

Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 2011, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 816 and 817.

Mr. Speaker, I've come to the floor on several occasions this year to denounce the abuses of the current government in Puerto Rico and discuss where the government has taken actions to suppress dissent and conduct business in secret, cutting the people out of the process of governance.

I've discussed the current regime's push for a dangerous, environmentally risky 92-mile natural gas pipeline known locally as the ``gasoducto''; the violations of civil rights and human rights of workers who protested the firing of up to 30,000 government employees; closing the legislature to the press and the public and conducting their business in secret; the violent treatment of students who opposed a steep fee increase, whose protest was broken up with billy clubs and pepper spray; the civil rights abuses revealed in the devastating report by our own U.S. Department of Justice about the systematic abuses by the Puerto Rican Police Department; and the attempt to destroy the Puerto Rican Bar Association, one of the most important independent organizations of civil society.

And the reaction in official Puerto Rico to my denunciations here in the House is telling as well. The legislature in Puerto Rico, both Houses, controlled by the ruling party, approved a joint resolution condemning me--not condemning the abusive tactics and oppressive practices I denounced, and that the Department of Justice confirmed exists--but condemning me for telling you about them.

Now the effort in Puerto Rico to silence any and all opposition has reached a new low. Incredible as it may sound, according to press reports published in Puerto Rico, the Vatican sent an official to conduct an investigation on allegations of political involvement by the archbishop of San Juan, conducted in secrecy until the press got wind of it this week.

While no names have surfaced on who filed an accusation against the archbishop, or who was in contact with the Vatican, it is telling that the elite of the ruling party has been quick to saturate the airwaves and pages of local newspapers with loud public accusations against the archbishop.

Attacking the archbishop is nothing new for the ruling party in Puerto Rico. They've done it many times in the past.

I'm a strong supporter of the democratic principle of separation of church and state, but as someone who has spent my life working to defend the rights of workers, minorities, working class people and immigrants, I have often been joined by people of faith and, particularly, leaders of the Catholic Church.

Just as here on the mainland, in Puerto Rico there is a broad religious leadership that has joined with the people as they strive to achieve a greater degree of social justice. Among those people is the Archbishop Roberto Gonzalez Nieves of San Juan.

Archbishop Gonzalez Nieves has courageously stepped forward on very important issues in Puerto Rico, such as the struggle to achieve peace on the island of Vieques, the need to protect civil rights and free speech, the freedom of political prisoners, and the just treatment of the poor.

But the one issue that has inflamed the passions of the ruling party against the archbishop has been his clear and firm stance on the need to reform Puerto Rican identity and the existence of a Puerto Rican nation. He has expressed a bold and comprehensive opinion in reference to Puerto Rican nationhood. That quote is, ``Motherland nation and identity are indivisible gifts of God's love.''

He's had the temerity to incorporate the Puerto Rican flag into the Catholic Church, a Puerto Rican church.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another instance where the regime, through any means necessary, seeks to silence all voices of opposition and undermine all independent institutions on the island. Whether they initiated the effort to silence the archbishop or whether they're just cheering it loudly from the sidelines, the current regime in Puerto Rico is repeating its pattern of driving all opposing forces into the wilderness.

Mr. Speaker, I am one voice, and I suspect that the Archbishop Gonzalez Nieves is another that cannot be silenced or driven into the wilderness.

I will be going to Puerto Rico this Friday night and trekking to the mountains of Adjuntas to meet with the good people of Casa Pueblo this Sunday where we will discuss the next steps of the people's opposition to the gasoducto gas pipeline project. Interestingly, the archbishop also expressed serious concerns about the gasoducto and in June participated in a meeting with leaders of the community discussing possible actions they could take in case construction of the pipeline actually begins.

I am sure that the regime's attempts in Puerto Rico to suppress the will of the people and impose upon them politically driven policies, such as the gasoducto, or get the institution of civil society to shut up will not be happy to hear what I have to say next week when I arrive on the island.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 801 and 802.

I want to talk today about two people opposed to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement:

Alejandro Jose Penata--a teacher, a union organizer, a spokesperson for fairness for his fellow educators in a country where getting a decent education can be difficult to impossible. Also, I want to talk about Ana Fabricia Cordoba--an advocate for the displaced, an advocate for returning stolen land to those from whom it was taken.

Ana and Alejandro were part of a vocal and committed and brave group of Colombians willing to stand up for what they believed in. They stood up for the dispossessed, for peasants, for trade union members, and for those who want to join trade unions. Like many Colombians, they were tremendously concerned about a free trade agreement that reflected the interests of large corporations but not of those workers and farmers and poor people they fought for every day.

Ana and Alejandro, if they could, would be with us today to voice their opposition in person to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, but they can't voice that opposition because they were both murdered in Colombia. Ana was shot dead on a public bus. Alejandro was tortured and hung with barbed wire. These are tragic facts, uncomfortable facts, unacceptable facts, but they are not isolated facts.

Sadly, the faces of Ana and Alejandro are the faces of Colombia today. Nowhere in the world is it more dangerous to be a union organizer, fighting for the wages and rights of working people than in Colombia. Twenty-three trade unionists were killed this year. Fifty-one were killed last year. And over the last several years, hundreds more have been threatened, driven out by violence or have simply disappeared. In 2010, more trade unionists were murdered in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined.

In Colombia, there is an organized, intensive campaign to prevent working men and women from working together to fight for better wages and working conditions, and it seems to be working.

So why would the United States want to endorse this behavior and reward the companies, working with the government, that have unleashed this violent assault on workers' rights?

That, after all, is what a trade agreement is really about, a partnership. This is not a partnership the United States of America should enter into.

I'm voting ``no'' on the Colombia free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Colombia free trade agreement.

I believe the facts are simple. Voting for the Colombia free trade agreement is a vote for violent union busting, for driving people from their land, for setting the American working man and woman up to compete on an unlevel playing field that will cost us jobs and livelihoods. I know that it is difficult to look at these pictures and hard to accept the reality of the danger to people who speak up in Colombia.

But we cannot ignore the facts, and in Colombia, trade union activists are targeted for assassination and murder. That's not an easy fact to accept, but it's a fact. Approving the free trade pact with Colombia says that the United States can live with this fact. It brings the blood of union activist victims from Bogota to Washington. That blood won't be easily washed away.

Let's think about the movements for freedom happening from Cairo to Damascus to Tripoli. We applaud them. We congratulate the protesters.

When the union leaders in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Puerto Rico stand up for their rights against oppressive State governments, my Democratic colleagues, they applaud those workers. When angry Tea Partiers bash our government and talk about individual rights, my Republican colleagues applaud them.

Well, today we have a chance to do more than applaud. We can side with the people who are standing up for freedom in Colombia. I suggest that everyone in the House who has ever celebrated, applauded, or supported a popular, pro-democracy movement in the U.S. or abroad think long and hard before they vote ``yes'' on the Colombia free trade agreement.

Because what we see is what we get when it comes to free trade in Colombia. We get a partnership with a country where speaking your mind is a death sentence. I want free trade, but I'm for an agreement that builds commerce while protecting commerce, environment, and the rights of farmers and men.

This is not that agreement. This is an agreement that turns a blind eye to violence and oppression and injustice.

So I ask my colleagues to do what Alejandro and Anna who were murdered cannot do: say ``no'' to FTA with Colombia.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 742, 743 and 744.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask us to take action on a scathing Department of Justice investigation of a police department that ``regularly violates the constitutional rights of civilians through illegal searches, detentions, and arrests,'' that ``continues to demonstrate a deliberate indifference to the public's safety and the civil rights of individuals engaging in protected speech activities during protests,'' a police force where ``officers engage in a pattern and practice of unreasonable force and other misconduct to suppress the exercise of protected First Amendment rights.''

The report details the abuse against the people of Puerto Rico that they are facing by the Puerto Rico Police Department. Underscore, I said, ``I rise to bring the urgent attention of the U.S. House of Representatives to a human rights and civil rights crisis.'' I further stated, ``where the right of students to protest and speak their minds is being denied with clubs and mace and pepper spray.''

I spoke those words 7 months ago on this floor. The DOJ report states that the Governor of Puerto Rico has ``supreme authority'' over the police. Did he use that supreme authority to respond to Puerto Ricans who asked for help? Yes, he did.

The Governor's ruling party took immediate action after I detailed the abuse. The ruling party was outraged. It was outraged at me. Facing a civil rights crisis, the ruling party of Puerto Rico acted without hesitation, convening the legislature to urgently pass legislation to censure me for speaking out.

In part, the censure reads: ``Congressman Luis Gutierrez made false allegations about a supposed human rights crisis in Puerto Rico; he expressed himself in a denigrating and malicious manner about the honorable body of the Puerto Rico police; all of which tends to hurt the good image and good name of Puerto Rico.''

Here's the problem: The ruling party of Puerto Rico has made clear time and time again they are not concerned about the abuse of their people, only that the world might notice that abuse. They don't seem to understand that if you love people, you stand up and you speak out, not pretend that everything is all right.

For standing up, the Government of Puerto Rico gave me a 600-word censure. But the government didn't give one word, not one word of censure, to what happened to Rachel Hiskes.

Here's what the DOJ describes happened to her:

``A student journalist, Rachel Hiskes, entered the Capitol with other individuals and attempted to access the senate chambers.

``Puerto Rico Police Department officers, who had been dispatched to the capitol earlier in the day, stopped Hiskes and hit her.

``She was not resisting or combative. Hiskes then sat in the hallway with other visitors in protest. A capitol employee then sprayed Hiskes and others with chemical irritants.

``As Hiskes tried to get up, an officer hit her across the back with a baton, causing her to fall. An officer continued to push and strike her with his baton, driving her toward the doorway.

``When she reached the door and had her back to the officer, the officer shoved her out onto the concrete stairs using his baton and hitting her in the neck.

``Hiskes was never arrested or charged with any crime.''

Instead of protecting people like Rachel, the government derided the people.

This Governor's chief of staff, a man he has absurdly tasked with responding to the Department of Justice report, said protesting workers would be treated as ``terrorists'' and boasted he would

personally kick protesting students off campus.

This government cannot fix a problem they helped to create and expand.

The students, bloodied with batons, deserve more. The workers beaten and the journalists pepper-sprayed deserve more.

And, to be clear, the many honorable and brave Puerto Rican police officers, men and women who are incorruptible, who do their jobs right and risk their lives every day, they deserve more too.

When crimes like these are brought to light, we expect criminal indictments.

I want to see a special prosecutor appointed, the grand jury seated, the trials begun and see those responsible, not just the police officers following orders but those who directed the police to systematically suppress free speech, sent to jail.

The goal must be to reestablish the rule of law and to reestablish a police department in Puerto Rico that protects and serves the people. The goal must be a police department fighting crime, not committing crime. The goal must be that no government can act with impunity against its own people.

And I have one last recommendation. The Governor of Puerto Rico should apologize to his people. Puerto Ricans have called out for help. In response, the Governor and the ruling party have led an effort to demonize them for standing up for their civil rights.

Governor, the Department of Justice of the United States of America has just made clear that your people were right and you were wrong, and it is time for you to say you're sorry.

Mr. Chair, I was delayed for votes, due to my participation in a peaceful rally and protest against the current Administration's enforcement policies against immigrant students and the families of U.S. citizens. Had I been present for the votes I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 648.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 630 and 631.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a towering figure in Puerto Rican history and culture. Puerto Rico and the world lost a pioneering and leading scholar last week with the passing of Don Ricardo Alegria.

Don Ricardo Alegria devoted his long life to the affirmation of Puerto Rican national identity and culture. His study of the history and culture of the Taino Indians of Puerto Rico was groundbreaking work. By helping Puerto Ricans understand our Taino, African and other heritage, as well as many other important aspects of Puerto Rican history and culture, Don Ricardo helped us all to understand better who we are, where we come from and what being Puerto Rican truly means.

But Don Ricardo Alegria was not only a scholar whose work was essential to the Puerto Ricans' understanding of our history; he was a determined and proud man who refused to let our culture be forgotten or destroyed. He was a founder and the executive director of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture and of many other important research, cultural and educational institutions. In this role, he was a warrior, defending our cultural heritage.

It is not an exaggeration to say that, without Don Ricardo's leadership and tenacity, the historic buildings and walls of Old San Juan, which are loved by Puerto Ricans and visited by tourists from around the world, may not be standing today. He led the fight to preserve Old San Juan and to make sure its historic significance was understood by all.

Ricardo Alegria was an example of what makes us all so proud to be Puerto Rican. He looked to a better future while treasuring our past. He embraced what makes Puerto Ricans unique, and he understood that we have our own identity; and we should never run away from it. We should celebrate it. And without history and without question, he loved our people and our history. I offer Don Ricardo Alegria my humble thanks and gratitude for his commitment to Puerto Rico, his leadership for our people, and the way he elevated our history and our culture.

At this time of crisis for Puerto Rico, a time when many in power seem to have forgotten the traits that make us ``us,'' make our island our island, and make our history our history, Don Ricardo was very supportive of my work in Congress. The inspiration of towering Puerto Rican figures like Don Ricardo motivate me to speak out on this floor and denounce attacks on the civil and human rights of Puerto Ricans. These attacks come from the same quarters Don Ricardo fought all his life. They come from those who seek to destroy the national culture and identity of the island of Puerto Rico. And they have not succeeded and will never succeed because there will always be Puerto Ricans like Don Ricardo standing defiantly, proudly, and courageously in their way.

This fact was driven home right here in Congress just yesterday, Madam Speaker, at a well-attended briefing conducted by the ACLU, the National Institute for Latino Policy, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

As part of their briefing, these organizations showed a video depicting the many scenes of violence by the police of Puerto Rico against unarmed and peaceful protestors. I have seen this video, and I am certain that many Members that see these images would be moved to indignation and action. That these scenes happen under the American flag and that these abuses are committed against American citizens is simply shameful. If any of my colleagues saw these images, I am sure they would feel the same indignation I felt when I saw them.

Madam Speaker, it is out of my deep concern for the people of Puerto Rico that I wish to inform my colleagues that I have sent a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder. This letter requests the release of any and all documents and information regarding contacts by officials or representatives and lobbyists of the Government of Puerto Rico with the U.S. Department of Justice and their civil rights division into the very serious allegations of systematic police brutality in Puerto Rico, an investigation that is over 2 years old.

I have requested this information under the Freedom of Information Act because public reports allege that the Government of Puerto Rico is using its well-paid top Washington lobbyists and other resources to thwart the release of the Justice Department reports. The reports are based on lobbying disclosure forms that do not give much detail on exactly what the lobbyists are doing for the Government of Puerto Rico. Given the recent history of the ruling party of Puerto Rico trying to act with impunity and in secrecy, these published reports have raised serious doubts in my mind.

So, Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear, while there may not be transparent and open government in Puerto Rico or a Freedom of Information Act there, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, the secrecy and the impunity of the regime in Puerto Rico ends here.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 534 and ``no'' on rollcall votes 535, 536, 537, and 538.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Institute for Latino Policy published this full-page ad in Roll Call, one of the key newspapers here on Capitol Hill.

These respected civil rights and policy organizations have investigated and denounced the civil and human rights crisis in Puerto Rico. They bought a full-page ad to alert Congress about the ``serious concerns about civil and human rights abuses against the citizens of Puerto Rico by their government, including the infringement on the rights of free speech, peaceful assembly and freedom from police violence and abuse.''

And they make an essential point: If these abuses were happening anywhere in the 50 States, they would not be tolerated. These abuses would be on the front page of every newspaper, as they are in Puerto Rico.

It's time for this Congress to start paying attention. Students and working people, journalists and environmentalists in Puerto Rico are paying attention because the freedoms we take for granted in America are being denied to them each day.

I would like today to remind you what has happened. On this floor I have condemned the use of heavily armed riot squads against peaceful student and labor protesters at the University of Puerto Rico and in the streets of San Juan. I have denounced the beatings of students by police armed with night sticks, the use of pepper spray on protesters and even journalists, the groping of female students.

I have stood up to defend the Puerto Rican Bar Association, a clear voice for justice that has been attacked by the ruling party and their legislature and their allies on the Federal bench.

I have spoken on the House floor and leaders have spoken on the island about the environmental emergency the ruling party has brought on to Puerto Rico. The government declared an energy emergency to avoid routine fact-finding and licensing procedures so that it could build a 100-mile long, $500 million gas pipeline on a tropical island that is designed more to help wealthy insiders than the people of Puerto Rico.

While actions in Wisconsin and Ohio and other States that threaten workers' rights are discussed routinely in the U.S., the fact that the Governor of Puerto Rico has fired tens of thousands of public employees and canceled labor agreements, all contrary to contract promises, is largely unknown.

But Tea Partyers don't rejoice: he has also doubled the property taxes on everyone.

Even the courts are under attack on the island. This Governor has packed the Puerto Rican Supreme Court with activists of the ruling party. He created two new positions on the supreme court in order to add two new judges to a court that already had a majority of the ruling party. He did this, of course, despite the fact of having denounced Hugo Chavez when he believed he was doing the same thing in Venezuela.

Just 2 weeks ago, the ruling party yet again changed the law so they could fire the island's ombudswoman for the elderly, who had years left on her 10-year appointment, because of her independence and vocal disagreement with the ruling party.

And because I have spoken out against the ruling party of Puerto Rico, I have earned a resolution of censure from the ruling party's legislature. I have earned a full-page ad in Roll Call condemning me for using my right to speech.

Only the ruling party of Puerto Rico would respond to complaints about free speech and civil rights abuses by officially passing a resolution condemning someone for speaking. Should any of my colleagues not believe this absurdity, you just need to come to my office where I display proudly these documents. I invite you to come and see them.

I ask my colleagues today: please pay attention to what is happening in Puerto Rico. If it were happening in Illinois, New York, Texas or Wyoming, or any of the States of our Union, this Congress would have great concerns.

One meaningful first step would be to join me in urging the Department of Justice to complete the investigation that they have initiated and to police abuses in Puerto Rico that started in 2008 and promptly release the results. I would also ask my colleagues and their staffs to attend the congressional briefing organized by the ACLU next Tuesday, July 12, at 10 a.m.

And, finally, I ask my friends and colleagues to do what we do whenever we see regimes that refuse to treat people fairly: please speak out for the values that define us as Americans. Please join me in standing for liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 460, 461, and 462.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 330, 331 and 332.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend I had the honor of participating in a remarkable event in the mountain town of Adjuntas, Puerto Rico. There, thousands braved a torrential downpour to demonstrate against a proposed natural gas pipeline that the current ruling party in Puerto Rico is threatening to build across the mountains and rainforests of the island.

While I was there, I met with Rosanna Lopez Leon, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's Ombudsman for the Elderly. As ombudswoman, she has unusual latitude for a public servant in the current government to speak the truth about what she hears and sees from senior citizens across the island. Her term is 14 years, longer than that of the Governor's, and the money to her office comes mainly from the Federal Government, from the Older

Americans Act, so that she is incorruptible, unassailable, and, thank God, untouchable.

She presented me with a series of letters she wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and to other Federal agencies and Puerto Rican officials. They are based on sworn affidavits from senior citizens residing in four towns in the path of the proposed pipeline in Puerto Rico, describing how local seniors are being pressured and intimidated into signing over their property for the pipeline's supposed unapproved right-of-way.

Mrs. Lopez Leon believes that ``repetitive violations of the Older Americans Act have become a danger to the lives, health, rights, and property of the elderly population of Puerto Rico.''

She describes illegal trespassing into properties of the elderly under the false pretext of measuring a nonexistent right-of-way, illegal trespassing into the homes of the elderly with the fraudulent pretense to generate a written authorization from the elderly to allow and permit a consented purchase of the property to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the energy company well below market value of the property without granting the elderly the opportunity to seek counsel, a recent appraisal, or to contest the eminent domain procedure which they are threatened with if they do not grant ``a voluntary consent to sell their properties.''

These 41 affidavits are from four towns on the route of the proposed gasoline; Adjuntas, Penuelas, Utuado and Toa Baja. I would like to first talk about one of them, because I will read some short translations from some chilling stories that we have gathered here.

The first one is from Antonia Santiago Cabrera, 69, from Adjuntas, Puerto Rico, who is in this picture. By the way, she was born in this home 69 years ago.

She says, ``The helicopters of the energy company constantly fly over my residence and they do so at a low altitude, disturbing my tranquility. Since my home is built of tin and wood,'' as you see in the picture, ``when the helicopters hover, my entire house trembles. That has generated much anxiety in me, and for this reason I had to visit my primary doctor and have had to take medication for my nerves and my heart condition has even worsened.''

Then there is Lucrecia Maldonado Rentas. She is 82 years old and is pictured in front of her house with her sister Gloria. She says, ``The letters I received were written to pretend to be a study to be conducted on the needs of the population and it ended up being one about natural gas, the pipeline and the expropriation process of the Barrio Portugues community in Adjuntas, Puerto Rico. In them the process of expropriation is presented, but it is not explained. I do not understand it.''

Then there is Mr. Luis Guzman. We don't have a picture of the 67- year-old farmer. Although he has been harassed since last year, Mr. Guzman does not know how to read and can barely write.

He does not need to fully be educated, however, to know the difference between right and wrong. If only choosing between right and wrong would come that easy to the ruling party of Puerto Rico.

I want to make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this body and to Attorney General Eric Holder that these are not powerful men and women. They are not legal scholars or real estate experts. But they have made simple pleas to the court and their complaints should be heard. They are worried that they will lose their homes and they will lose their crops which sustain them because of the laws and legal maneuvers they do not understand. They are U.S. citizens and need our help.

I plan to post all of the affidavits I have already received, along with hundreds of pages I have received from Federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act, on my Web site. The more light that is shined on this project, Mr. Speaker, the more it reflects back a dark story of secrets, strong-arming, and shortcuts. I plan to continue shining my light and making as much information public as possible so that the voice of the people of Puerto Rico is heard.

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record the affidavits presented in court in Puerto Rico from 18 senior citizens in Toa Baja, 10 senior citizens in Adjuntas, 4 senior citizens in Penuelas, and 9 senior citizens in Utuado, along with the correspondence from the Puerto Rico Office of the Ombudsman, an office funded by the Federal Government, an official 14-year standing agency of the Government of Puerto Rico.

The forty-one sworn affidavits in Spanish and other documents in English and Spanish related to the Gasoducto pipeline project are posted on Rep. Gutierrez'website:http://www.gutierrez.house.gov/