Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, over the holidays, the Obama administration sent a very special Christmas greeting to immigrant families. They launched a series of home raids targeting Central American asylum seekers and immigrant families with children. As its New Year's resolution, it is clear the Obama administration is embarking on a new enforcement initiative to deport Central Americans who entered the U.S. in 2014. Last weekend, 121 children and adults were taken into custody, and most were sent to private family detention centers--a kind of privately run, for-profit family jail. They will probably be deported, just like the 2 million before them deported by President Obama. How they are treated and whether they get meaningful due process remains a question mark. What is undeniable is that such raids strike maximum fear in immigrant communities. The government is saying they could be coming to your house, and they could be coming at any time. Already, we are seeing signs of panic. We hear that children aren't going to school and parents aren't going to work out of fear. Not even a week into the new year, and 2016 has turned into one of fear and hiding. But let us be clear: Deporting families will not solve the violence and corruption that push people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to risk assault, rape, and murder to seek refuge in the United States. Deporting families will not weaken the gangs who terrorize and extort their own people in Central America. Deporting families will not solve America's immigration problem. Deporting families will not strengthen border security. Deporting families will not create legal channels that allow immigrants to come with visas instead of smugglers. Deporting families will not reduce the insatiable demand in the United States for the very drugs that fuel the gangs, the guns, the smuggling operations, and the ruthless violence in Central America. The raids by the Obama administration on families from Central America must stop. They are a cruel reminder of a discredited policy. We do not want to repeat the scenes from April 2000 when armed agents forcibly took Elian Gonzalez from his house in Miami. That vision of terror is seared into America's memory and should not be repeated. But even the raid on the home of Elian Gonzalez was carried out after all peaceful means of negotiation were exhausted. Surely there is a better way to take action when people have exhausted all of their legal remedies than to send armed agents into neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and family homes. Those who are being deported are the ones most likely to have no attorney, no understanding of the laws and the practices of immigration courts, and now could be vulnerable to attack and murder back in Central America. The fact is that some of the people the U.S. Government has deported in the past years have ended up dead in days or weeks after their return. We have to make sure that same tragic fate does not wait for the individuals and families the government is currently rounding up. Along with other Members of Congress, I am seeking answers from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson as to why this policy is needed, why it was launched to instill fear in immigrant households over the Christmas holidays, and why family detention centers I have been trying to close are now filling up with new families awaiting deportation. This is not the Democratic Party's solution to immigration questions, nor should it be America's. We expect heated calls for raids and deportation from the other side. We hear their calls for walls, bigger jails, and further restrictions on legal immigration. We will fight their efforts to erect religious or economic barriers to who can qualify for a chance to come to America. Our party has rejected those calls with good reason. Americans want order and legality in immigration, not deportations and families forcefully split apart or exiled. We do not need to repeat that scene multiplied by hundreds or thousands of times across our Nation. What we need to do is not easy, but it is the right thing to do. We need to take steps to solve the problems of gangs, weak and corrupt governments in Central America, and people who have no hope for a brighter future right here on our continent. Serious aid is more than giving more money to the police departments of those countries. It is more than putting U.S. personnel in those countries to tell moms and dads, no, you can't seek refuge in the U.S. It is more than working with Mexico at its southern border. We need to give mothers and fathers and children a way to live in their own countries. I have gone to the detention centers in Texas and met with the moms and the kids who were detained there when they came to the United States. One woman summed up their plight concisely by saying: Luis, in Honduras, my family and I could live in poverty, but we could not live in peace. Raids will not bring her peace. Raids will not bring us order. Raids will only bring misery.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I can't vote for the omnibus bill because it doesn't give the people of Puerto Rico some hope for a better future. The omnibus bill does not provide a path forward amid budget cuts, cuts in services, growing unemployment, and the greedy banks and bondholders who demand more and more, even as the people of Puerto Rico have less and less. Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. Its sovereignty rests here in the Congress of the United States, and we will not do anything to help them. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) So tomorrow I tell the people of Puerto Rico, I will be with you. I will vote against this omnibus budget because if there are no schools in Puerto Rico, if there is no law enforcement to protect the people on the streets, if there are no doctors or nurses healing the sick, there won't be a vote on this budget until there is justice for the people. And I tell every Representative that votes in favor of this budget, you are denying a future for Puerto Rico and you are betraying the people of Puerto Rico. Asi que manana le digo al pueblo de Puerto Rico, yo estare con ustedes. Votare en contra de este presupuesto porque si no hay escuelas en Puerto Rico, si no hay policias para defender a la gente en la calle, si no hay doctoras o enfermeras para curar a los enfermos, tampoco habra un voto para este presupuesto hasta que haya justicia para el pueblo. Y le digo a todo Congresista que vota a favor de este presupuesto, que le niega un futuro a Puerto Rico y le traiciona al pueblo de Puerto Rico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of Ted A. Beattie and wish him the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life, retirement. Ted Beattie has served for more than two decades as President and CEO of Shedd Aquarium, one of the largest aquariums in the world. It has also ranked as the top paid cultural attraction in Chicago for seventeen of the twenty-one years. This was due in large part to Mr. Beattie's leadership. He led two noteworthy and record breaking fundraising efforts, raising almost $100 million in funds for Shedd Aquarium, demonstrating his ability to inspire support for Shedd and its diverse, global animal collection. His leadership for the aquarium, housed in an architecturally beautiful setting, also helped promote 21st-century advances in animal care, environments and interpretation. For 35 years he devoted his life to animal conservation and education. He holds degrees from Ohio State University (OSU). After completing his education, he went on to serve on the OSU Provost's External Advisory Board on Teaching, the Advisory Board for the School of Journalism and Communication and the OSU Major Gifts Committee. I know that I speak for many when I say that Ted Beattie will be deeply missed. His devotion and professionalism, his focus on economic security for Shedd Aquarium, and his entire career are truly one of a kind. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring Mr. Ted Beattie for his extraordinary leadership and commitment to animal conservation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Thursday, December 10, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 688 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 689.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Monday, November 16, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 626, ``nay'' on roll call vote 627, ``yea'' on roll call vote 628, and ``yea'' on roll call vote 629.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we are shocked, horrified, and deeply saddened by the news coming from Paris. As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I know there is much to fear, both for our allies and for us. But in light of the attacks on our ally France last Friday, I urge my colleagues to keep a cool head and not to react exactly the way that ISIS and other terrorists hope we do, with fear, with chaos, and with lashing out. But, sadly, that is what we have already seen Republican Governors, elected leaders, candidates, and media figures do. I have been here long enough to know a thing or two about opportunism. Maybe it is too much to resist when you are one of 15 candidates for President of the United States. Politicians, pundits, and celebrities will be tempted to say whatever they can to get the news cameras pointed at them. The Governor of Illinois, my home State, could not resist saying our State was closed to Syrians fleeing the terror of ISIS and the Assad regime. The Governor of Louisiana, the son of immigrants, running for President of the United States, a nation of immigrants, said ``no'' to refugees. The Governors of a dozen other States did so, too. A Senator whose parents came as refugees from Cuba fleeing there has said ``no,'' too. This is despicable and cowardly and precisely the kind of reaction ISIS wanted. ISIS could not have written a better script. The free people of the world are turning their backs on people seeking safety and freedom. When we sent Jews back to Germany and when we sent Japanese to internment camps, we regretted it, and we will regret this as well. We have had candidates actually say that refugees seeking safety in the strongest nation in the world must first pass a test to prove they are from an acceptable religion. In the United States of America they said this. In the 21st century. An acceptable religion in America. Now, of course, the Governors of Illinois, Texas, and Louisiana, and most of the other States that are scared of ISIS, are Republican. Because it is a Federal matter, they are overstepping their powers with executive orders because they cannot actually stop refugees from resettling in their States, and they know it. How sad. Instead, they have instructed State agencies not to assist people fleeing terror. We are a better country than that. No matter how scared Republican leaders become, we must not abandon our commitment to being a nation without equal in a world, a nation that does not fear or shy away from any challenge. It is our commitment to religious equality and the freedom to worship as we please that has made us a great nation. And this is no time to abandon that tradition. Our bravery, the bravery of our military, and the bravery of our commitment to freedom and equality have shown for almost 250 years what American exceptionalism is truly all about. It is not the time to lose sight of ourselves and say America is too weak, that America cannot handle 20,000 or 200,000 refugees fleeing for their lives. It is not the time for America to consider raising the white flag and say to those waving the black flag: ``Yes, ISIS, you are right. We dislike and fear Muslims, and we do not care if you perish or not.'' A lot of us love this country too much to see it abandon core principles and values because religious extremists commit acts of terror designed precisely to terrorize us. On Thursday, the Immigration Subcommittee will hold a hearing on refugees from Syria and the Middle East, as well it should, but you can already imagine what we will hear. Republicans will most likely raise fears that Muslim terrorists disguised as refugees would somehow pass exhaustive criminal background checks because they have been lying in wait in those camps overseas for years on the slim chance they could do damage to America. They will raise suspicions, instill fear of Muslims, maybe even fear of a President they have been saying is a Muslim, and it will probably be a pretty sad display. Let us as legislators, leaders, and patriots rise above petty politics, rise above sectarian fears, and rise above the underlying layer of xenophobia that often surfaces in this country at moments like this throughout our history. And let us maintain America's commitment to being a beacon of hope for those fleeing oppression, violence, and intolerance. A haven for the religiously persecuted, whether they are Buddhists from Tibet, Christians from Iran, or pilgrims from Europe, is who we are. We are a nation that lives by the motto: ``Out of many, one.'' We will not run in fear from that motto today or any day. This is America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the House of Representatives, the Republican Conference, and my friend Paul Ryan for his election to be Speaker of the House. Those on the other side of the aisle are lucky to have him. It is sad that he had to promise Members of his Conference in writing to not address a national issue on behalf of the American people. He had to swear that he would not allow a vote on immigration reform as long as President Obama, well, is President Obama. The new Speaker had to promise to put party unity ahead of national public policy in order to be elected Speaker. One of my colleagues from Alabama, who was so vehement in his opposition to immigration, came to the floor last week to read Speaker Ryan's pledge into the Congressional Record. So the Congress that did nothing on immigration reform for the last 2 years will do nothing for the remainder of the President's term. It is really stunning. You must promise to do nothing in order to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. Maybe those on the other side of the aisle will come up with a new oath of office for leadership positions: Raise your right hand and repeat after me, they will say. I swear I will not let anything happen on my watch. I will faithfully uphold and defend the principles of the do-nothing Congress and pledge allegiance to the do-nothingness for which it stands; that I will ignore all cries for help, no matter how loud from the American people; that I will not let public policy get in the way of party politics; and that party unity is more important than the United States of America, so help me Tea Party. Why would one faction within the Republican Party demand a promise from the new Speaker that he not bring up any immigration legislation to the floor? Because the opponents of immigration and immigration reform would lose. They must demand from the Speaker that the majority not rule in the House of Representatives because the opponents of immigration know they are actually the minority. This is a telling moment for the Republican Party, and it is not confined to immigration. The majority of the country supports Planned Parenthood continuing to provide basic health services and contraception to women. But playing to a smaller segment of their base, Republicans threaten to close down the government in order to block its funding. They want the minority to rule, and they want the tail to wag the dog. On the environment, in the wake of decades of scientific evidence that human beings have helped to cause climate change, what is the Republican response? Do nothing. It is a liberal hoax, they say. We can buy another beach house farther inland when the beach house is, well, farther inland. Members on the other side of the aisle celebrate the antics of a county clerk who refuses to follow the law and do her job, which includes issuing marriage licenses to two men or two women who want to spend their lives together. Maybe House Republicans think they are standing on principle, but the majority of the country has been fighting against exclusion, second- class treatment, and bigotry for decades. The rest of us have embraced equality. We support voting rights, the same pay for the same work, and police in communities that protect and serve, not just stop and frisk. Here in Congress, as we saw last week with the discharge petition to preserve the Export-Import Bank, sometimes the majority can break the gridlock of this minority and actually take action. As we saw last week on the bipartisan budget and debt ceiling vote, sometimes Republican leaders take action for the good of the country, despite the calls from the do-nothing caucus, well, to do nothing. On all these matters, do nothingness comes with a cost. It is the cost of deported immigrants, and businesses that cannot hire people legally, of women who are denied lifesaving health screenings, honoring families as first-class citizens no matter who heads them, a cleaner planet, and safer neighborhoods. There is a political cost as well. A colleague from South Carolina summed it up in the documentary ``Immigration Battle'' on PBS Frontline, which I also appeared in. Addressing a group of Republican voters in his district, Congressman Mick Mulvaney said, ``At some point, we are going to have to figure out that if you take the entire African American community and write them off, take the entire Hispanic community and write them off, take the entire Libertarian community and write them off, take the entire gay community and write them off, what is left? About 38 percent of the country.'' The Congressman concludes by saying, ``You cannot win with 38 percent of the country.'' You want to know something? He is right. We know from the environment, from the fight for marriage equality, the fight for civil rights, the fight to modernize our immigration system, that taking no action is precisely the problem. I think the new Speaker understands this, and someday I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with him and let the majority rule in the people's House.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, November 2, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 582.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, over the last several weeks, I visited six high schools in my district to meet with juniors and seniors, about 2,000 students in total. Almost all of the students I meet are U.S. citizens. The majority are Latinos. Some have immigrant parents, and most will soon be eligible to vote. All of them have one question for me. It starts every Q and A at every high school I visit. The questions are about Donald Trump. Is he going to be our next President? Is it true that he wants to revoke our citizenship and deport us to the countries our parents came from? Is it true he wants to round us up, Mr. Gutierrez, and deport us all? It is very sad when the questions a Congressman gets from American high school students are about how much they should fear their own government, whether their own government is going to break up their families, whether their own government is going to treat them not as citizens and as equal partners, but as outsiders and pariahs in their own country. When they hear that Trump is ``leading in the polls,'' they think that means there is a pretty good chance that he will be the next President. When they see him on TV shows like Jimmy Fallon, not to mention CNN and Fox News, they get the feeling that he is a celebrity that all of us in America admire. When they hear that Trump is hosting ``Saturday Night Live''--not just being a guest but actually hosting, even after saying Mexican are mostly rapists, criminals, and drug dealers--they get the impression that calling whole groups of people rapists, criminals, and drug dealers based on their ethnicity or national origin is basically okay with us in America. The real question these Chicago-area high school students have is: Hey, Gutierrez, what are you going to do to defend us from Donald Trump? What are you going to do to stand up for us? This leads to an intense discussion about American politics. And I ask the students right back: What are you going to do to stand up for yourselves, for your community? Look, motivating 17- and 18-year-olds to do something is not always easy, including motivating them to register to vote when they are old enough and to actually go out and vote. But when I ask these young Americans whether they plan to get registered and vote, every hand goes up in the classroom. Donald Trump is spurring youth voter mobilization like I have never seen before. Nationally, we know that 93 percent of Latinos under the age of 18 are citizens of the United States and that every 30 seconds a Latino citizen turns 18. That is about a million a year for the next decade or so. If they are half as motivated as the young people I am talking to in Chicago, Donald Trump could have a tremendous impact on the youth vote in the coming election. But let's be honest, do we really want to motivate civic participation through fear of deportation, racial profiling, and families being broken up? These are American teenagers growing up to distrust their government. Trump wants to take us back to the good old days of race relations, which apparently means the 1950s, when President Eisenhower evicted millions of immigrants and U.S. citizens from the United States. Dr. Carson, who believes that human history is only about 5,000 years old-- that is what he says, we have only been around 5,000 years--says of mass deportation schemes: ``I think it's worth discussing.'' Here in the House, we have considered measures to deport children more quickly, to make groups more distrustful of the police, and to delay Homeland Security funding. Testifying on one of these bills before the Rules Committee last year, I made the unfortunate but real suggestion that Republicans were gravitating toward mass deportation policies, which provoked a response from the chairman, Mr. Sessions. He said: Gutierrez, ``there is no one in responsible Republican leadership that has said we should deport 13 or 11 million people. And I find it extremely distasteful that people would come here and suggest things that we have not suggested.'' Well, now that people are suggesting mass deportation openly and are gaining in the public opinion polls in the Republican Party, I wonder why there is so much silence from the Republican Members of this body. But it is not just young Latino voters in Chicago that are being motivated by Republican attacks. When Republicans attack Planned Parenthood and block laws to guarantee equal pay for women, that motivates women to register and vote. When Republicans celebrate people who will not issue marriage licenses to two men or two women, a lot of people in the LGBT community get motivated to register and vote. When Republicans rail against unions and block increases in the minimum wage, while, of course, they earn $174,000 a year, and block environmental standards and block sensible gun laws, a lot of working class and middle class Americans get motivated to register and vote. Together with those young people I talked about at those high schools, we are forming a very, very powerful coalition, a coalition so powerful that some day, even Republicans themselves will want to be part of it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, did you hear that ``Saturday Night Live'' has invited Donald Trump to host the show in November? Now, let me get the exact quote from July when Donald Trump launched his ``make America hate again'' campaign. He said: ``When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best . . . They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing us those problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.'' ``They're sending us not the right people. It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably from the Middle East.'' While much of what Donald Trump says is hilarious, intentionally or otherwise, bald-faced racism for political gain isn't funny. His statements should disqualify him from being able to take the stage in any entertainment venue and speak to the American people as if what he said was no big deal. It is not that I don't get the joke--I haven't been kidnapped by the politically correct police--but when public figures cross certain lines, they should lose their privileges to host TV shows, at least until they have apologized for their unacceptable behavior. To put Donald Trump on the air in America's living rooms on the signature comedy show of one of the most important national networks after saying that Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, and criminals, that is a corporate blunder too big to be ignored. What happened, NBC and Comcast? Within a couple of weeks after Trump launched those racist bombs, you dumped Trump. You dumped his TV show on your network. You dumped his pageants and other ventures on NBC and Universal networks like Telemundo. In July, NBC said: ``Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.'' NBC said: ``Respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values.'' NBC, you were not alone in dumping Trump. Macy's Department Stores dumped Trump's clothing line, Serta dumped Trump's mattresses, chef Jose Andres pulled his new restaurant from a Trump hotel, and Univision dumped a Trump pageant. Even NASCAR and ESPN dumped Trump. Corporate America stepped up to the plate and dumped Trump, and we all applauded. Let's be clear: the goodwill that corporate America earned from dumping Trump didn't just come from the Mexican-American community. No, when Trump says Mexicans are murderers, rapists, and drug dealers, Puerto Rico knows he is talking about us, too, and Colombians and Salvadorans, and pretty much everyone in the Latino community. Look, Americans aren't very good at telling us apart; so when we are under attack by a tycoon running for the Republican Presidential nomination, we can't tell us apart either. We are all family. What happened, Comcast, Universal, and NBC? Now, 3 months later, have Donald Trump's words been expunged? Did I miss an apology on one of his almost nightly television appearances? Has he confessed his racist and hateful call to action? Well, NBC installing Trump as SNL host may be good for ratings, but it is a bigger deal than a cameo or being a guest on ``The Tonight Show.'' I am calling you out. If Donald Trump had said gays and lesbians were murderers and raping Americans, would he get to host a show? It is every bit as much a fiction and a lie. Donald Trump has said some pretty awful things about women individually and collectively. But what if he said most women were criminals? Would the writers be thinking up sketches for Trump if he had slandered an entire gender rather than an entire ethnic group? Trump says he wants to do away with the part of the Constitution that allowed freed slaves, freed African American slaves to be treated fully as American citizens. Yes, Trump thinks we do not need the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. But what if he said that Black people were murderers, rapists, drug dealers? Would you still pitch skits with Donald Trump and some lighthearted banter? What if all the Latino cast members all walked off the job at ``Saturday Night Live''? Oh, wait, you don't have any Latino cast members. I do seem to remember Comcast spending a lot of time on Capitol Hill when they had a merger deal with Time Warner and they wanted support from Members of Congress. Comcast said Latinos were so important to them, and they had plans to do this and that and the other thing to support the Latino and immigrant community. What happened? The merger didn't go through, so you no longer feel the sense of corporate responsibility to the 55 million Latinos that live in the USA? Giving free airtime to people who insult and malign them is now part of your business model? I just want to say one last thing to producer Lorne Michaels. I wonder if he had said that Canadians were rapists, murderers, and drug dealers, would you be inviting him on SNL? Mr. Speaker, I place in the Record a letter that I sent NBC Comcast yesterday. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 20, 2015. Mr. Brian Roberts, Chairman/President/CEO, Comcast Corp, Philadelphia, PA. Mr. Stephen B. Burke, President/CEO, NBCUniversal, New York, NY. Dear Messrs. Roberts and Burke: Having Donald Trump as a guest on every news and entertainment program is one thing, but allowing him to host Saturday Night Live is another. It is a level of endorsement that says to America that every hateful and racist thing Donald Trump has said since the moment he launched his campaign is acceptable and no big deal. Well, it is a big deal. He said Mexicans are rapists, criminals and drug-dealers, and to be clear, when he said Mexicans are those things, he was tarring all Latinos and all immigrants. His exact words were, ``They're sending us not the right people. It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably from the Middle East.'' The reaction in July from NBC was swift and clear: ``Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.'' And NBC said, ``Respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values.'' Serta, Macy's, NASCAR, Univision, and ESPN were among the others that also acted to dump Trump. Three months later, because he is a ratings and comedy bonanza, Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live (SNL) are giving the Trump campaign 90 minutes of free network airtime. I think I speak for a lot of Americans, especially immigrant Americans and Latino Americans, when I say that if SNL is allowed to proceed, it would be a huge corporate blunder. When Comcast sought a merger with Time Warner, I and a lot of my Congressional Hispanic Caucus colleagues heard from you about your commitment to the Latino community and the level of corporate responsibility you pledged to your diverse audience. I certainly hope that your commitment to ``respect and dignity for all people'' was not some hollow promise and is in fact a cornerstone of your values. Please disinvite him. Make a statement: Derogatory statements of the nature trumpeted by Trump about any group disqualifies someone from hosting shows on your network. Send a message that racism is not funny and that responsibility to your viewers and the public is more important than ratings. It is a chance for your company--again--to show you are committed to your audience in more ways than just the ad revenues they provide you. Please do the right thing and dump Trump. Sincerely, Luis V. Gutierrez, Member of Congress.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 550, 551, and 552.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, as Donald Trump and Ben Carson have turned up the volume with more and more outrageous statements and policy proposals, Members of Congress have been trying to keep up. Now, Republicans in the House not only have to play to the small, but extremely vocal, segment of the electorate that feels Washington is ``out of step with the American people,'' but they have another audience to woo--each other--because a lot of our colleagues are currently running for leadership positions. But is it really Washington that is out of step with America or is it the most vocal, most active, and most vitriolic elements of the Republican base that are out of step with America? Last week's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was pretty startling. It shows in issue after issue that on the positions adopted by the leading GOP candidates, vast majorities of Americans disagree with Republicans. On abortion restrictions, immigration, LGBT equality, racial diversity, and reproductive health, some in the Republican base demand we go back to the Dark Ages. But it is not, in fact, the direction that most Americans want to go. For most Americans, ``Mad Men'' was a good TV drama set before racial integration, before the women's movement really took hold, before gays and lesbians dared come out of the closet, and before we removed racial quotas from immigration. But some in the Republican Party aspire to turn it into a reality TV show. The latest throw-down from the right has been over Planned Parenthood and reimbursing this respected organization for health services it provides to women across the country. In many cases, Planned Parenthood is the only source of affordable and accessible reproductive health care, contraception, HIV and STD testing, cancer screenings, and basic health care for women. Under Federal law, our tax dollars cannot pay for abortions, and there are no credible claims that this is being violated. Under law, abortion is legal in the United States, despite all of the restrictions imposed and proposed by my Republican colleagues. But this goes further than abortion rights and a woman's right to control her own health care and reproduction. Some Americans here and around the country are, frankly, not too comfortable with the whole family planning thing. In my family, I have two daughters who are brilliant and whom I trust to make decisions for themselves. They were born 8 years apart and not by accident. My wife and I planned her pregnancies around her career as an investment banker and had our children when we were ready. That is an option that opened the world of opportunity and self-determination to my wife that my mother never had. Puerto Rican women in this country in my mother's day had one thing forced on them by the government, and that was sterilization, period. So when I hear talk about shutting down the government to appease the far right on Planned Parenthood, I think of the progress we have made from my mother's generation to my wife's generation and now to the world in which my daughters live. It seems to me that we should not be looking for ways to limit choices women have, to force them into back alleys or across State lines for health care or to treat them as if only wise men in Washington can make decisions for the women of America. But that desire to turn the clock backwards, to undo the progress of our lifetimes, and to punish America for evolving over time is basically at the heart of the Republican agenda, as driven by their most active and vocal base. Republicans run for office and legislate as if they want gay people back in the closet, as if they want Latinos and Asians to become invisible, as if they wish women were just in the kitchen or in the bedroom, as if we could go back to those golden days before the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education, when everything was separate and some people were more equal than others. Well, with all due respect to Mr. Carson and Emperor Trump, every poll indicates that the American people are not with them, and that is especially true of young people in America. Dr. Carson must be nostalgic for the anti-Catholic days before John Kennedy was elected because he is now raising doubts that people of certain religions are qualified to serve their country as President. Senator Cruz must look at the old days when we turned away refugees from Europe because of their religion, as we did in the 1930s and 1940s when anti-Semitism gripped this country. Now he wants to send Muslims back to die in Syria. And now there is Donald Trump. He wants to deport about a quarter of the 50 million Latinos in the United States. If mass deportation was good enough for President Eisenhower, he feels it should be good enough for America today. I will agree with one leading candidate, Jeb Bush, who recently said that ``stuff happens.'' Stuff does happen. A lot of stuff has happened since the 1950s when I was born and the 1960s when I grew up in America. Our laws and our culture have evolved to become more inclusive, and we have a more diverse and egalitarian society because of it. Many Republicans call that stuff the problem. I call that stuff progress.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, October 6, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 534 and 535.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Thursday, October 1, 2015 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 532, a vote on agreeing to the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1735, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 because we cannot continue to put military spending on the credit card and violate our budget rules while critical domestic investments are slashed. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 533, a vote on final passage of H.R. 3457, Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act because I support peace and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to prevent a nuclear Iran. Finally, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 529 and 530, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 531.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. The Pope visited America and he inspired a lot of people, even cynical Washington, D.C. For one, he inspired Speaker Boehner to wake up the next morning and announce his resignation. As I said last week, it must be hard for a decent man like Speaker Boehner to be head of a new know-nothing party of increasingly extreme measures to cut health care for women and to round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants. It remains to be seen how Republicans in the House will conduct themselves without adult supervision, but the Speaker is going out on a high note. Having the Pope speak to America from the floor of the House of Representatives was a crowning achievement for the Speaker. Now that his job is no longer on the line, I hope we will see immigration reform as the jewel in that crown and act before he steps down. But we all know that is unlikely. The concurrent hysteria on the campaign trail makes action by these Republicans or any Republicans unlikely. Even though I still believe we have the votes--like we did for the last several years--to pass immigration reform in the House, I don't think the Speaker, even as a lame duck, will allow a vote. But the Pope's visit certainly inspired me to think about the moral example he sets. Look, the Holy Father simply reminded Members of Congress about the Golden Rule--``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you''--and he could not even complete his sentence before he got a standing ovation. If we had a daily reminder of the Golden Rule, we could cut through a lot of the bull in Congress and have a better country and a better world. It is the Golden Rule I am here to discuss. Treat your brother and your sister and your neighbor with compassion as you would like to be treated yourself. And in the case of health care and access to health care, it is not simply out of a sense of moral altruism, although that is part of it. Rather, it is out of the reality that treating our brothers and sisters and neighbors as we want to be treated when it comes to health care and access to health care and access to health insurance is in our own self-interest as well. That is why I am introducing the Exchange Inclusion for a Healthy America Act of 2015, a bill to give complete access to the Affordable Care Act regardless of their immigration status. The Exchange Inclusion for a Healthy America will extend healthcare insurance access to millions of our neighbors and family members who live here, work here, raise families here, and will probably live here for the rest of their lives, but who lack legal immigration status. It gives them access to healthcare exchanges in ObamaCare under the ordinary rules of residency in the States in which they live and makes them eligible for subsidies if and when they file taxes, just like the rest of us. It also subjects them to the individual mandate that requires individuals to have health insurance. The goal is to make integration and inclusion real for millions of families that are locked out under current law. Now, if I remember correctly, the President was standing right here in 2009 talking about his healthcare reform proposal would exclude undocumented immigrants and one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle interrupted him by shouting, ``You lie'' to the President of the United States of America, who, we should all note, was reelected comfortably in 2012. I do not expect that Member of Congress to join me as a cosponsor. But, in fact, as we all know, he was dead wrong about the Affordable Care Act. In addition to death panels and a number of other fictions, the Republicans were wrong that undocumented immigrants were included in ObamaCare. They just weren't. I am and have always been an advocate for the single payer approach to universal health coverage, and I fought to include all of the people who live in this country in the Affordable Care Act, but they were written out. As it stands right now, undocumented immigrants are not subject to the individual mandate and cannot buy into the health insurance exchanges, even if they use their own money. My legislation will change that. It says that we stand for inclusion. It says that we understand the principle that, if you are here, if you are working and caring for your family and contributing to society, you should be healthy. Not only that, but your health and your protection from diseases, injuries, and preventable illnesses impacts my health care and the health care of my family. As a nation, we all benefit when we spread the risk, invite younger, healthier workers to join our exchanges, reduce the costs of compensating hospitals for caring for the uninsured, and reducing the number of uninsured who live and work here. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you means moving forward with no restrictions on which brother and sister and neighbor we think of as eligible or deserving or is, in fact, considered my neighbor, my sister or my brother. My party and the vast majority of my country understands that getting immigrants on the books and into the system and integrating them into today's American society should be the goal, just as we have done with every other group of immigrants throughout our history. My legislation, the Exchange Inclusion for a Healthy America Act, is a step in that direction.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Monday, September 28, 2015. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 519 and 520.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I can't wait to work with him. And I know very soon that former Congressman Ray LaHood is going to be known as his father.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, Darin LaHood is a central Illinois native who was born and raised in Peoria, Illinois. He comes to the U.S. Congress after serving over 4 years in the Illinois State Senate. Before that, he was a State and Federal prosecutor; an assistant United States attorney; an assistant State's attorney in Cook County in the narcotics unit; and a felony prosecutor in Tazewell County. He is known for his work fighting terrorism and making America safer. On a personal note, Darin's dad was former Member of the House Ray LaHood. I would just like to hasten to add that I can't think of a Member of the House that I love or care for more than Ray LaHood. And I just want to say to his son, everybody keeps saying: Who is the new Congressman? Everybody says: Well, that is Ray LaHood's son. Well, pretty soon--I want to make everyone know--he is going to be known for a lot more than that. But what a wonderful beginning. I yield to my colleague from the State of Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, as the dean of the Illinois delegation, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois, the Honorable Darin LaHood, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rewatched recently one of my favorite movies. ``Selma'' tells the story of the fight to register voters in Selma, Alabama, culminating in the march from Selma to Montgomery, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1965. Spoiler alert: After being turned around, threatened, beaten, tear-gassed, and killed, Black people got to vote in America. A young and handsome John Lewis is depicted in the pivotal role of the community organizer who helps lead the movement. Another spoiler alert: John is a Member of this body and serves with distinction from the State of Georgia. It is among the highest honors of my life to know John Lewis and to work with him. In fact, I have marched with him and gotten arrested with John Lewis outside this Capitol Building in our fight for immigration reform. I highly recommend the movie, and I want every citizen--and every person who lives here and hopes to become a citizen one day--to watch and learn from the movie ``Selma.'' It is a moment in history when voting and citizenship were literally life-and-death struggles--and it was only 50 years ago. And just yesterday, the NAACP completed a historic 1,000-mile march from Selma to Washington to remind us how we must always stand up to bullies and official inaction using nonviolence and community organizing and empowerment techniques. The way to respond to racism is to vote. I have been thinking a lot about that recently as the Republican Presidential field of candidates has fallen in line with a bully who spews racism and is leading among his party's primary voters. What can Americans do when the tail wagging the dog of the Republican Party is saying that most Mexicans are murderers and rapists? What can we do as a nation when candidates blame unrest in reaction to police violence in Baltimore and Ferguson on Mexican and Central American immigrants. What can we do when thousands of people cheer when a candidate proposes building a great wall of America on our southern border, and the response from other candidates is to say that we should build another wall opposite Canada as well? Well, in the movie ``Selma,'' Oprah Winfrey didn't just get mad; she fought back by making sure she could register to vote. We have all learned what the Republican Party seems to be forgetting: Appeals to a narrow Republican electorate with over-the-top racism and below-the-belt immigrant bashing will not get you to the White House. President Romney--oh, I'm sorry. Governor Romney got more White votes than any candidate in the history of the United States, but he couldn't overcome the demographic reality that the country is more diverse and so are its voters. Appeals to racism and immigrant bashing are creating a predictable backlash in the neighborhoods of my district in Chicago. People are calling and coming into my office, asking what they can do to push back. Very specifically, those who are not yet citizens are asking: How do I become a citizen? Those who have not registered to vote are asking how to get that done. In Latino and Asian communities and in every community that thinks that calling most Mexicans ``rapists'' is not the kind of political rhetoric that should go unchallenged, people are becoming citizens. My office in Chicago is known as a place to go if you want information on the citizenship process. In total, more than 50,000 American citizens have come to our office for help in figuring out the process. The demand for information on citizenship has grown so much in my district that, this Saturday, from 9:00 to noon, at the Instituto Del Progreso Latino, I will join my staff and local advocates and the local office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for a free workshop on applying to become a citizen. Not only will people get help in understanding the process, but we will also help them figure out if they qualify for a fee waiver so that the $680 application fee that people have to pay is not a barrier. Think about it. There are roughly 8.8 million immigrants with green cards who have lived in the U.S. for 5 years or more or who have been married to a U.S. citizen for 3 years or more, and they can pass a background check and qualify for citizenship today. So what I am proposing is that, instead of renewing your green card, if you are one of those 8.8 million people, and you get it for $450 for 10 years, you apply for permanent citizenship, with a fee waiver, and become a citizen for free. That is right. Apply for citizenship, and you can vote for whomever you want to vote for. You can even vote against the guy who called your whole ethnic group ``rapists,'' ``murderers,'' and ``drug dealers.'' That kind of ugly, un-American attack is moving people to apply for citizenship and moving citizens to become voters. Mr. Speaker, today is Citizenship Day, and there are hundreds of citizenship workshops and activities across the country. I am looking forward to meeting with the hundreds of people who will be working towards their citizenship this Saturday in Chicago. The way to respond to racism is by voting, and in Latino and immigrant communities, we are getting that message loud and clear.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Wednesday, September 16, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 495 and 496.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a proud record, a record as strong as any Member in Congress in supporting Israel. It is because of this support that I back the deal that the President and our allies have negotiated. If I thought that this agreement made the State of Israel more vulnerable, I would not support it, but that is just not the case. Every security expert I trust, like Colin Powell, supports this deal; and almost every former government official I deeply distrust, like Vice President Dick Cheney, opposes the agreement. This is one of the most detailed international agreements of its kind in memory, and it was no small task of American diplomacy, statesmanship, and good old- fashioned negotiating that brought the deal to reality. The power and position of the United States as a world leader brought our allies to the table. It achieved an outcome our country working alone could not have achieved. It is not something that the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, or even the United Nations could have achieved. It is not something sanctions alone could achieve and not something that war alone could achieve. The United States, working with our friends and, in some cases, our rivals, brought about this end to Iran's nuclear weapons program with an agreement for verifiable, enforceable, effective curbs on Iran's nuclear ambitions; and it is in Iran's interest to abide by the agreement. With this one step forward, the U.S. has helped erase our record of international shortsightedness. It gets us back on track as a leader who leverages our economic power, our military power, our powers to persuade and compromise and bring people together. There are not many times in a person's congressional career or in the course of history, for that matter, where a person can cast a vote literally for war or peace. Voting to support the Iran agreement is a vote to give peace a chance. Put diplomacy at the top of our agenda, stand up for our men and women in uniform, their families, and our Nation by avoiding war. Let us support a deal that is good for Israel, good for America, good for peace, and good for the world. Mr. Speaker, Representative Yarmuth and I wrote an op-ed piece for The Hill newspaper entitled ``The Iran Nuclear Deal is Good for America and Good for Peace,'' and I include it for the Record. [From the Hill, July 29, 2015] Iran Nuke Deal Is Good for America and for Peace (By Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)) We are both Democrats, but our districts and paths to Congress share little in common. A Catholic city councilman from Chicago and a Jewish journalist from Kentucky, the two of us naturally bring very different viewpoints to our work. But we are in complete agreement on one of the most important issues the U.S. faces--the nuclear agreement with Iran is good for America, crucial for Israel and an important step toward a more peaceful Middle East. The United States entered into negotiations with one prevailing goal: to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. After months of negotiations, we now have an agreement that will do just that. The deal severely restricts Iran's nuclear program to only energy-grade enrichment, eliminates much of the country's uranium stockpile, retires most centrifuges and gives International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors more access in Iran than in any country in the world. Most importantly, under this deal, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. We recognize that some of our colleagues do not share our enthusiasm for this deal, and we certainly share their mistrust for the Iranian regime. But this agreement is not built on trust. It's built on strict verification and unprecedented enforcement. Iran has agreed to submit to full IAEA inspections throughout its nuclear supply chain, leaving no site off-limits and ensuring the IAEA will have access wherever it needs it, whenever it needs it. Iran conceded to these terms after the success of crippling international sanctions. Relief from those sanctions will be introduced gradually, only after Iranian compliance is verified. And should leaders fail to comply at any point, those sanctions will automatically snap back into place. But make no mistake, sanctions were not delaying Iran's march toward a bomb. Sanctions were designed to make that march unbearable and force Iran to the negotiating table, where we could strike a deal that would truly make the world safer. And it worked. Now, aside from war, we're left with two choices. Either we support the deal and stop Iran from getting a bomb, or we oppose the deal and allow Iran to resume its nuclear path, unchecked and no longer encumbered by the pain of global sanctions. Whether we like it or not, that is where we find ourselves. The sanctions' effectiveness depended on a coalition that included China and Russia. Should the U.S. unilaterally defeat this agreement, deemed positive by all members of the coalition, China and Russia are unlikely to simply return to business as usual. The formation of the P5+1 negotiating countries--China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus Germany--was a unique historical moment. A failure by Congress to recognize the significance of today's moment would undo more than a decade of progress while leaving Iran's nuclear program fully intact. There is simply no acceptable alternative to this deal. It's why, despite all the criticism, no viable substitute has been offered. No one likes working with enemy nations, but deals like these aren't necessary among friends. It's understandable that much of the apprehension over these negotiations has to do with Iran's history, and certainly, the past must be taken into account-- it's also why there is such high emphasis on verification. But we must not allow history to be the obstacle in working toward a better, more peaceful future. Some have derided the agreement based on the Americans who remain unjustly imprisoned in Iran. We too had hoped negotiations would have already led to their release and share the urgent need to free them. But here too, the deal provides our best chance. An abrupt severing of ties would give us no means to free the prisoners, but in an improved negotiating climate, we have a real chance to secure their release. These choices are never easy, but after more than a decade of groundwork, the best and right path is now clear. To upend this agreement would be not only a setback for our shared goal of a peaceful world, but it would be a major blow to American diplomacy. If we walk away, the future of international relations within the Middle East will be put at risk. China and Russia will have no need to deal with us if they again have the ability to deal with Iran directly. And Iran's nuclear program will resume its growth, free of safeguards from the international community. The critics are right about one thing. This is not a perfect deal. But no negotiation ends in perfection, and the results of this negotiation are very good. To be certain, it's the best deal available. It's good for the United States, good for our allies--most especially Israel--and it's good for the Middle East. By cautiously and carefully inviting Iran to rejoin the world stage, we can guarantee it plays by the rules and finally ensure regional stability and security for all.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, you know in the movies when someone has to make a choice and a little devil and a little angel appear on their shoulder to give good and bad advice? Well, that is what I feel America is going to feel like in a couple of weeks when His Holiness Pope Francisco comes to visit us, including an address in this very room. On one shoulder, we have a billionaire out there saying Mexicans are murderers; immigrants come to this country to get on welfare; our best days are behind us; and just getting tough and insulting people will solve all of our problems and make us great again. And almost everyone else in his party is scrambling to catch up so they don't miss out on the wave of populist anger he is tapping and feeding with a mix of untruths, half-truths, and good old-fashioned racism. On the other shoulder is a man who is not afraid to touch the feet of the poor and recognizes their humanity even in their poverty. He is a man who sees actual human problems, like our environment, and tries to bring us together to do something about it. He is a man who, through deeds, declarations, and his own demeanor says in a clear voice: Welcome the stranger, and come onto me. He does not blame a nation's problems on the strangers at the gate or says ``get the hell out.'' In many ways, Pope Francis represents the Anti-Trump, the antidote to his venom. I, like a lot of my Democratic colleagues and a lot of my Catholic colleagues and, frankly, the majority of American of all faiths and political stripes across the Nation, am very much looking forward to the Pope's visit and the Pope's words because our Nation needs a counterbalance, a counterweight, to what has become the ugliest, most xenophobic, and most anti-immigration campaign in anyone's memory. You can also throw in large helpings of anti-woman, anti- environmental, and anti-poor attacks in there as well. Shortly after The Donald announced with great fanfare and extreme insult and unvarnished racism that he would inflict his campaign for the White House on the Nation, I came to this well to address my colleagues on July 9. I discussed a reasoned approach to dealing with the immigrant criminals who must be locked up and deported and distinguishing them from the vast majority of America's immigrants who live peacefully and helpfully among us. They come here to work and to make a better life for themselves and their families, as my parents did when they left Puerto Rico in the fifties to seek a better life, eventually landing in Chicago. It is the strength and the advantage of our Nation that we come from everywhere, but we have put together the best Nation on Earth by working together. It is what defines us as a people. Most of our ancestors came to this land of their own free will, and some did not. Most came here seeking a dream or running away from a nightmare or sometimes both. Most of us came here legally, sometimes waiting in lines that lasted years. And some of us, when legality was not an option and there was no line to stand in, came anyway because work and freedom are so plentiful. But in the United States, we came together from many nations and traditions and languages and religions and made the one Nation that stands above all others as the defender of liberty, the engine of the world economy, and the beacon of freedom recognized in every corner of the globe. We are proud of our accomplishments, as we should be, despite our humble beginnings, when no one and no other nation thought we could survive to take our place among the nations of the world. As the Pope joins us this month to deliver his message of peace and inclusion, I urge all of us to remember the many challenges we have faced as a Nation and the many obstacles we have overcome. Just a few decades ago the thought of a Catholic President was outrageous and the thought of a Pope addressing a Joint Session of Congress was far-fetched, just about as far-fetched as a Black President of the United States, a woman President, or a Latino Pope from Latin America. Over the decades, in fits and starts, marching forward, being pushed back, marching forward again arm in arm, we have spent more time listening to our better angels and their advice, taking us toward a brighter future as a Nation and less time listening to our darker influences who lament progress and seek to divide us from one another. I think, in this Capitol Building, in this Chamber, when the Pope speaks to us, we will see two paths in very sharp relief. Build a wall or build a bridge? Help our brother or turn our backs? Belittle our sister or share her heavy load? Incite distrust and division or foster unity to face our challenges because we are stronger together? For this Catholic American, for this man who has sometimes struggled with the church and is not always welcome because of my support for women's health, a woman's right to a legal abortion, LGBT, I am so looking forward to the Pope's visit because I feel my Nation needs him more than ever before.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, September 8, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 490 in support of the E- Warranty Act of 2015.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke about Puerto Rico's debt crisis and how there must be a sense of urgency because, without action, bondholders will be paid, but teachers, cops, and nurses won't. I want to continue today and make two points. Number one, let's not let bondholders bleed Puerto Rico at a discount. Number two, let's work together on what unites us, not what divides us. Because the only way we will make any progress is if the people of Puerto Rico come together to make a plan and demand that the Congress of the United States work with Puerto Rico on Puerto Rico's plan. Without consistent and persistent pressure from Puerto Rico, Washington will do nothing, as both the administration and the Congress are content to let the bondholders on Wall Street call the tune. We all know Washington should start with H.R. 870, the bankruptcy bill. It is simply a bill that will allow Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy and restructure its debt within the U.S. legal system. This would allow an orderly and fair restructuring of the debt in a court of law. It is an important step, but will not solve all of Puerto Rico's problems. What Puerto Rico should do right now is demand to know what Wall Street vulture capitalists are paying for the bonds. We hear a report that the bonds are selling for 15 and 20 cents on the dollar, yet the bond owners want a full dollar's worth of interest. I say Puerto Rico should pay interest based on the price the billionaires actually paid and that they should disclose this amount, just as a congressman does in this Congress every time we make an investment. Then Puerto Rico can service its debt based on what was paid to buy the debt. I came here to protect people, not the profits of billionaires on Wall Street. Secondly and most importantly, for the time being, we must set aside politics and get away from the smokescreen of the status issue in Puerto Rico. Whether Puerto Rico should be a State, an independent nation, or remain a commonwealth cannot be the priority right now before this Congress. If everyone leaves Puerto Rico--and they are leaving by 5,000 a month--it will not matter what kind of government is left behind. Mr. Speaker, nobody should use the current debt crisis as an opportunity to score political points for their party. At a time when the people of Puerto Rico must be clear, precise, and unified, the status issue divides Puerto Ricans. I read in The New York Times the argument of the Resident Commissioner of the Statehood Party that the only solution to Puerto Rico's problems is to make it a State. Really? That is going to solve the debt crisis? The power crisis? The public employees' pension gap crisis? The Medicare Advantage budget crisis? We should be working together to figure out how Puerto Rico is going to pay teachers and honor their pensions, how we will make sure health care is delivered to all and bridges do not collapse. A statehood bill is not going to provide housing, create a job, or heal a sick child. When Members of Congress ask me about Puerto Rico, they ask me: Which is it? Is it statehood? Do you want a bankruptcy bill? Do you want more Medicaid? We have to prioritize. We have to be clear and put aside the status issue. Please, we need to work together. I would like to use my remaining minute to restate my call to action in Spanish. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) Politics and divisions could destroy the chances of forcing Washington to help resolve Puerto Rico's debt crisis. Puerto Rico must have a common plan that has support across all of the parties, and most importantly, across the Island. The Governor must find a way to work with the Resident Commissioner and the Resident Commissioner cannot view this crisis as a campaign tool for higher office. Puerto Rico will only be helped by this Congress if and when there is a consistent and persistent call on Congress by Puerto Ricans to act. And Puerto Ricans need to specify what they expect Congress to do. The Bankruptcy Bill is only part of it. If we still have the Jones Act and the same economy and economic prospects as we have now, we will not advance. The people must tell Wall Street that Puerto Rico is not some store to be looted and that the Puerto Rican people will not sit and starve as Wall Street counts its profits. If Wall Street is buying bonds at a discount, they should be paid at a discount. But most importantly, we have to work together for the betterment of Puerto Rico. And we cannot let political divisions over statehood divide us. I commit to putting aside my own passionate feelings about Puerto Rico's status and working with other Puerto Ricans in the Congress and other leaders in both Parties who will help us. But we must first come together, begin helping ourselves, and have a clear plan. La politica y las divisiones podrian destruir las posibilidades de obligar a Washington a ayudar a resolver la crisis de la deuda de Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico debe de tener un plan comun que cuente con el apoyo de todos los partidos y sobre todo, a traves de la Isla. El Gobernador debe encontrar una manera de trabajar con el Comisionado Residente y el Comisionado Residente no puede ver esta crisis como una herramienta en sus campanas para un puesto mas alto. El Congreso solo ayudara a Puerto Rico siempre y cuando haya un llamado constante y persistente de los puertorriquenos exigiendo que el Congreso cumpla. Y los puertorriquenos tienen que indicar lo que esperan de parte del Congreso. La Legislacion de Bancarrota es solo una parte. Pero si todavia tenemos la Ley Jones y la misma economia y perspectivas economicas que tenemos ahora no avanzaremos. El pueblo debe decirle a Wall Street que Puerto Rico no es una tienda para ser pirateada y que el pueblo de Puerto Rico no esperara a morir de hambre mientras Wall Street cuenta sus ganancias. Si Wall Street esta comprando bonos con descuentos, deben ser pagados con descuentos. Pero sobre todo, tenemos que trabajar juntos por el bien de Puerto Rico. Y no podemos dejar que las divisiones politicas sobre la estadidad nos dividan. Me comprometo como siempre lo he hecho a poner a un lado mis propios sentimientos sobre el estatus de Puerto Rico y a trabajar con otros puertorriquenos en el Congreso y otros lideres en los dos Partidos que esten dispuestos a ayudarnos. Pero primero tenemos que unirnos, empezar a ayudarnos a nosotros mismos, y tener un plan claro.