Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Federal Living Wage Act,'' legislation to mandate a livable wage for employees under federal contracts and subcontracts. Twenty Representatives are original cosponsors to this important legislation. I introduce this bill after the Chicago City Council took a strong stand for workers by passing a living wage ordinance for employees of big-box retailers. The ordinance is an important victory in the fight for living wages for all workers. That fight now needs to come here, to Washington, where it is long overdue. The bill I am introducing today will hopefully move us closer to delivering all workers in America a fair and equitable wage. No full-time worker deserves to live in poverty. And certainly, the federal government should not be in the business of paying federal workers, or federally contracted workers, sub-poverty wages. Although Congress passed laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act, to help ensure that employees of Federal contracts earn a decent wage, thousands of Federal workers and federally contracted workers still do not earn enough to support themselves and their families. This legislation will allow hard-working individuals to earn quality wages and to increase their savings for such essential needs as their retirement and their children's education. The Federal government must take responsible, workable steps to reward working Americans and to help keep them out of poverty. This bill represents a practical and tangible step toward this goal and I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the passage of this important and sensible legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 394, 395, and 396.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on account of official business in my district, I missed votes in this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 384, 387, and 388. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 382, 383, 385, and 386.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today, due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 360 and 361, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 362 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 363.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 358 and 359.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 319 and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 320 and 321.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on June 16, 2006, and today, June 19, 2006. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 288 and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 289, 290, 291.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Guarantee of Medical Accuracy in Sex Education Act,'' a bill that prohibits the federal government from funding sex education curricula that contain medically inaccurate information. Currently, the federal government is spending millions on abstinence- only education that includes medically inaccurate and misleading information. In 2004, the House Government Reform Minority Staff prepared a report that found more than two-thirds of federally funded abstinence-only programs use curricula that contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. The federal government should not be in the business of funding sex education that is rife with errors and examples of medically inaccurate information. Specific examples in current sex education courses include: The first player spins the cylinder, points the gun to his/her head, and pulls the trigger. He/she has only one in six chances of being killed. But if one continues to perform this act, the chamber with the bullet will ultimately fall into position under the hammer, and the game ends as one of the players dies. Relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette.'' From Me, My World, My Future, Revised HIV material, p. 258. AIDS can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact. From Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Teacher's guide, Unit 5, pg. 19. Couples who use condoms for birth control experience a first-year failure rate of about 15 percent in preventing pregnancies. This means that over a period of 5 years, there could be a 50 percent chance or higher of getting pregnant with condoms used as the birth control method. From Choosing the Best PATH, Leader Guide, pg. 18. Since 1998, the federal government has spent nearly $1 billion on abstinence-only education. These programs that contain inaccurate information regarding contraception and STD/HIV prevention can make sex education both dangerous and counterproductive. Responsible sex education, by contrast, is an important component of a strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions and lessen the spread of STDs. The American Medical Association, the Institute of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health support the use of sex education that is medically accurate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join me in ensuring that sex education curricula contain accurate medical information that can help young people develop a healthy understanding of their sexuality, so they can make responsible and educated decisions throughout their lives.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 249 and 250 and ``no'' on rollcall votes 245 and 248.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 128, 129 and 130.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 100 and 101.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was ill today and, therefore, missed votes in this chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 19 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 20.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution congratulating Christopher House of Chicago on the occasion of its centennial celebration. I believe Christopher House is a successful and absolutely essential organization for the livelihood and well being of the great city of Chicago. Let me explain why. In 1906, the First Presbyterian Church of Evanston founded Christopher House as a settlement house on Chicago's North Side. Over the course of a century, it has grown in response to the needs of new immigrants and others in our community. Today, Christopher House is a seven-site resource center that helps families overcome the consequences of poverty, enabling them to thrive. Through early childhood and youth development, parent enrichment, literacy, counseling, pregnant and parenting teen support, and the meeting of basic human needs, Christopher House is a catalyst in a family's journey towards stability, resiliency and self-sufficiency. Christopher House is a premier human service organization that provides assistance to all in need without regard to race, creed, religion or national origin. Shortly before his death, Cesar Chavez said, ``You are never strong enough that you don't need help.'' I think he was speaking to all of us. Obviously, we are all touched by the 100 years of work of Christopher House. We see the lives Christopher House changes--the children who receive Head Start, the people who benefit from English as a Second Language classes, the families who are enlightened by literacy classes--and we are pleased that we can help in some small way. So we volunteer. Or we write a check. Or we attend a fundraiser or a rally or make a donation. Or support legislation and federal funding. All of which are critically important, and we extend our gratitude to all of those who have given time, money and resources to help Christopher House. But here is an important part of what I believe Cesar Chavez meant when he said, ``You are never strong enough that you don't need help.'' Christopher House does more than serve 3,500 children and their families in need. It does more than help teen moms who have nowhere else to turn. It does more than help children who would have few options for summer camps and tutoring programs. It does more than help kids by providing comprehensive early childhood education to families across our neediest neighborhoods. Christopher House helps us. Christopher House helps all of us-- whether we are a CEO or a partner in a law firm or a member of Congress. Because of the work that the organization's staff does every day, the lives of all of us are enriched and improved--not just the families who receive direct service. Because Cesar Chavez was right--none of us are ever strong enough that we don't need help. Perhaps we don't need a literacy class. But we all benefit from an educated and capable work force. Perhaps we don't need to put our own children in Head Start. But we need to know that every child with a desire to learn and grow and reach toward their dreams has a place to go and people to help them. Perhaps--if we're lucky--many of us will go through our lives and never have a desperate need for emergency services--for food and shelter and for clothing. But we need to be part of a community where every person in need has somewhere to go, someone to turn to, someone who cares. And perhaps, if we are fortunate, few of us will have a need for the day-to-day, make-or-break help that Christopher House routinely provides. But that doesn't mean we don't rely on Christopher House. Because it comes down to this--all of us rely on Christopher House to answer this important question: Who can we count on? Who is there for us? Who cares enough to do the hardest work for the people who need help the most? Every day, the people who devote their lives as staff and volunteers and donors to Christopher House answer those questions through their actions. We can count on Christopher House. Christopher House is there for us. And Christopher House has been doing this vital work for 100 years, and with our support should continue for many more. Christopher House's history means a lot to me--because it has always served precisely the population that I work with every day as a member of Congress. When it started a century ago as part of the settlement house movement, Christopher House focused closely on the population that has always been the sustaining life of our city--the immigrant community. Today, Christopher House still serves our immigrant population--now largely Latino. It is a population whose steady influx breathes oxygen into Chicago's lungs and reimagines our city every generation. From the time it opened, Christopher House has been there for all of us, because its leaders have understood that treating the newest Americans well means that all of us are treated better. So, Mr. Speaker, with this resolution, we recognize Christopher House for its century of contributions to Chicago. To the ``House with a Heart,'' I say from the bottom of my heart-- thank you very much. Thank you for enriching and improving the lives of Chicagoans for the last 100 years and we look forward to many more years of your services.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 14, 15 and 16.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 8 and 9.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are passing this crucial Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) extension, which will provide necessary stability for our Nation's economy in a post 9-11 world. I have strongly supported this legislation from the outset, and I congratulate Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their hard work and the excellent product as it passed the House. While I wish more of the House provisions we passed 10 days ago had survived conference, I am pleased that we are able to extend TRIA before the deadline, so that it does not expire in 2 weeks. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important conference report. A stable, secure insurance market is vital to the health of our national economy. More than 4 years ago, the stability of the insurance industry, and all of our Nation's policyholders, were put in jeopardy when insurers and reinsurers lost more than $30 billion as a result of the 9/11 attacks. After these substantial losses, insurers were unable to make terrorism insurance available, which left many of our Nation's businesses vulnerable to unacceptable risk. In response, Congress overwhelmingly passed TRIA to provide a temporary, limited federal backstop in the event of another catastrophic terrorist attack. While we still expect the insurance industry to eventually develop methods for making terrorism insurance available without government support, the market has not yet stabilized to the point where this is possible. Extension of TRIA, which is necessary to prevent the chill of development in our cities, has wide, bipartisan support, and should be enacted promptly.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment. I think that we should move forward and make sure that we have the groundwork for a program that allows, as President Bush has stated, those who work hard, play by the rules, to come out of the darkness and come out of the shadows and come forward. I do not think we should criminalize it at any level. We have administrative review now. We have civil penalties. We have a process. And I do not see why we should change that process, if indeed, as the chairman has said and so many people have said, that, next year, we are coming back to fix this thing. Well, let us not cause any interruptions in fixing this thing. I said we should not criminalize this in the first place just on principle. We have civil statutes that deal with this. So I stand, and the Hispanic Congressional Caucus has unanimously adopted a position to stand against this motion and this amendment in particular.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 612. I honor and support our troops and request an open debate on Iraq on the House floor.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for all of his hard work. Mr. Chairman, I guess I come to speak before this very, very able body today to say that we are really not solving the problem. The fact is that this bill represents a retreat from true immigration reform and from true security. Evaluate the bill, and you will see that it neither demonstrates the political will nor commits the requisite resources to deport 11 million people who currently live and work in the United States of America. So after the bill is passed, there will still be 11 million, and I do not see anything in the bill that is going to cure that problem; 11 million people who we should, as President Bush has urged, as all like- minded people have urged, should be given the opportunity to come out of the shadows of darkness, should come out of the marginalized existence of exploitation in which they live and be able to join all of us doing three things: demonstrating their good moral character; demonstrating that they pay taxes; demonstrating that they work and they contribute to this great country of ours. The bill does not do anything. It is silent. Eleven million people. Are we going to go out and arrest and detain and deport 11 million people? Nobody would argue that that is what we are going to do, because we have never demonstrated the political will to do that, nor have we ever committed the requisite resources to do that. So in the absence of that, if you truly want security here, I suggest that we should get their fingerprints; that we should have them come out of the darkness and give us their fingerprints; give us their bank accounts; give us their addresses and become full-fledged members of our society. I am not saying put them at the head of the line. Put them at the back of the line. Let us see what it truly is. They have committed what is a civil offense. That is what it is, according to our statute. You cannot retroactively make it a criminal offense. It is a civil offense, and let us deal with the civil offense that they have committed. What offense have they committed to come here? I do not know. But I just think that in America no one is in fear and trepidation of the Windex-wielding cleaning lady at K-Mart. I do not think anyone in America is in fear of the woman who wakes up every morning to cherish and to nourish and to raise the children of American citizens. No one is in fear when they go to their hotel room and they see the woman that has made their bed and cleaned their carpeting and placed their towels in their appropriate places. No one in this place fears walking into a restaurant and eating from the dishes that have been cleaned. No one in this room would say, God, I cannot eat those grapes, will not touch those apples from Washington State. Yet we well know who has toiled in those vineyards and in that agricultural sector in very tough conditions with very low wages. I do not see people in America saying, God, Luis, the Congress of the United States should do something. I want my son to be a dishwasher. I want my daughter to pick grapes out there in the State of California. We know who is doing these jobs. As a matter of fact, according to our own Department of Labor, our economy will continue to create low- wage, low-skilled, entry-level jobs for which there will not be an American workforce to fulfill those necessities. So given that reality, let us not cast that all of the problems and ills of our society are somehow upon the immigrants who have come to this country. I will suggest to you that they are your neighbors; that you know that when you walk into a building and you see those shiny floors, you know who was up the night before shining those floors; when you walk into that comfortable room after a long day of work, you know who cleaned that room; when you eat from those dishes, you know who washed them. It is critical and essential to our economy for their being here in the United States of America. So let us stop it. Let us put an end to it. I would say to all of my colleagues here today, if you are selling drugs, if you are a rapist, if you are a robber, if you are a murderer, if you are someone of ill repute, I and the colleagues I know would be the first to stand up and to say, Out with you and back to your country of origin, if that is what you have come here to do. But let us be honest. The immense majority of them are hardworking. The immense majority of them are people we know that are hardworking, taxpaying, good moral character people who want to do nothing more than what other immigrants have done before them, to become part of this great process. So let us keep that in mind as we continue this debate. Let us take the high road, not the low road, in this debate.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 618.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are finally considering this crucial Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) extension, which will provide necessary stability for our Nation's economy in a post 9/11 world. I have strongly supported this legislation from the outset, and I congratulate Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their hard work to bring it to the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important bill. A stable, secure insurance market is vital to the health of our national economy. More than 4 years ago, the stability of the insurance industry, and all of our Nation's policyholders, were put in jeopardy when insurers and reinsurers lost more than $30 billion as a result of the 9/11 attacks. After these substantial losses, insurers were unable to make terrorism insurance available, which left many of our Nation's businesses vulnerable to unacceptable risk. In response, Congress overwhelmingly passed TRIA to provide a temporary, limited Federal backstop in the event of another catastrophic terrorist attack. While we still expect the insurance industry to eventually develop methods for making terrorism insurance available without government support, the market has not yet stabilized to the point where this is possible. Extension of TRIA, which is necessary to prevent the chill of development in our cities, has wide, bipartisan support, and should be enacted promptly.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 609, 610 and 611.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 586, 587 and 588.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber November 7. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 557 and 558.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 569. Stated against: