I thank the gentlelady. Look, this is the Puerto Rico 51st State bill. It is the only result you can possibly expect. The deck is stacked. We all know. I was talking to my friends on the other side, and you know what they keep saying to…
I thank the gentlelady.
Look, this is the Puerto Rico 51st State bill. It is the only result you can possibly expect. The deck is stacked. We all know. I was talking to my friends on the other side, and you know what they keep saying to me: Why are you against statehood? Everywhere I go: Why are you against statehood? They don't say: Why are you against the people of Puerto Rico having a free vote in determining their future and in exercising their right to self-determination?
Why do we come here and try to like hoodwink one another, fool one another. I mean, you know what I would like to see on the House floor, the same depth of honesty, sincerity and clarity and transparency that exists when people come up to me and ask why I am against statehood for Puerto Rico.
That is not why I am up here. I am against a process that does not allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their sovereign right to determine their future in a free manner.
Now, what does that mean? Everybody says well, there are 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico. Have you ever considered one thing, that the
proponents of statehood, the proponents of statehood have never said that the Puerto Rican team must be part of the U.S. Olympic team? Have you ever thought about that contradiction that exists? I am happy to have statehood with a Puerto Rican Olympic team, and would support such a statehood; but does the Congress support such a statehood?
The fact is that the gentleman from Puerto Rico is doing a wonderful job on this bill, knows and understands that the language that is used in Puerto Rico is the Spanish language. It is the language of government. It is the language of commerce. It is the language of industry. It is the language of the courts. It is the common language of the people of Puerto Rico. And you know what, I would love to see the 51st State have Spanish as their primary language.
But do you not think the Congress of the United States should consider such a fact? And the reason I put this to you is because they keep saying, remember those words, ``mandated by the Congress.'' This is plebiscite mandated by the Congress. So what they are going to do is have a plebiscite mandated by the Congress where the statehooders get to define what statehood is during their plebiscite. They are going to have a Congress where independence gets to be defined, and the only one that we define is the relevant current status in Puerto Rico. That is the only one that we define.
I want to take a minute so that we can see how absurd, it says here, and this is the definition, sovereignty in association with the United States, a political relationship between sovereign nations not subject to the territorial clause of the United States Constitution.
You don't think that's going to confuse some people? Just think about it a moment. What does that mean? Okay, so I guess at this point what the Congress of the United States is saying, if this is the winner, this is the winner, Puerto Rico is sovereign. It means Puerto Rico is independent.
Does the FBI got to go? Does the IRS go that day? No, seriously, who controls immigration in and out of Puerto Rico? Who controls the ports? The Federal Government is gone, do we stop sending Social Security checks? Medicare and Medicaid, are they suspended? I mean, think about it one moment. What is it that occurs at that moment?
I would love to see a relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico where Puerto Rico is an independent sovereign nation. That is my belief. But ladies and gentlemen, I will not impose my beliefs on the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico, as the gentleman from Utah referred to earlier, they said, No. They said, No. They said, No. How many times do we have to say ``no''? Do not impose a result that the people of Puerto Rico have rejected freely and which they can constitute.
As a matter of fact, the last time there was a plebiscite in Puerto Rico in 1998, do you know which option won? This option beat statehood: none of the above, received over 50 percent of the vote.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
You know, I am kind of like Mr. Rangel. I mean, this definition is a new definition. Now I will tell you this, the gentleman from Puerto Rico represents the Statehood Party in Puerto Rico. He came down here and he defined his own status or a lack of definition of his status. But you know what the next thing he did was, he defined the opposition status.
You know, that reminds me of kind of like Barack Obama going to John McCain during the election and saying: Tell you what, why don't you tell me what my platform is, write it for me, and that's what I'm going to run on later on.
You cannot allow this to happen because it is not a democratic process. The result is already. Let me just share with the gentleman that Senator Wicker, and I am going to ask that his statement be included in the Record at the appropriate moment, just issued a statement straight over from the other body, saying he's going to oppose this measure. It hasn't even been adopted and they are already going to oppose it, so we all know what the end result and futility is of what we do here today. They are already telling us that they are going to oppose this, and there is no companion bill.
Does the gentleman have another question?
Thank you. This is what I think we genuinely need. But let me just add further, there has been much said about the importance of American citizenship and there are many Puerto Ricans who cherish their American citizenship and have fought for their American citizenship. But if you have 4 million American citizens and they don't want to incorporate as a State, shouldn't we respect that? Here's the logic, they were American citizens; therefore, they deserve statehood. The finality of it all, the justice of it all, right, the correct course of it all is to grant them statehood.
I think if they wanted independence tomorrow and they are citizens of the United States, and let me just say, it seems to me that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were subjects of the king, and one day they got up and said we want to be free. They didn't quite agree with them, but that also is an option for American citizens.
You know what, maybe these 4 million American citizens don't want to become a State because they love their language; because they love their culture; because they love their idiosyncrasies; because they love applauding for their Olympic team when it goes out there on the international stage; because so many Miss Universes come from Puerto Rico. What if that is what they want, should we not respect that decision?
I yield.
You know, I do, I see this as a congressional mandate. And you know what? We should not mandate statehood. Citizens organized of the United States of America, in incorporated or unincorporated territory, under or outside the territorial clause of the Constitution of the United States, should, together, in a vast majority, I believe-- because, listen, this is like me going to my wife, and I ask her, Will you marry me? And she kind of hesitates and she says, How about if I'm loyal 50 percent of the time? How about 60 percent of the time? How about if we condition this relationship? Come on. That's what we're talking about here. We had a civil war to decide this. Once a State, always a State. Be careful what you wish for.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Look, let's take another look at it. Mr. Lungren came before us, and on numerous occasions, what did he say? Allow Puerto Rico to become a State. Just check his words. Before that it was Mr. Burton from Indiana. In other words, they equate American citizenship with a fundamental, inalienable right to statehood.
There's no one right, inalienable right, that the people of Puerto Rico have. It's to their independence. And the Founding Fathers that we like to talk so much about would agree with us here today. If Thomas Jefferson were here today, he would say one thing: There is one and only one inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico, something that could never be taken away from them, and that's to their independence.
And why do I bring this issue up today? I bring the issue up today so that we can understand that Puerto Rico is not just 4 million American citizens on an island; it is a culturally, it is a psychologically, constituted geographically, linguistically constituted nation of people, Puerto Ricans. Go to that nation of people today, and while they may love and cherish America, which is actually a good thing if you think about it today, a nation of people who love and cherish America, they still are fundamentally Puerto Rican. Ask them.
Has anybody been to a Puerto Rican parade in New York? Go out there with American flags on the day of a Puerto Rican parade. See how much money you make at the Puerto Rican day parade in New York or Chicago. No, it's an affirmation of who we are. Very different than the Italian day parade, than the Irish parade, than the Polish parade, in which you see many American flags.
Why is it that we continue to affirm this? Why is it that even those proponents of statehood for Puerto Rico have not been able to banish the Olympic team? They dare not. Why is it they have not been able to banish the language of Spanish? They dare not. Because those are things that are intrinsic to the people of Puerto Rico.
Look, let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's stop kidding ourselves. This is an attempt to do one thing and one thing only. Everybody talks about the American citizens and their right to statehood. What about the American citizens, and I say the only inalienable right that they have, to their independence? What about the 1.8 million pages that were sent to Congressman Serrano on the backs of the FBI and intelligence agency for those of us that fought for Puerto Rican independence? What about those that have been jailed? What about those poets? What about those great Puerto Rican patriots who believe and will continue to believe in independence for Puerto Rico? That is a reality that we need to deal with.
So when Mr. Cantor was speaking about the inalienable right, he was speaking about the inalienable right that the Founding Fathers bestowed upon those to be free from colonialism.
The current situation in Puerto Rico is deplorable. The current status of Puerto Rico is a colonial status. And we should move forward to eliminate that stain in our relationship with the people of Puerto Rico. But they have just as much right to independence, they have just as much right to independence as they do to statehood. And as a matter of fact, they have asserted that right.
Let me end with this: We keep saying let them, congressionally sanction. Ladies and gentlemen, they have come together on numerous occasions, and on each and every occasion, they have said, We don't want to be a State. They would like something different. Why are we imposing?
And really, look, everybody talks about the Founding Fathers. You know how the Founding Fathers did it? They had a Constitutional Convention. They got together and they had delegates from different States come together so they could have a Declaration of Independence, so they could build a Constitution. You know what? Let not the Congress of the United States say that this is democracy. Do you know what true democracy is? This Congress saying to the people of Puerto Rico get together in a constitutional convention, assemble yourselves, decide among yourselves, and we the Congress of the United States will respect that decision. We will not impose a process. We will not impose definitions upon you.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment.
Well, here we go again. They say this is a bill. The chairman of Natural Resources says this is a bill to make sure that the people of Puerto Rico are able to define their future and do it in a free, objective manner. Really? Well, the last time they had a plebiscite in Puerto Rico, guess which option won? None of the above. Guess which option they exclude? The winning option in the last plebiscite. So who's kidding who in this place?
They have this thing rigged from the beginning to the end. If not, if they were so faithful to the wishes, to the will, to the passion of the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, why aren't they including the very option that won? They say they respect the decision of American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico and we should give them an opportunity to express themselves freely in a referendum. Guess what? They did. And yet we reject the very option that they chose for themselves.
What kind of democracy is that? I don't know what kind of democracy that is in other States, but I know how I feel about it. None-of-the- above, for me, offers this wonderful opportunity to the people of Puerto Rico.
Just so that we understand, because everybody says things, I want to read this. This is what the Democrats say about my amendment--my own party: you mislead voters into thinking there is a legally better alternative to Puerto Rico's political status other than an independent state or a sovereignty. Me? Me? I'm misleading people? What is the last option that won, adopted by the government of Puerto Rico, and voted on in Puerto Rico?
Announcement by the Chair
I know it's hard, but the truth is the truth.
Announcement by the Chair
The truth is that the last time one of the alternatives was exactly what I offer. If you really believe and you really trust and you really respect the judgment of the people of Puerto Rico, then include it as they included it when they were able to do it. If you say you're not imposing your will on them, then give them the option when they had the ability to choose the different options. I'm not asking for anything else other than that because I think that it is important and fundamental that we check into the history books.
Notice, no one, no one will contradict the fact that ``none of the above'' was the one that won, that that was one of the offers. And then they say that I mislead. I don't mislead anybody. The fact is, people say I'm doing this and that. That's okay. People like me, who defend the sovereign rights of the people of Puerto Rico, you know what happens to them in Puerto Rico? They get files on them by the Government of Puerto Rico. They get jailed. They are made sure they lose their jobs. They get sanctioned.
Everybody always says, Oh, why aren't there more people that believe in Puerto Rican independence? There's a lot of people that believe in Puerto Rican independence. More of them don't show themselves because when they do, you know what happens? Those that support other alternatives lock them up. Let me tell you something. Careful.
How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
I thank the Chair.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.
I yield myself 1 additional minute, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make this abundantly clear to everyone, and I know that Mr. Pierluisi, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico who used to be the attorney general in Puerto Rico, understands this to be true. And if not, I would like him to step up and just say, Luis, you've got it wrong. Please tell me that.
This is what happened in 1998: ``None of the above'' was the option included in the 1998 plebiscite by the very sponsor, by the very party that the proponent of the legislation that comes before us today, Mr. Pierluisi's party. They controlled the Governorship. They controlled the House. They controlled the Senate. They set up the parameters, and they included it. Yesterday they come and say to me that I am being misleading about what is going on. And more than that, it's the option that won.
I also say fundamentally that one of the reasons I thought it was a good option was because I thought that it wasn't fair the way it was designed and the way it was construed. So I said, You know, I don't like the construction, so you should always give the people--especially people seeking self-determination--the option to say to us, the Congress, We didn't like the way you designed it, so we reject your proposal.
So let me use the last 30 seconds with this: I want you to look at this bill, and you are going to find a section that says that over 1 million Puerto Ricans born on the island of Puerto Rico that live in the United States--not in Puerto Rico--that live in the United States are guaranteed a ballot. What does that say to you?
There is a reason they speak Spanish, ladies and gentlemen. There's a reason they love the Puerto Rican flag. There's a reason they go to the Puerto Rican Day--there's a reason. It's okay. They have a passion for their culture, for their language, for who they are and their identity. And it is affirmed by the very proponent of this legislation, who understands that they are nationals--not of Puerto Rico, which you do not represent. But you are allowing them to participate in this process because you recognize they have an inherent right to participate in the future of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Velazquez.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah.
I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes of my time.
I thank Mr. Chaffetz and I thank the gentlelady from New York for their comments.
Why do I propose this? Because we're getting hoodwinked again. That's all that's happening here. You know what they're going to do? I'm telling you, this is just like those derivatives that they've got at Goldman Sachs. You don't know what's in it. Look into it, because it's going to blow up on you later on.
Let me tell you why. Here's what it says on page 5. It says, ``English ballots--the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission shall ensure that all ballots used for any plebiscite held under this act include the full content of the ballot printed in English.'' That's all it says.
Now, you know why they do that; to give you the misunderstanding, right, the false sense of confidence that people are actually going to go, and there's going to be a campaign, and it's going to be conducted in English, and the people can go and take an English ballot. The fact is that the ballots in Puerto Rico are printed in Spanish. The fact is--okay, let me give you another one.
There are, like, four big newspapers--well, there were four, but the one in English went bankrupt. The ones that thrive are the ones in Spanish. Did you ever turn the TV on in Puerto Rico? Go down there. There are, like, three or four really Puerto Rican stations. As a matter of fact, public TV in Puerto Rico is in Spanish. The news is in Spanish, and we help provide some of the funding through our contributions--not the Congress of the United States necessarily.
The fact is that I am here to affirm, to affirm, and I hope that this Congress recognizes that the people of Puerto Rico are a nation. They have a language. We should respect that language, and that language is Spanish. And as we move forward, the ballots, in order for them to understand this process, should be in Spanish.
I reserve the balance of my time.
How many more speakers does the gentleman have remaining?
Well, it's very clear that every time we have an amendment, they want to, like, finish it up. But that's okay. It's been unfair from the very beginning, so what's a little more unfairness.
The fact is, I was a schoolteacher there. I was an elementary schoolteacher for 2 years in Puerto Rico. Do you know how much time the children in the public school system--which we support, taxpayers of the United States support. Do you know how much time during the day they speak in English? One class out of six. You know how I know? I spent 50 minutes a day teaching them English for almost 2 years. And you know what, the students used to walk in, and they used to say, ``Oh, Mr. Ingles.'' It was like the math class. It was like the biology class. It was like the class they didn't want to take.
But you know something, that doesn't mean that they necessarily don't love this country. It's just that they affirm who they are, and we should respect that. They're Puerto Ricans, a colony of Spain, and have Spanish as their predominant language. Let's respect that cultural linguistic integrity in Puerto Rico.
I yield back the balance of my time.
I am happy the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) brought this amendment up. I think it should be soundly defeated, but I am happy he brought it because it just demonstrates the imperialist nature. Here we are in the empire, the Congress of the United States, plenary powers over Puerto Rico, dictating what language they have to use.
You know what, it's amazing, but I'm not surprised, Mr. Burton, because I understand the people of Indiana are still a little angry at the people of Puerto Rico when they arrested Bobby Knight. Bobby Knight got arrested in Puerto Rico. I think this is an important story to tell you. He got arrested in Puerto Rico. There were Pan American games, and the basketball team from the United States was competing against the basketball team from Cuba, and Bobby Knight went into a rage because all of the fans in the stadium in Puerto Rico, all American citizens, were clapping and cheering for the Cuban team and not the American team. So he said to himself: What's wrong with these people? And he threw a chair, as he likes to do, and he got arrested. There is an arrest warrant, and I don't know, maybe Mr. Pierluisi can tell us if the arrest warrant is still valid and out there since he was the attorney general. It just tells you they're a nation, they're a people, and they affirm who they are in every instance.
I thank the gentlelady.
Well, let's have a little talk here. There's a difference: here's citizenship, here's nationality, here's citizenship, here's nationality. They should not be confused. Ask the people in Ireland; they were subjects of the Queen; therefore, they were citizens. But they were always Irish. Ask the people of Ukraine. They may have been subjects of the Soviet Union and citizens of the Soviet Union and have a passport, but they never stopped being Ukrainian, they never stopped being Lithuanian. Look what happened in Yugoslavia once you got rid of Tito. We all saw everybody engage in their national pride. That's what we do, too: we assert it.
As a matter of fact, the very proponents of this legislation affirm that I'm right, they recognize it; otherwise, why would you allow people outside of the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico to vote and to determine its future unless you invested in them, unless they inherently had in themselves the nationality of Puerto Rican?
The gentleman from Puerto Rico says separation from ethnicity. I'm not an ethnic Puerto Rican. I might be a lot more Puerto Rican than some Puerto Ricans are. I suggest the gentleman come to my city of Chicago. In the Puerto Rican community there are many American flags, but there are two huge Puerto Rican flags. Don't divide the Puerto Rican nation; it is a nation of people. It may decide that it wants to incorporate itself into the United States of America, but it always is a nation of people with the inalienable right to independence. Don't divide our community.
If you look at my birth certificate, it says Puerto Rico twice on it--mom born in Puerto Rico, dad born in Puerto Rico. Then it says Chicago, Illinois. Nine months earlier, I would have been in Puerto Rico, so I'm separated by 9 months. And yet every fabric of who I am has a relationship to that wonderful, beautiful island: its music, its artistry, its poetry, its patriots. As a matter of fact, one of the most beautiful songs ever written about Puerto Rico was written in the United States of America and the longing for returning to that island.
Just think a moment, just think, think of the exodus of Puerto Ricans that left Puerto Rico in the 1950s during Operation Bootstrap. What did they do? Did they come to the United States and say, oh, great, we're in the United States; we're going to stay here forever and die here? No. The longing was to return one day to that island. Allow them the vote on the future of that island.
I thank the gentlewoman. We have been working very closely together.
Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderfully crafted amendment, but I think that it is very important that the Congress respects the self- determination of the people of Puerto Rico to choose their future relationship with the United States or without the United States but to decide their future relationship.
This is the key pledge: Congress pledges not to dissuade, to influence, or to dictate a status option to the people of Puerto Rico.
Look, in my first election in Puerto Rico, I represented the Puerto Rican Independence Party. I was 19 years old in San Sebastian del Pepino. I was a delegate for that party until the first election. There was one vote for the Puerto Rican Independence Party in my polling place, what they call ``Integro''--right?--just for independence. That was mine at that point.
I went to the university. I used to sell Claridad when I was at the university, and I would sell it to others. I've been a proponent of Puerto Rican independence. I got a nice, little carpeta, too--right?-- and I haven't called the FBI yet to see what long list of things they've written down about me and who I've associated with, but let me tell you something:
The gentleman from Puerto Rico knows that everything is not all fair and square in Puerto Rico. There is an adage in Puerto Rico--right?-- which is
don't get together with those people or you will be fingered. Do you know what? 1.8 million pages. You know, my dad was right. They had figured us out. They had said who we were. Do you know what would happen? You couldn't get a job. You couldn't be a teacher. You couldn't be anybody prominent in the society of Puerto Rico.
So I am here to say, for all of those who fought for the independence of Puerto Rico and for its right to join as a sovereign nation in the world of nations, don't do this. Don't dictate.
Please note that although I have always been an advocate, I have never come before this Congress to dictate my opinion, to dictate an outcome which benefits me. Let me tell you something. You think you've got a definition for the commonwealth that you can destroy? I have got a definition for independence that I can sell also. But I think it would be wrong to do it. I think it would be unfair to do it.
What the gentlewoman from New York is simply doing here is saying return this process to the people of Puerto Rico.
As I come up here every time, ``Founding Fathers,'' ``Founding Fathers,'' ``Founding Fathers.'' Then they ask you who is your favorite Founding Father? And no one can name one.
Let me tell you something about the Founding Fathers. They had a Constitutional Convention. Let's allow the spirit of the Founding Fathers to act in Puerto Rico.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I just want to make a couple of comments before we end this debate, as we will very, very soon.
I know that everybody thinks this is about self-determination. If it were truly about self-determination, why are the other two parties in Puerto Rico opposed to the bill? Why is it that all those who believe in independence are opposed to the bill? Why are those that believe in commonwealth opposed to the bill? If there is such consensus, if the gentleman truly represents the will of the people of Puerto Rico, why are the other two parties opposed to the bill? And that's a very important question that we ask ourselves.
Secondly, Mr. Pierluisi acknowledged, just so that we have it all, in the Puerto Rican media, that he didn't seek the opinions of the opposition party with regards to this bill because it would have been, according to him, una perdida de tiempo. That means ``a waste of time.''
Now, all I want to say is it isn't a waste of time. It is valuable. And that's why I am so happy that you are doing what you're doing because I think we can all gather around the gentlewoman Velazquez and support her amendment.
Buscar consenso no es una perdida de tiempo. To seek consensus is not a waste of time.