Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Monday, June 12, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 300 and 301.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the saga continues, and there seems to be no end in sight for the Trump administration's growing legal and ethical problems. Every day another shoe drops, or at least another foot is inserted into the administration's mouth. The testimony of James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week showed us that this is no longer just a matter of foreign intelligence and the Russian meddling in American elections. While that is very important and we need to address the foreign intelligence and security aspects of that matter, the very important question of how we keep Russia from hacking our elections in the future, what is clear is that the investigations into the Trump administration are now matters for the Judiciary Committee. The gentlewoman from California, Senator Feinstein, and I were on CNN this weekend, and we made the point that the Judiciary Committee has the oversight responsibility for the Justice Department, therefore, it is time for the committee to do its job. That was the theme of my speech here last week, and nothing has happened. It is also the reason I wrote to Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte last week to request that he take action, hold hearings, begin preparations for the hearings that will come--and they will come--because the silence of the Judiciary Committee has been deafening so far. As soon as President Trump said on Friday he was willing to testify under oath 100 percent, I wrote Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte to say the committee should schedule a hearing and take the President at his word. Now, I don't think the chairman will invite the President, a man he campaigned for, because the role of the House Judiciary Committee right now is to protect the President at all costs, shielding the President from tough questions instead of representing the people's interest. In doing so, Judiciary Republicans and House Republicans in general are getting deeper and deeper into bed with this President. You see, they have a whole agenda, and they are counting on this President to help them cut taxes for people with trust funds while cutting healthcare, education, child care, civil rights and voting rights for people who work for a living. Mr. Speaker, the House Judiciary Committee ought to be in the middle of congressional examinations of the Trump administration, and so far they have been on the sidelines. Is it no longer the practice of the House of Representatives to hold oversight hearings? Is it no longer the practice of this body to hold the executive branch and the White House accountable? I have never seen an administration more in need of congressional oversight than this one, yet the Congress does not dare do anything that might cause the President to call someone out in one of his dawn Twitter rants. We know that the administration has a policy now--this administration--of not cooperating with congressional oversight, instructing agencies not to comply with inquiries from members of Congress unless they are a committee chairman, all of whom happen to be Republican. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the President and his administration are accountable to over 320 million Americans, all 435 Members of this body and 100 Senators as well, regardless of their party affiliation. At least one senior senator called this policy opposing congressional oversight nonsense. To his credit, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Mr. Grassley of Iowa, is not impacted by the Trump administration policy because he is a chairman, but he spoke out forcefully against the Presidential obstruction. See, my friends, that is how you do it, the way Mr. Grassley did it. Follow his example. And then there is our old friend, the former Speaker and an adviser to the President, Mr. Gingrich, who is now advising the President to terminate Mr. Mueller, the former FBI Director investigating the President and his subordinates, including the family members of the President. Mr. Gingrich said Mueller was a superb choice with an impeccable reputation for fairness just a couple of weeks ago, but now he says there is no way Mueller can be fair. He wants the President to fire Mueller and he wants a political fight against the very idea of special prosecutors. Now, Mr. Gingrich has been joined in this chorus by a Trump confidante and golf buddy, the president of Newsmax, who says the President is contemplating firing Mueller. Mr. Speaker, if you want to see the President on a fast track to impeachment, then he should take this advice and fire Mueller. If you want to see this President in the express lane to impeachment, no ifs, ands, or buts, then go for it. We dare you. Even the Judiciary Committee, which has shown no interest in doing anything other than rubber stamping this administration's agenda, would be forced to take action.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes Tuesday, June 6, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 286 and 287.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we waste a lot of time in the House Judiciary Committee passing bills we have already passed year after year that go nowhere. But now evidence is growing that our elections were interfered with by a foreign adversary, evidence that the President and Attorney General have been less than truthful about their meetings and relationship with this foreign adversary. And other committees in this body and the Senate and at the Justice Department have launched investigations into the behavior and truthfulness of the President, his subordinates, his family; but from the House Judiciary Committee, we have heard exactly nothing, not a peep, not a hearing or a subpoena, nada, zip, nothing. Just crickets. When I joined the Judiciary Committee, I remember hearing something about how the committee has jurisdiction over the enforcement of laws, the courts, the conduct of the executive branch, especially when it comes to law enforcement agencies like the FBI, Justice Department, activities that may or may not be criminal. And guess what. I was right. You need look no further than the committee's website, where it proudly proclaims: ``The committee's weighty agenda has frequently placed it in a central role in American politics, most notably during its consideration of impeachment charges against Presidents of the United States in both 1974 and 1998.'' So with all due respect to the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee, and our colleagues in the Senate, it is the Judiciary Committee in the House where impeachment begins. We are like the grand jury of the House of Representatives when it comes to impeachment. Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director investigating the President, will not be able to indict him while he is President no matter what he uncovers. Most legal scholars argue a sitting President cannot be indicted in criminal court. So it is the Judiciary Committee that will bring charges if there is evidence of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' as provided in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. But here we are with evidence that the Attorney General lied to a committee of Congress about his contacts with senior Russian officials and lied on his security clearance application about contacts with Russian officials who are suspected by our government of being covert espionage operatives, with evidence that hacking and other activities, in fact, took place directed by Russia. And nothing from the Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General publicly recused himself from any matters at the Justice Department related to the investigation of Russia contacts, but the Attorney General played a role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey. And we know now, because the President said so, that the firing of Comey, the FBI Director that was investigating him, was done because the President said he was ``under great pressure'' from the Russia investigation. And still nothing from the Judiciary Committee. Now, let's go back to those two dates when the Judiciary Committee says we played a central role in American politics. In 1974, we had a criminal conspiracy that involved tampering with elections that went all the way to the Oval Office. It involved firing senior Justice Department officials who were part of the investigation. They asked the intelligence community to discredit those investigations in 1974. And there were secretly recorded conversations. Sound familiar? President Nixon soon resigned because he knew what was coming. In 1998, the issue of whether the President of the United States had lied to a grand jury about an extramarital sexual encounter with a consenting adult who was a subordinate, that is what that was about. House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde of the great State of Illinois, who, as it turned out, knew a thing or two about extramarital sexual encounters with consenting adults, passed four Articles of Impeachment, along an almost exclusively party-line vote. An impeachment trial was held in the Senate, which became an epic embarrassment to the Republican Party and to this body. But now, given all of the evidence of electoral tampering, the apparent efforts to cover it up, the actions of the President and the Attorney General to deflect and derail investigations, that, to me and to others, appears to be attempts at or actual obstruction of justice. From the committee of jurisdiction that is supposed to be in charge and taking action, what do we have? Not a peep, not a hearing, not a subpoena, nada, zip, nothing. Just crickets. Mr. Speaker, that has got to change, and I suspect it will, because it has to. The Constitution says it has to. Judiciary Committee, it is time to act and fulfill your constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I will not mince words. Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to support and implement Donald Trump's views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border, and his fantasy of a mass deportation force. You cannot spin it any other way. If we want to lower the standards for screening and hiring CBP officers, eliminate checks that could help weed out candidates with criminal histories or criminal intentions, and water down the integrity of this important national security source, this bill is for you. But if you care about border security and the integrity of the officers, you should join me in voting against the bill. To me and a lot of other people watching this debate, this is about something else. Remember that man descending the golden escalators at Trump Tower announcing his campaign for President by saying Mexicans who come to the U.S. are rapists, drug dealers, and murderers? Remember him? Do you want to buy into his vision of immigrants as a brown horde intent on doing America harm? If you are onboard with this, you are also onboard with building a wall; onboard with billions to be spent on deporting moms and dads who have lived here for decades; going after DREAMers as the Trump administration is doing today, deporting DREAMers from the United States of America. Where do you want to draw the line on the Trump deportation agenda? I say draw the line right here, right now, and don't give another inch. There are many ways to secure the Nation, but watering down the hiring standards of our men and women in uniform should not be one of them. Let's secure the border. Let's have them have the same test at the border that you have a DEA agent, FBI agent, Secret Service agent. What are we going to do? Not have them take polygraph tests? That is going to make America safe. I doubt it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Monday, May 22, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call votes 269 and 270.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 263, 264, 265, and 266 on Thursday, May 18, 2017. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on roll call votes 263, 264, and 265; I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call vote 266.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Wednesday, May 17, 2017. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on roll call votes 259, 260, 261, and ``Yea'' on roll call vote 262.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call vote 258 on Tuesday, May 16, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call vote 258.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I am pleased that the deal worked out between Democratic leadership and Republicans to keep the government open until October does not include funding for the President's ``tremendous'' border wall. But let's put that in perspective. A border wall will not deport thousands of people living and working in cities across the Nation or moms and dads in my neighborhood. A border wall will not deport anyone, and I seriously doubt it would do any good keeping anyone out, either. Building a 3,000-mile wall is a hugely expensive boondoggle to solve a policy problem many say we don't have. Border apprehensions have been going down steadily for years, and now we have people fleeing violence and persecution who are so scared of us they are deciding not to come to America and are applying for asylum somewhere else. They are not taking their legitimate claims for political asylum and safety to the Nation that is the hallmark of freedom. So while even Donald Trump admits that border apprehensions are significantly down, he says, 75 percent, it is not necessarily for reasons we should be proud of. But a wall? Are policy experts and pundits really discussing whether fifth century technology plays a role in modern homeland security? The Great Wall of China boosts tourism. It is not a factor in national security. What concerns me more is the spending on deportation that is still in the bill we will be voting on today. $1.2 billion of Trump's original $3 billion request for border security and interior enforcement is still there. Any money we give those agencies at this point will find its way into funding the President's mass deportation agenda. Now, imagine if we were applauding the approval of a budget that had $1.2 billion in new funding to roll back Roe v. Wade, additional funding from the Federal Government to restrict women's healthcare and reproductive rights. Well, I would never vote for that budget. But what if Trump asked us for $3 billion but we only gave him $1.2 billion to undermine workplace safety laws and labor rights? I would never do that. Let's just say it was $1.2 billion to defeat environmental regulations that protect clean air and water. Would we celebrate? I don't think so. Would we celebrate $1.2 billion in additional money to weaken the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts? Would we celebrate more money to combat and weaken same-sex marriage or take away transgender rights? I wouldn't. Adding $1.2 billion to the budget to make it easier for the U.S. Government to deport people should never be celebrated by any of us, and certainly not in the era of Trump when we know their number one policy priority is to scare immigrants into leaving or not coming in the first place. Look, the people who will be deported with the money we are voting on are usually people with no criminal background and deep roots in their communities. They are parents, teachers, businessowners, mostly people of color, who have lived and worked here a long time and are here, in many cases, seeking refuge, as is their right under our laws and international law. Yes, some are dangerous criminals, but don't believe the hype. The Trump administration and Attorney General Jeff Sessions are overhauling who we define as serious criminals so they can make their deportation force look benign and sometimes even beneficial. Mr. Speaker, I will not be voting for the omnibus bill because I don't believe that it is okay to slip another billion here or there into the budget to break up and destroy families, put moms and dads in detention, and send DREAMers out of the country--the only country they have ever known. I have looked into the eyes of children, of kids, U.S. citizens, whose parents have been deported. I have spoken to teachers in Chicago and across the country who have to deal with the fear in their students' lives every day. I have worked for decades with families who have complied--yes, for decades, I have worked with families who have complied with every order they have been given by Homeland Security and have reported to authorities like clockwork, but now when they report, they are deported from the United States of America. I cannot turn around and bless more money for the machinery that is grinding up families. I just won't do it. And I will not turn my back on the immigrant community of the United States of America by supporting funding that will be used to detain immigrants in private jails and put them on airplanes out of the country. Mr. Speaker, as long as we are going to shortchange health care in Puerto Rico and subsidize the deportation of families in Chicago, the budget will not have my vote.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, ``This is a new era. This is the Trump era.'' Mr. Speaker, those were the words of the Attorney General, the former Senator from Alabama. The Attorney General has launched a campaign to paint immigrants as criminals, rapists, gang members, and ``cartel henchmen.'' In his prepared remarks at the border a couple of weeks ago, the Attorney General planned to say the following: ``It is here, on this sliver of land, where we first take our stand against this filth.'' When he gave the speech he edited out the words ``this filth'' because, I guess, calling immigrants from Latin America ``filth'' was even too extreme for this Attorney General. But it remains on the DOJ website. In fact, as far as the Attorney General is concerned, any immigrant who is here illegally is a criminal. He has ordered the government to prosecute immigration violations, even minor ones, to the full extent of the law and to make prosecution of immigrants a top priority--on par with murder, drugs, counterfeiting, and kidnapping. He has ordered every one of the 94 U.S. Attorney Offices to appoint a special prosecuting attorney so that immigrants are considered public enemy number one, nationwide--not drug dealers, immigrants. According to the latest Federal data, 46 percent of all new Federal criminal prosecution is immigration related--not narcotics. The second highest crime prosecuted accounts only for 14 percent of new Federal cases. In the new Trump era, a felony prosecution against an immigrant who has been living and working here peacefully for decades is three times important than a felony prosecution of a drug dealer. And that imbalance is not enough for the Attorney General. He wants to prosecute immigrants beyond the full extent of the law by turning misdemeanors into felonies, and turning felonies into aggravated felonies. They think it will not look so ugly when the U.S. is deporting moms and dads who have raised successful families--or deporting children who grew up in the U.S. from the time they were toddlers--if the Attorney General and his team can look and tell the American people they were just thugs, gangbangers, and rapists. Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump want more immigrants criminalized, felonized, and deported. Yes, we are truly in the Trump era. But let's be frank. This is not a surprise when Donald Trump descended the gold escalator and announced his candidacy for President. Almost the first words out of his mouth were Mexicans are rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and immigration is turning America into a war zone. When he was a Senator from Alabama, the Attorney General made a career of associating immigrants with crime and doing his best to defeat reforms that would strengthen legal immigration and reduce illegal immigration. Deportation, criminalization, and restricting legal immigration were the bedrock of this Attorney General's approach when he was a U.S. Senator. Our legal immigration system already works fine according to both Senator and Attorney General Sessions, no matter that some people who are receiving their visas today applied for them when Bill Clinton was President and that those applying for visas today will probably get them when Chelsea Clinton is President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, when your constituents say, ``Hey, why don't those immigrants come here legally?'' or, ``Why don't they just go back and come back legally?'' the answer is clear: as a Senator, our Attorney General made sure that that was impossible. Next week, millions of Americans will take to the streets to demonstrate against mass deportation, the border wall, prison beds, and drive-by deportations. But it is not because we are soft on crime or love immigrants more than the people who were born here. No. We have a different vision of what the United States is and should always be. We are not an incarceration nation, a nation hostile to other countries and their people. We are a great nation, a nation that, in her greatness, is a beacon of hope to refugees, a land of opportunity for entrepreneurs, and a democracy with separate branches of government that act as effective checks and balances on unlimited power. The American people are sensible, fair, and pragmatic, and are correct when they reject the idea that a wall makes sense in the 21st century as the centerpiece of our immigration policy. We are not persuaded by the poetry of the Attorney General when he stands at the border and says: ``It is here, on this sliver of land, where we first take our stand against this filth.'' No, we think of another, better poem, the one at the Statue of Liberty, the lady with her torch in the harbor, who shares our deeply held values as Americans and says every day to the entire world at that harbor: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 222 and 223 Tuesday, April 25, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on both

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, if Donald Trump is going to be successful as a President--successful from his point of view; not the point of view of the American people, or history, or the rest of the world, or the point of view of people who like peace and freedom, but from his point of view--then he is going to have to rely on fear. He got elected by creating fear about immigrants, Mexicans, and Latinos, calling us rapists and criminals. He got elected by creating fear about President Obama, the Blacks, thugs, and big cities. He got elected by creating fear among Americans about the big, scary world out there with threats from ISIS, al-Qaida, and Mexico. But for some reason, he left out things like the fear of Russia or his buddy and friend, Putin. And if President Trump is going to enact his agenda of deportations, building a wall, and making it impossible for people to come to the United States with visas, he needs to use fear as well. For example, he feels he needs to publish a list every week of the crimes that were committed by immigrants to scare Americans into fearing our community. And Trump needs to use fear in another very important way. He needs to scare the immigrant community. Why? Because he knows he doesn't have the money, the manpower, or the time to drive 11 million men, women, and children who are undocumented out of this country. He doesn't have enough jails, ICE agents, or airplanes to deport 11 million people. That is the population about as big as the State of Illinois, and such a max exodus will not be easy. So what do they do? They use fear. Trump has to make immigrants scared to leave their houses. Trump has to make parents scared to take their kids to school. Trump has to make doctors' offices, courthouses, police stations, and fire departments places where immigrants are afraid to go. Trump has to make sure that undocumented immigrants who are raising children--most of whom are American citizens--in families who have lived in the U.S. on average for more than a dozen years, and who own homes, cars, and businesses, he has to make them so afraid that they want to leave this country. It is a Presidency and a Presidential policy agenda that relies on fear and bullying to achieve success--or what people who surround Trump define as success, at any rate. How do Americans respond to fear? Do we hide in our homes and isolate ourselves and run? No, that is not what people do in the United States of America, and we never will. We stand up and we stand together and confront fear. So on May 1, millions of Americans are going to stand up. We are going to stand together and we are going to rise up. May 1 is an international day to recognize the contributions of working people, and it is observed as Labor Day in much of the world. This year, it will be a day to honor working people of all types, but there will be a special emphasis this year on immigrants working and living in the United States. In 42 cities in 33 States, from Milwaukee to Seattle, to LA, to Chicago, to Boston, cities and towns will hold activities, marches, rallies, and workshops to lift up immigrant communities and demonstrate the solidarity between Americans and immigrants. This is a campaign to galvanize broad support for immigrants, so this is not going to just be a Latino thing or an immigrant thing. Churches, mosques, and congregations are going to rise up. Unions, students, teachers, and working men and women are going to rise up on May 1. Let's be clear, when we marched for women in massive numbers the day after the inauguration, it was not just women marching. When we came to the airports to stand up for American values and against Trump's Muslim ban, it was not just Muslims standing up for American values. It was a lot of the rest of us, too. So if you care about justice, rise up with us on May 1. If you think a man should be able to use a men's bathroom, even if his birth certificate says he was born a woman, rise up with us. If you think global warming is a thing and science is a thing and the planet Earth is a thing to be protected, then go to riseupmay1.org to get more info about what is planned in your city or your State. This will be a day for all Americans to demonstrate our resistance to the mass deportation, mass discrimination, and mass deception policies of our President. The way you deal with fear is to stand up with your friends and allies and demonstrate your strength in numbers. That is why I am going to rise up on May 1. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to welcome the graduating class of 2017 from Inter-American Magnet School in the city of Chicago and the parents who are accompanying the students and the teachers. A special welcome to my grandson, Luis Andres Figueroa Gutierrez, who is with them this morning at our Capitol.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 209 and 210 Monday, April 3, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on roll call votes 209 and 210.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Subcommittee on Immigration, the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, attempted to reprimand me by reminding me that House rules prevent Members from ``casting aspersions on the President of the United States.'' And what did I say to get this reprimand? I said that the President of the United States had said that Mexicans were criminals and rapists. Well, as the sportscasters used to say, let's go to the videotape. Almost the first words out of Donald Trump's mouth when he descended the golden escalators to launch his Presidential campaign were this: When Mexico sends its people, they are not sending their best. They are bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They are rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. Well, I left out that part about some, I assume, are good people. But the chairman of the committee said I was not following House rules because I was casting aspersions on the President because, apparently, I was saying what the President, himself, had actually said. And if that was offensive to the chairman, I agree. It is offensive. That was the point of making the speech. So is repeating the words of the President against House rules? And if so, why? Because they are hateful and ugly things to say about our fellow human beings? I don't think we should be barred from repeating the words of the President because they are hateful and ugly things to say about our fellow human beings, because he said them, and he is the President, and I respect the office. So maybe it has to be something else. Maybe we cannot say things the President has said because it is not appropriate to say some of the things he has said about people, like the dehumanizing language he uses when describing which body parts he can grab women by, for example. Now, Mr. Speaker, rather than saying, as I said earlier, let's go to the videotape, I think every single American has seen that videotape. When I have discussed the President saying these awful, hurtful things about where he can grab women, either here on the floor or on the Judiciary Committee, I have actually had to clean up the language so it is safe for daytime C- SPAN audiences. So what is it about repeating the words of this particular President in the U.S. House of Representatives that the gentleman from Wisconsin feels is a violation of the rule? Maybe it is the lies. I looked through the House rules, and I didn't see any section that said, Members, thou shalt not lie. No, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't in the House rules. But, clearly, repeating things that this President said means that you will be repeating lies, and it just goes with the territory. There was the original lie as President, barely a few hours in office, saying that his crowd was the largest crowd in the history of Presidential inaugurations. Then there was the one about the Muslim ban, which the President said was a Muslim ban; his key adviser, the former mayor of New York, said was a Muslim ban; his other key adviser, Stephen Miller, said was a Muslim ban; but which the White House tried to say was not, in fact, a Muslim ban because it didn't ban all Muslims. Several Federal courts have agreed with the President that what he ordered was a Muslim ban and disagreed with the President's lawyer saying that it was not a Muslim ban. But what about when the President said that he saw American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11? We know that was a lie. Or that 3 million illegal votes were cast on election day, causing the President to lose the popular vote, which he had walked back from the claim originally that 3 million undocumented immigrants had voted on election day? In either case, it was a lie. Then there is the illegal wiretapping ordered by the previous President of the United States, President Obama, on President-elect Trump, which certainly looks like a lie at this point. So, Mr. Speaker, I am starting to wonder if repeating a lie that the President has told the American people is against the House rules. Or maybe it is accusing the President of lying that is, in the words of the subcommittee chairman, casting aspersions. But let's take a look. Here is the definition of the verb ``lie'' from Webster's Dictionary: ``to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive; to create a false or misleading impression.'' By those definitions, I would say I am on pretty solid ground, from a factual standpoint, that the President of the United States has told lies. Water is wet, dogs have four legs, and President Trump tells lies. There may be exceptions, but basically all three are truthful statements. Unless we are outlawing the truth in Congress, I think that pointing out lies by our President is not only within the rules, it is our moral obligation and duty as elected leaders of a free nation to point them out. So then I am left to wonder, ``What is it about repeating the President's words that so upset the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin?'' and I figured it out. It is upsetting to Republican Members of the House to hear the words of the President of the United States because they know they have to defend them as the leader of their party, and I can understand why that would make any human being very uncomfortable.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call votes 195 and 196 Monday, March 27, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call votes 195 and 196.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken here before about the surge in demand for citizenship we are seeing in the Fourth Congressional District of Illinois. Thousands who are eligible are taking the step to become citizens because they feel threatened by a President and administration that does not seem to think of immigrants, refugees, Muslims, or Latinos as human beings. So the one way to protect oneself and to protect one's family is to apply for citizenship if you are eligible. Some days they are lined up out the door of my office. So full are our daily appointments, we had to add a Saturday citizenship workshop to accommodate all of the people who wanted to apply, and we will be adding additional workshops. At one workshop a couple of weeks ago, staff and volunteers worked with families to fill out the paperwork, assemble all of the evidence and fees for the application. In one day we helped 260 people fill out their citizenship applications. I discovered something very important. People keep coming back to me and asking: What can I do to fight back? What can I do to help immigrant communities who are under siege by President Trump, ``President'' Bannon, and all the rest of the people who want to drive immigrants out of the country? So I told them they could help others apply for citizenship, and they came in droves--hipsters with funky facial hair, women with pink knit hats they made for the Women's March, environmental and LGBTQ activists, union members, and just plain old folks from my district who are not themselves immigrants but who feel the solidarity with immigrants in their community. You know what? This new group, after getting a little training, sat for a few hours with immigrant families, going over their histories, their stories, their reasons for being here, and their reasons for applying for U.S. citizenship. And they were pretty good at filling out government forms. They formed a bond. They got to know each other. They were helping each other accomplish a mutual goal, which is standing up to xenophobia and the Trump-Bannon era. The citizens and the applicants to become citizens are both worried about Republicans taking away their health care and eliminating the environmental laws that have made the water we drink and the air we breathe so much safer. They worry about where women and girls will get healthcare services in cities like Chicago if Trump and his buddies defund Planned Parenthood, or what happens after the courts are stacked with judges who are so out of step with the modern era on gender and civil rights, consumer protections, women's health, and any of the other issues people care about. Anyone who walked out of that citizenship workshop where 260 new citizenship applications were completed felt a sense of community and interconnectedness with one another. Now, it is sad to report that thousands of my constituents can't spend a Saturday morning applying for citizenship. Many of them are at legal clinics or law offices filling out papers to address the very fear that they will lose their homes, their savings, and their families if Trump's deportation force knocks on their door. They are filling out, by the thousands, power of attorney documents and child custody papers in case they are grabbed off the street, in their homes, or, worse yet, in their places of worship. It is heartbreaking. Moms and dads are making decisions about who their kids will go to live with if they get picked up and deported. Which relative, neighbor, or older sibling will be in charge if mom and dad are taken away? Believe me, these kids know what is going on. The 5 million U.S. citizens who have parents at risk of deportation know that their government is a threat to their safety and their security. Their own government could come to the door and upend their lives at any moment, and their parents are preparing for the worst. It is the humanity, the love, their striving for a better life that comes through in these parents who want what is best for their children and what was unavailable to them in some far-off country. These are very real people who have no legal avenues that allow them to live and work here legally, who have no options other than to hide or leave, who have been cut off from fully integrating into our society as citizens because Congress has been fighting over immigration reform. These are the people that Mr. Bannon, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. King have been working together for years to get out of what they call their country so that our erratic new President can point to deportations and say that he is making America great again. What is clear from the citizenship surge and all those who want to help is that America is not only great, not only kind, not only dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but there are Americans and those who want to be Americans willing to stand up and resist when leaders take us in the wrong direction. Mr. Speaker, you will see millions of Americans and aspiring Americans marching together in American cities across our great Nation on May 1, and when you do, you will see this bond and this shared humanity this coming May 1.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 173, 174, 175 on Monday, March 20, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call votes 173, 174, and 175.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for a rollcall vote on Friday, March 17, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 170.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I use Twitter and have about 65,000 followers, which is pretty modest by Trump standards; but my staff is smart enough to keep the launch code secret from me so that when I say something, we find the right words to express what I want to say, and occasionally, very occasionally, I have a chance to cool down before I fire off a tweet. But this week we learned that one of our colleagues doesn't have a reasonable staff person who helps him think through his tweets. On Sunday, Steve King of Iowa tweeted out his love and praise for the anti-Muslim nationalist candidate in Holland who is running on an explicitly White supremacist platform; anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-refugee, anti-people of color. This candidate is the full White nationalist package. And apparently, King and Geert Wilders are very good friends. In his tweet, Representative King says: ``Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We cannot restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.'' Let that sink in for a moment. In context, what it means is: A, Steve King believes Western civilization is under attack by outsiders; and, B, those outsiders can never be assimilated or be considered part of our civilization. God knows what Representative King would think of my grandson who likes to tell me that in this arm he is Puerto Rican and in this one he is Mexican. But he says: ``Grandpa, right here, I am 100 percent American.'' You think: My grandson, yeah, he is right, and the Congressman from Iowa is wrong. I think my grandson is every bit as American as Steve King or I am. I was born during Jim Crow, when separate but equal was the law of the land. But during my lifetime, we fought segregation and racism, and my daughters have been fighting it even more in their generation, so that exclusion, segregation, and racial hatred are no longer the law of the land. Now, at least as far as I am concerned, my grandson, who was born in America, is an American, whether Steve King likes it or not. Born in Illinois, he is not someone else's baby. He is 100 percent American. He is part of our civilization, and he is the future of America, along with Steve King's grandchildren. Just to be clear, Representative King's message was warmly received and retweeted by none other than David Duke, the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, who has been a very proud Republican candidate on numerous occasions. Duke said: ``Just in case you were thinking of moving, sanity reigns supreme in Iowa's Fourth Congressional District,'' and, ``God bless Steve King.'' Oh, but Representative King was not done. He is never done. He did an interview with an Iowa talk radio show where he discussed ``the plan'' of television anchorman Jorge Ramos to make White people the minority in America, causing King to respond that: ``I will predict that Hispanics and the Blacks will be fighting each other before that happens.'' So what happens when a Member of Congress makes racist remarks? Is he censured? Are his words taken down? Is he rebuked by the leaders of his party? If he traveled somewhere without getting permission or he accepted a gift without prior approval of Congress, he would be punished. He might even get censured or called out in some way. But for making racist comments, for supporting a racist candidate in someone else's election, or for saying things that receive high praise from David Duke and the KKK, nothing is going to happen. I have not heard leaders in the Republican Party scrambling to say that Steve King does not represent their views on race, religion, diversity, and the threat that ``somebody else's babies'' pose to American civilization. A friend of mine in Chicago asked me what I thought was going on when a Member of Congress says such hurtful, xenophobic things, calling, essentially, on Black and Brown people to join in a race war. The answer is that people like Representative King feel empowered: empowered by the presence of Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions; empowered by a President who wants us all to fear Muslims, fear Mexicans, and, frankly, fear all Latinos, even my American-born grandson. This is what happens when American men and women remain silent. When we do not stand up to the bully, the racist, the nationalist, they get more and more empowered. They get more and more empowered, and their actions become more and more normal. Well, saying that Black and Brown people will be fighting each other and saying that non-White people are somehow somebody else's children and not our children--the children of a nation that believes all men are created equal--well, that is not normal, and the American people will not accept the silence of the majority party when one of their own speaks out in this way. I am waiting for the censure, the denunciations, and the rebukes. But I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the resistance to this President and his policies is growing in America's heartland. If the 1,200 people who came to my townhall meeting in Chicago on Monday night are any indication, there is a movement in the United States that is standing up to the fear, the racism, the lies, and the divisiveness that comes from the President, his people, and his Twitter account every single day. The Logandale School auditorium and gym was packed. No, not like The National Mall on Inauguration Day with wide-open spaces and the President's imaginary crowd of 1.5 million people. No, my townhall was actually packed like The Mall on the day after the inauguration for the Women's March. It was a diverse crowd of people who care about America and defending their country. It was overwhelming. We had Ahmed Rehab, the inspirational leader of CAIR-Chicago, talking about what was going on in Chicago to resist the President's new and unimproved ban on refugees and Muslims. He was joined by Equality Illinois, Planned Parenthood, and the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, talking about how the people of Chicago are coming together to resist the President's attacks on women's health, on LGBTQ rights, on public schools and education, on women's rights, and on the environment. It was the intersection of all of the communities and the issues that are under attack by President Trump and his co-President Bannon. This townhall was the mother of all intersectionality events--right there in Chicago, in America's heartland. No, they were not paid activists. They were ordinary people trying to get answers and defend their community against an unprecedented threat coming from the White House and Republicans in Congress. For more than an hour, I answered questions, and then I stayed in the parking lot for another hour and talked with people who still had questions--and some were heartbreaking. A public school teacher I have known for years asked me how she can help her students. Her kids are being kept out of school or are losing sleep or are displaying signs of depression because of the fear that they have that they will be separated from their parents if they are deported. She wants to comfort them, but the reality is she cannot. Individuals asked me how they can protect families who are terrified that they will get separated and destroyed. Just this week, a mother I have known for years who has a stay of deportation and has been regularly reporting to ICE officials for years told me she is being deported in 6 weeks. She has a U.S. citizen husband and four U.S. citizen children, and she has complied with the law and she has complied and reported to authorities, only to be told that, under Trump, the rules have changed and she is now a top priority for deportation--not because she should be deported, but because she can be deported. This fear is having an impact on families and children. But what came through to me at the townhall meeting is that families, vulnerable immigrants, and millions of children with a birthright to live as Americans are not alone. There are thousands and thousands of allies who are joining together to defend families in Chicago and everywhere else. At the townhall on Monday, I appealed for help because this is the very same room that this coming Saturday, Mr. Speaker, my office will be holding a citizenship workshop. I asked those who are already citizens to come and help those who are applying for citizenship, and hundreds of hands went up in the air saying they are ready to help. We scheduled the citizenship workshop because we are unable to satisfy my constituents' huge demand for citizenship information. Some days we have lines out the door at my office on Fullerton Avenue with people wanting to know: How can I become a citizen of the United States of America? So all day Saturday, we will have a small army of family defenders trained in citizenship helping their neighbors pursue naturalization and the American Dream. Just as you see the school packed with voters and constituents, you will see the room packed this Saturday with people applying for citizenship to the United States of America and packed with Americans that are already citizens ready to help them. That is what Chicago is all about, and that is what the heartland is all about, and that is what America is all about. Women in hijabs and women in pink hats are standing together to fight attacks on Muslims and attacks on women's rights. Environmental activists are joining men and women who fly the rainbow flag of the LGBTQ community to resist the President's agenda. The entire community will stand together as the mass deportation wave becomes a day-to-day reality in our communities. And the message is clear: if you come for one of us, you have to go through all of us. My constituents demanded I be a wrench in Trump's cruel agenda, and I, Mr. Speaker, do not intend to disappoint them.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call votes 127 and 128 on Tuesday, March 7, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call vote 127 and ``Nay'' on roll call vote 128.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 116 and 121 on Wednesday, March 1, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on roll call votes 116 and 121.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 100, 101 and 102 on Monday, February 27, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea roll call votes 100 and 102, and Nay on roll call vote 101.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I will speak in Spanish to the people of Puerto Rico. The translation is at the desk. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) Mr. Speaker: I am going to speak Spanish, the language of Puerto Ricans because democracy demands transparency and clarity. The essence of the debate over Puerto Rico's future is the difference between assimilation, represented in the legislation proposed by Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez (H.R. 260) and the legislation I have introduced (H.R. 900). I have never excluded statehood. The assimilationists have excluded independence and free association from their proposals. What my legislation does is simply add balance and corrects a disequilibrium. From now on, the debate is between the assimilationist leaders and the people, the Puertoricanists. Assimilation is not the only option before the Congress of the United States. My bill proposes free association and independence as options. This is what the Puertoricanists propose. What motivates us? The love of Puerto Rico and defending our heritage; believing that we can be self-sufficient; believing that we can determine our own future without masters; believing in ourselves. The Puertoricanists are convinced that we can create jobs in a strong and vibrant economy with people who are innovative, creative and completely capable of determining their own future. The assimilationist leaders think that we'll starve to death without the United States. The Puertoricanists do not arrest students when they lift their voices in defense of democracy. That is what the assimilationist leaders do. The Puertoricanists believe that first you pay the pensions of working people, while the assimilationists prefer to pay American bondholders on Wall Street. The Puertoricanists love and protect the land. The assimilationists want to destroy it by constructing pipelines. The Puertoricanists understand that democracy must flourish. The free expression of the people is sacred. Assimilationist leaders, when they don't like what they hear from the people, call in the riot squad. Assimilationist leaders haven't attacked what my legislation would do, they have attacked its proponents. Assimilationists want Members of Congress to only hear their version of the future. They are annoyed because this Member has brought before the Congress the other two options, which, in fact, are the options up for a plebiscite vote in Puerto Rico this year. In Puerto Rico, they want one reality and in the Congress they pretend there is another. No, with my bill we have balance, truth and transparency. This is democracy. In this Puertoricanists believe: debate, discussion, freedom of ideas. Assimilationist leaders throughout history have chased and jailed Puertoricanists, and when they did not jail them, they took them to Cerro Maravilla. Assimilationists say the Puertoricanists are anti-American. No, the Puertoricanists and anti-colonialists. They want for Puerto Rico the sovereignty enjoyed and celebrated in the United States. Yes, the Puertoricanists want the same thing the Americans have, to live in a free and sovereign nation where we determine our own destiny without masters. Puertoricanists see the sun and see the energy we can harvest; see the land and the food we can eat. Puertoricanists are motivated by love of country, love of our heritage and the understanding that we can be great, that we are intelligent and capable of innovation and creativity. From my infancy in exile in the United States I listened to the song ``Preciosa'' and came to understand that the tyrant--the dark evil--is American colonialism. So said Rafael Hernandez, the singing conscience of my people. Puertoricanists longingly recall the song ``En mi Viejo San Juan (In my Old San Juan)'' where it says ``this strange nation,'' just as Puerto Ricans in the U.S. say ``this is not my land''--when they confront abuse, discrimination and racism. ``Puerto Rico is.'' The Puerto Rican is his diaspora, from New York to Chicago, San Juan to Ponce, we are all Puerto Ricans. As our national poet, Juan Antonio Corretjer, wrote: ``I would be Puerto Rican even if I were born on the moon.'' To which I would add, with a great deal of respect, ``I would be Puerto Rican, even if I lived on the moon.'' Senor presidente: Voy a hablar en espanol, el vernaculo de los puertorriquenos porque la democracia exige transparencia y claridad. La esencia del debate acerca del futuro de Puerto Rico es la diferencia entre el asimilismo, representado por el proyecto presentado por Jenniffer Gonzalez, y el que yo presente. Yo nunca he excluido la estadidad. Los asimilistas han excluido la independencia y la libre asociacion. Lo que hace mi proyecto es sencillamente traer balance, corregir un desequilibrio. De aqui en adelante, el debate es entre los lideres asimilistas y el pueblo, los puertorriquenistas. La asimilacion ya no es la unica opcion ante el Congreso. Mi proyecto propone la libre asociacion y la independencia. Eso es lo que proponen los puertorriquenistas. qQue nos motiva a los puertorriquenistas? El amor a Puerto Rico; defender su herencia; creen que podemos ser autosuficientes; creen que podemos determinar nuestro futuro sin tener amos; creen en si mismos. Estan convencidos que podemos crear empleos, con una economia fuerte y vibrante de un pueblo innovador, creativo, y totalmente capaz de determinar su propio futuro. Los lideres asimilistas piensan que nos morimos de hambre sin los Estados Unidos. Los puertorriquenistas no macanean a los estudiantes cuando levantan su voz en defensa de la democracia--eso lo hacen los lideres asimilistas. Los puertorriquenistas creen que primero hay que pagar las pensiones al pueblo mientras los asimilistas prefieren pagar los bonistas norteamericanos de Wall Street. Los puertorriquenistas aman y protegen su tierra. Los asimilistas quieren destruirla construyendo un gasoducto. Los puertorriquenistas entienden que la democracia debe florecer. La libre expresion del pueblo es sagrada. Los lideres asimilistas, cuando no les gusta lo que escuchan del pueblo, llaman a la fuerza de choque. Los lideres asimilistas no han atacado lo que propone mi proyecto. Ellos atacan al proponente. Los asimilistas quieren que los congresistas solamente escucharan su version del futuro. Estan molestos porque este congresista ha traido antes el Congreso las otras dos alternativas, que de hecho, se van a votar en el plebiscito de Puerto Rico. En Puerto Rico quieren una realidad, y los asimilistas en el Congreso quieren pretender que hay otra. No, con mi proyecto, aqui va a haber balance, verdad y transparencia: esa es la democracia, en eso creemos los puertorriquenistas--el debate, la discusion y la libertad de ideas. Los lideres asimilistas, a traves de la historia han perseguido y metido a los puertorriquenistas en la carcel, y si no en la carcel, los llevan hasta Cerro Maravilla. Los asimilistas dicen que los puertorriquenistas son antiamericanos. No y no. Los puertorriquenistas son anticoloniales. Quieren para Puerto Rico la soberania que tienen y disfrutan los norteamericanos. eSi, asi es! Los puertorriquenistas quieren lo mismo que tienen los norteamericanos: vivir en una nacion libre y soberana donde ellos mismos dictan su futuro y no tienen amo. Los puertorriquenistas ven el sol y ven energia que podemos cosechar. Ven la tierra y ven alimentos que nos daran de comer. Los puertorriquenistas estan motivados por el amor a la patria y su herencia, y el conocimiento de que podemos ser grandes, que tenemos la inteligencia y la capacidad de innovar y crear. Desde mi infancia en el destierro en Estados Unidos escuche la cancion ``Preciosa'' y vine a entender que el tirano, la negra maldad es el colonialismo norteamericano. Lo dijo Rafael Hernandez, la conciencia cantada de mi pueblo. Los puertorriquenistas recuerdan con anoranza su patria ``En mi Viejo San Juan'' la cancion que dice ``. . . esa extrana nacion'', como decian los boricuas en Estado Unidos, ``esta no es mi tierra,'' cuando confrontaban el abuso, discriminacion y racismo. Puerto Rico lo es. El puertorriqueno es su diaspora de Nueva York a Chicago, de San Juan a Ponce, todos somos puertorriquenos. Como escribio nuestro poeta nacional, Juan Antonio Corretjer, ``Yo seria boricua aunque naciera en la luna''. Y, anado con todo el respeto, ``seria boricua aun si viviese en la luna''.