Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It's as though they said to my father, Let's check your education record, Mr. Gutierrez. Oh, no doctor before your name, no fancy initials, Mr. Gutierrez, after your name? Well, Mr. Gutierrez, you and the kids stay home. You can't work. That is not America. There was no special line for Ph.D. and master's degree holders on Ellis Island. There was no asterisks on the Statue of Liberty that said IQ must be there in a higher standard. They are saying my father--and I resent it--was too stupid to make it, but he put two kids through college, and one in the House of Representatives.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let's look at what we've debated here this morning. The truth is, as the gentleman from California so rightfully notes, this is something we can all agree on, and that is STEM visas to supply the need for that economic engine of our economy. That's not really the question here. The question is: At what cost do we allow this to happen? And what we are saying is it is almost as though November 6 came and went and my friends on the other side of the aisle just never listened to the verdict of the people. And what they said to us was, Stop picking winners and losers. Stop dividing and pitting one American against another. How many countless occasions have we heard our friends on the other side of the aisle decry us for class warfare, and yet they come with a proposal here today, and we can use their very words: They want smart people; they want educated people; they want people that are going to add something to the economy. Well, let me just suggest that we, many of us in this Congress today, came from very humble roots. And, yes, I resent the fact that people come before the well of the House to tout the virtues of their moms and dads and say, My mom worked really hard. She scrubbed pots; she stayed up; she mopped people's homes; she worked so hard. She had nothing left on her fingers so that I could get an education and I could come to the Congress of the United States. And yet they come and propose something that will deny other people that same opportunity to come here to work hard, to sweat and to toil and to one day maybe send their son or daughter to the Congress of the United States. We can find these speeches throughout the history of the Congress of the United States; but the difference today is that this side of the aisle wants to be honest and consistent with that story, that virtuous story of immigrants who have come here to sweat and to toil from all kinds. We don't want to go back to the day of ``Irish need not apply.'' We know the history of immigration in this country when they were saying, Well, not those people, not those that are not educated, not those that are hungry, not those that are famished, they should not come here. That's an old argument and we shouldn't be making it today, especially after the election that we just had. All we're saying to the other side of the aisle is: Why is it that you couldn't sit down with this side of the aisle in a bipartisan manner? Because that's what people said during the election. They said, Listen, guys, we want you to settle down. We want you to work this out for the good of the American people. I'm going to tell you why I believe you couldn't negotiate with us. Because you have to negotiate with NumbersUSA. Why don't we just say it. They're the party that's not here in the well of the House, but they're here in spirit and in the legislative policy that we are reiterating here today. You can't negotiate with us because you have to negotiate with the most extreme element of American society on immigration and not with those that want to bring about comprehensive immigration reform and reform in our immigration system. And what is NumbersUSA? In short, NumbersUSA, a short, descriptive modifier should call it an immigration reduction organization. So who did you negotiate with? The immigration reduction organization. And that's why you have to put up the visas, these visas that have allowed tens of thousands of people to come to this country and to work hard and to sweat and to toil and to make this a greater Nation for all of us. Now, how does it reduce the numbers? It's simple. You know it and we know it. Every graduate, master's, and Ph.D. on an annual basis in the United States, what is the number? What is the number? That's the number we should be cognizant of here today. It's 29,000. Now it's 55,000 visas. So why is it that we're offering 55,000 visas for 29,000 possible graduates? And wait a minute. That's if every graduate doesn't go back to their country. And we know many of them return to their countries to build those nations, and we want that to continue. We want them to come to the United States of America and go back to their country and foster democracy and goodwill. So many of them do that. But not all the 29,000 stay here. So what happens? You eliminate 50,000 visas. You say we're going to give you 55,000. You know you only can use 29,000. It's a net loss. The people on the other side of the aisle keep telling us, Why don't they come through the legal way? Why don't they come through the legal way? Why do they always have to go under and around? They should come here legally because we're for legal immigration. Today you're not for legal immigration because, in the end, you reduce the ability of people to come legally to the United States of America, and that is the Diversity program. And lastly, let me just be very, very clear. When we look at this and we talk about the continent of Africa, we think it's important that every continent of the world be able to come here and contribute to the great Nation that is because that is the diversity and the greatest tradition of America: Ellis Island, bring me everyone from everywhere to sweat and to toil and to make America a greater Nation. But think about it a moment. Just do the math. If half of the 55,000 Diversity visas come from the continent of Africa, and there are only 29,000 total STEM, come on, just do the numbers and you can see why it is that on our side of the aisle. Let's sit down. Let's have a hearing. Let's bring in the experts. Let's have a discussion and a debate. Let's work together. Let's sit back. But if we're going to move America forward, then we have to stop negotiating with those that want to keep us in the past, and that's NumbersUSA. It's NumbersUSA who said to you self-deportation should be the rule of law in America; S.B. 1070 is great and should be institutionalized in every State of the Union. We rejected that this last election. In this last election, there was a referendum and there were those of us on one side that said to the American people, We want an immigration system that is fairer and sets aside the political bickering to the one side and allows us to fix our immigration system, and another that said, We want to stand in the past. Let's work together to build a better future for all of us. I honestly and earnestly want that to happen, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that offends my sense of fairness, that offends my sense of the great American tradition that is our immigration tradition. Thank you so much.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. We've heard about how important STEM visas are. And we don't want to debate the point; they're important. That's why when we have the real immigration debate, the debate that will result in the signature of the President, the debate that starts in January when Congress is sworn in, that's why we will have STEM visas in that bill. So everyone agrees STEM visas are important; and if you didn't know this before the last election, I hope you know it now. The American people want us to fix our immigration system. But the more important message I got from the election is that American people say that we can solve the immigration issue if Republicans and Democrats work together, put aside bitterness, come to the table in an honest manner. It's not enough to talk about lowering the rhetoric. If we do it in an honest manner, a transparent manner, we can solve the tough problems of immigration and put it at the top of our list. We need to approach immigration as a faucet of America's past, present, and future, and solve the problems we have with our current immigration mess like adults: honestly and openly and in a bipartisan manner. We need to stop scoring cheap political points and playing games with immigration and start working together, not bringing bills without ever discussing and negotiating with the other side of the aisle. That's not the way to be comprehensive. This is why it is so disappointing that the majority has decided to undermine an area of bipartisan agreement on STEM visas by loading up the measure with provisions that are a slap in the face to the core values and the rich tradition of immigrants to the United States of America. If you support this bill, you're saying that one group of immigrants is better than another, that one type of educated, degree-holding person and their work is more important than others. In order to give visas to those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees, Republicans make two demands. First, we take away visas and the only means of legal immigration from 50,000 people who may not have Ph.D.s and master's degrees. Talk about picking winners and losers. My dad, if he had been an immigrant from Ireland or Nigeria or Taiwan, would have been told, No, America is not for you under this bill, Mr. Gutierrez. It's like when they used to hang up signs in America saying, ``Help wanted. Irish need not apply.'' They were part of the diversity program today that they want to kill. The second thing this bill requires is that we treat the families of those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees differently than we treat the families of those who don't have doctorates. If you have a master's or a Ph.D., we say, Please, come to America. Bring your wife, bring your husband, bring your kids. We'll give them all permission to work. Automatic work permits for spouses, no waiting for STEM-degree holders. But if you don't have a Ph.D. or a master's degree, we're going to take away your wife's ability to work legally. We may let her in 6 months earlier, but--

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how you know you've turned the corner on the immigration debate. When Sean Hannity and Senator Rand Paul and a group of others in the Republican Party begin saying it's time to rethink the party's approach to immigration, we've probably reached a milestone. When Donald Trump says the Republican policy of asking 12 million people to self-deport is a ``crazy policy'' that likely cost the Republicans the White House, you've turned a corner. Any time I agree with Donald Trump, hope for a bipartisan agreement should be running high. Most Americans believe that Election Day demonstrated that it's time to move beyond the same old politics, the same tired blame game on immigration. So, when I saw a Republican-sponsored STEM visa bill on the House calendar this week, I thought, well, maybe House Republicans are changing their tune. On the campaign trail, we heard Governor Romney say he supported stapling green cards to the diplomas of every math and science graduate from our universities. Why should we educate some of the best minds on Earth and then say, ``Sorry, no room in the U.S. economy for you''? It makes no sense. They go away and compete against us rather than innovating and creating jobs here. Then I took a closer look at what the Republicans are actually proposing. They haven't turned a corner at all. In fact, they haven't even stepped out of their houses. They certainly didn't learn anything from the last election. The STEM visa bill on the House floor this week was actually voted down in September. It was introduced with a few changes but with absolutely no consultation with Democrats. I want to find a bipartisan solution on immigration. I am committed to it. I know it won't be easy. They say a journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step. The problem is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to take one step and have the Democrats travel the other 999.9 miles. Certainly, this bill isn't even a step--it's a shuffle; it's a shell game. It has exactly the same problem that the STEM bill in September had. It moves visas from a legal immigration program, which works, over to a new visa category where there may or may not be sufficient demand to use those visas each year. Immigration is always a zero-sum game for my colleagues on the other side: we will only increase visas for immigrants we like if we can eliminate immigration for immigrants we don't like. But it isn't even a zero-sum trick they're pulling here. Best estimates are that only 20,000 STEM visas would be issued to graduates, meaning that the other 35 visas would just disappear. Which immigrants do they want to exclude in order to play this game? They're people from around the world who want a chance to make a new life for themselves in the U.S., people like the fathers and mothers and grandparents of almost every Member of Congress. In this case, half of the people who come to America legally, through the Diversity Visa program, come from the continent of Africa, over half of them. Yet they come from all over. So the Republicans would have us say to the good people of Ghana or South Africa--but also to the people of Sweden and Ireland and New Zealand and Taiwan who apply to come here legally-- sorry, we have to withdraw the chance you had at 50,000 visas so we can divert them to, maybe, 20,000 STEM graduates. Maybe. Once again, the Republicans' math doesn't add up. Here is something I'll bet you didn't know about the Diversity Visa program, which is that many of them come to this country and join the Armed Forces of the United States of America. But these legal immigrants are the target of the Republican bill. I have news for my friends on the other side of the aisle: you can't fool immigrants. You can't pretend to be pro-immigrant and then eliminate immigration from one group to allow another group to come. I woke up the day after the election and I saw a new landscape for the immigration debate. It is one in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve tough problems facing the United States. We should not treat this as an opportunity for politicians to score political points again, but sadly, that is what is happening here. I want Republicans to know that Democrats support STEM visas. We don't need to kill other legal immigration programs to create a STEM program, but Republicans are more interested in killing the Diversity Visa program than in creating a program for STEM graduates. For this bill, no matter what happens on Friday, it will not pass in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can turn the corner on real immigration reform but only if Republicans are willing to put on their walking shoes and take a few steps with Democrats, walking side by side, for a greater, better America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding time to me. Despite bipartisan support for a clean STEM visa bill, this is a partisan bill that picks winners and losers in our immigration system and requires the elimination of the Diversity Visa program before a single STEM visa can be issued. In other words, we want to pick immigrants we like and then eliminate immigrants we don't like as though some are better than others. The interesting thing is that most of the Members of the House can look back into their own personal histories and find their own family members and ancestors who come from the countries that are being eliminated. After the historic elections we've just witnessed, it flies in the face of our diverse American electorate to precondition STEM visas on the elimination of Diversity Visa immigrants, 50 percent of whom come from the continent of Africa. Like STEM graduates, they have much to contribute to the United States. We've seen this poison pill before--pitting immigrant against immigrant--when the House voted down H.R. 6429 under suspension. But it gets worse. Inserted in the new version of the bill is an amendment to the V Visa program that the majority claims helps families and makes the bill balanced and bipartisan. Let me be clear: this was not a provision negotiated with us on the Democratic side. It was negotiated with anti-immigrant groups and extremists in the Republican Party. H.R. 6429 takes the V visa, a bipartisan visa created more than 10 years ago, and amends it to deny V visa holders eligibility to work and cuts out of the program spouses and minor children already living in the U.S. This backhanded, so-called family fix should offend anyone who truly cares about families. But the family provisions are even worse than that. Families of STEM visa holders are treated fairly, but the families of ``ordinary'' green card holders are treated as second class. If you are a STEM degree holder, your spouse and minor children can immediately come to the United States and your spouse is granted a work permit. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. However, if you're an ``ordinary'' green card holder who applies to bring your spouse and children to the United States through our regular family immigration channels, you will make your spouse and children wait at least a year before joining you in the U.S., and we will not allow your spouse to work once he or she gets here. I agree that STEM holders should be able to bring their families-- their children and their wives or their husbands--and that their spouses should be able to work legally in the United States. However, I resent that the spouses and children of other family-based immigrants are treated differently and unfairly. Apparently Republicans' devotion to family extends only to families where the principal immigrant is smart enough to earn a Ph.D. or master's degree in a STEM field, and that is something that I resent. And that is something that all Americans should abhor. It goes against the immigration diversity that we have, as a Nation, created.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to make an introduction. I would like the Republican Party to meet America's Latinos. There are more than 53 million of us. But let me tell you a little bit about who we are and what we do. First of all, most Latinos are citizens; and, in fact, most of us have been here for many generations. We live all over the United States, and our population is growing fast. In fact, every single year, 500,000 young Latino citizens turn 18 and become eligible to vote. Of Latinos under the age of 18, 93 percent are already citizens of the United States of America. In this last election, one in 10 voters were Latino. In another decade, we will be 25 percent of the voting age population in this great Nation of ours. Here's a key fact about the more than 16 million Latino immigrants. They work; and they work hard, often in jobs that are the hardest to fill, picking grapes and garlic, caring for young children in day care centers, sweeping and cleaning as janitors, and, yes, digging ditches and making sure our dishes are washed. You know what else they do? They pay taxes, regardless of their legal status. But here's one last fact you should know about Latinos. They love America. And, my Republican friends, I promise you, in time, you'll love us, too. I hope this introduction is helpful, but I know it's a little late. The Republican Party really met Latinos on Election Day. At about 11 p.m., when the race was over, pundits, political strategists, and Republican candidates opened their eyes to discover who really lives and votes in the U.S. It looked liked we were watching Columbus stumble across America. Latino voters, who knew? Demographic changes moving as slow as glaciers, but this one seemed to sneak up on the news media like a sudden thunderstorm. I've been trying to introduce my colleagues to real Latinos and immigrants for some time. I've worked on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bills and stayed at the table to work out a compromise even after all Republicans had left the table. But the Republican Party seemed much more interested in the imaginary Latinos they tried to use as a wedge issue, so they crafted messages aimed at the very few Americans who are not offended when immigrants are referred to as criminals, gang-bangers, freeloaders, and lawbreakers whenever they are spoken about in America. The party nominated a Presidential candidate who carried around a to- do list of creative ways to offend Latinos. It called for the deportation of more than 10 million families and say to self-deport, check; celebrate the extreme Arizona post-immigration laws, check; threaten to veto the DREAM Act and let hundreds of thousands of young people who have applied for deferred action fear for their future, check; stand with other Republicans and begged for their endorsement when they have called for electrified fencing to keep out immigrants because ``that works on livestock,'' check, check, check. I believe Election Day was a checkmate for extreme, unfair, and intolerant anti-immigrant policies. Now, we need to come together to make progress. In truth, some Democrats did not seem to really see this new electorate either or see the change coming. Too many Democrats did not see immigration reform as an urgent issue or recognize the need for change in a country that deports 1,000 people a day. We need to set aside the mistakes of both parties and do what is right for the American people, including Latino immigrants. We need to invite Democrats and Republicans to sit at a big table to work out immigration reform as soon as possible. I have suggested that President Obama set up that big table at Camp David and invite leaders from both parties to discuss how we forge the coalition to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I think after the Election Day wake-up call, there are more and more of us willing to come to that table and negotiate, including friends in the Republican Party. We have heard from Republican leaders who want to be at that table. I know some Republicans want to come to the table because they want the immigration issue off the table. They want it off the table because they are worried about Democrats running the table in statewide and national elections for the foreseeable future. But listen, whatever your reason for coming to the table, please come. Together, we can fight for justice for immigrants. Together, we can reestablish the rule of law. Together, we can make immigration one of the greatest and most defining aspects of American society instead of something that divides us. Together, we can make Americans see that we can work together--Republicans and Democrats--as Americans first. So, please, join us and do what's right for this great Nation of ours.

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 vote 604.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on a Republican proposal to provide green cards to certain immigrants and to cut the same number of green cards available to other legal immigrants. How do we determine who gets more green cards and who gets fewer? For my Republican friends, that's easy. They will provide more green cards to a very narrow number of immigrants they can tolerate--smart immigrants who have been educated in U.S. colleges and universities. They will make other legal immigrants--ones they can't tolerate--pay for that increase. Meanwhile, Democrats have introduced bills that would also provide green cards to the immigrants who have been educated in U.S. colleges and universities. Our Democratic proposal, however, does not take green cards away from other deserving immigrants who want to come legally and contribute to this country. On our side of the aisle, we respect all immigrants. Our bill recognizes the value of all of them to our economy and, indeed, to our future. We should not educate some of the world's most talented people in the STEM fields--that's science, technology, engineering, and math-- and then send them away to work in foreign lands to compete against us. Democrats strongly support providing these visas as a way of helping the U.S. economy and creating jobs, not just for the immigrants but for the U.S. workers they will employ and the economic activity they will generate. Democrats want progress. We want visas for STEM graduates. We will work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans to get it done. It's a smart policy, and it's a just policy. Let me be clear. There is no economic reason--no budget reason, no jobs reason--to punish other immigrants because we give out STEM visas. Absolutely none. Let me try to make it simple. Let's pretend we're not talking about immigrants, because any time some of my Republican friends hear the word ``immigrants,'' they immediately want to punish someone. So let's say, instead of immigrants, we're talking about a family of three children, of three honest and hardworking children. One child wants to go to college to become an industrial engineer, and another wants to go to college to become a math professor. The third--a diligent, industrious child-- doesn't want to go to college. Let's say he wants to start a landscaping business. He wants to work with the land and get his hands dirty. The Republican plan is simple--to help the kids going to college and to cut the other kid off. He's out. Tough luck. He's not smart enough for this family. The Democratic plan is just as simple. We need scientists, engineers and mathematicians, but we need other workers, too--construction workers, machinists, chefs, entrepreneurs. We need immigrants from all over the world--from every continent, including Africa. Everyone who works hard helps our economy, so let's be helpful to everyone. That's the Democratic belief, but that's not the Republican plan today. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. After all, this proposal comes from a party whose Presidential nominee doesn't care about 47 percent of America. Call it the Mitt Romney deadbeat doctrine in which half of all Americans are freeloaders. Maybe that's all we need to know about this Republican plan. I suppose, in the Republican world, STEM visas are for the half of America that works, and the other visas are for the deadbeats that Mitt Romney doesn't care about--you know, the freeloaders like your parents on Social Security or your son or daughter with that student loan or the Pell Grant--or like my parents, who came from Puerto Rico with only an elementary school education, but who worked hard every day and put two kids through college and one of them in the Congress of the United States. Yes, those deadbeats. If my parents had needed visas to come to this country today under this new plan, they would never have gotten a chance. We are changing the rules about who can--and more importantly--about who cannot come to America. So unless you view the world through Mitt Romney's ``us versus them'' vision of America, there is no reason to cut visas today. None. I want to stand up for the Zoe Lofgren provision of immigration--the Democratic vision of immigration. We're not divided into a country where people who gather at a fancy country club and write $50,000 checks to political candidates are good and where the people who stand to run and serve them the food are bad. America is not half deadbeats. We are one America, and we have a chance to prove it today. Democrats are offering a sensible plan that doesn't divide us. It values all work from all immigrants. It achieves our common goal of creating a STEM visa program, keeping more scientists and engineers right here in America, making us stronger. In Mitt Romney's world, if you help one person, you have to punish another. I think that's wrong. I urge my colleagues to pass a fair and sensible plan to create a STEM visa program, and let's do it without punishing a single person.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. It might appear like we are having a debate about whether we should send STEM graduates--those with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math--to faraway lands to work for companies to compete against us, but this debate is not about that because, on the need for STEM visas, there is no debate. The real debate we are having today, in creating STEM visas, is whether to shut the door to opportunity to others who contribute to the United States of America. I haven't seen one letter from Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Intel or the high-tech industry that says to eliminate 25,000 to 30,000 visas to those from Africa and give them to the high-tech industry. I haven't seen one letter that says that, and they know that. It's just something they want to do, and they want to poison this well with what I think is bad policy. Based on the immigrant stories we heard from almost every speaker at the Republican and Democratic conventions, I would guess all of us here would welcome to the U.S. any decent, hardworking person with enough heart and guts to pursue his biggest dreams, but that's not what this bill does. I wish it did. Imagine if those millions who passed through Ellis Island had been given a test when they arrived. If they were gifted in science and math, they were in. If they were simply hardworking men or women in search of better lives, prepared to sweat and toil in the fields or in our factories, they wouldn't have been good enough under this bill. Think about it. Where would we all be if we had to pass that test--the Pelosis and the Palazzos, the Boehners and the Blumenauers, the Schakowskys and the Lipinksis, the Kennedys and the Kuciniches, the Romneys and--yes--the Rubios? When my parents came from Puerto Rico, they didn't need a visa. They just had a sixth-grade education and a ninth-grade education. Under this bill, they would say, Not here and not in this America. You're not welcome. My mom worked in a factory, and my dad drove a cab, and they worked hard every day. They worked hard every day to make this. They sent their children to college, and one of them today serves in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They lived the story of America. They came with nothing but hopes, and they played by the rules and achieved great things, not necessarily for themselves but for their children and now their grandchildren. Has America benefited? Could we attract the smartest and the brightest? Yes. But America is also a better Nation because we attract those with the most heart and soul to make something of themselves. Let's defeat that bill so we can continue that great American tradition.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Next year, at the beginning of the 113th Congress, I will reluctantly assume the title of Dean of the Illinois delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I say reluctantly because two things are true. One, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would never want to be a Member of a Delegation that would have me as its Dean. Secondly, I have tremendous shoes to fill and a hard act to follow. The current Dean is my friend, colleague, and mentor Rep. Jerry Costello, who will leave the House at the end of his current term. It saddens me that he is leaving the House and bequeathing the title of Dean to me. Jerry was re-elected twelve times to represent the people of the exotic and--at least to us in the City of Chicago--distant lands in southern Illinois, anchored by the City of Bellville, Jerry's home town. He has served his district, the people of Illinois and the people of the United States with distinction for 24 years. His diligent work as a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Aviation Subcommittee, and the Science, Space and Technology Committee teaches an important lesson to young Congressmen and women: specialize. Jerry has made transportation a central theme in his career and the work he has done to ensure that infrastructure and transportation systems in Southern Illinois are world class is but one testament to his success. Together with his wife, Georgia, the distinguished President of Southwestern Illinois College, I know Jerry will continue serving the people of Illinois in some capacity. It is in his nature. When I came into the House in 1993, Jerry had already been here for more than two terms and helped young people like me find our way. Over the years, we developed a friendship and a kinship. Even as Democrats from the same State, I could not always vote for what he supported and he could not always vote for what I supported, but we could always look beyond that. The people of Illinois may not even realize it yet, but they will miss Jerry in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Caucus probably doesn't realize how much we will miss Jerry. But I know how much I will miss Jerry and I wish him tremendous success and good luck.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no greater cause for celebration in America than when we expand rights to more of our people. We are never truer to our American values than when we look at a group of people and demand that they be treated with dignity and respect. We are never more patriotic than when we protect and expand the rights of honest, hardworking people, when we live up to our original promise of liberty and equality and give meaning to those American words: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' Right now, we have reasons to celebrate because, shortly, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House are scheduled to announce guidelines on the application process for DREAM Act-eligible immigrants to defer deportation and get work permits so they can take a vital step toward living freely and fully in the only nation that has ever truly been their home. Today, I want to congratulate the DREAM Act-eligible youth who have fought so hard for this right, the 1 million of them that will be taking a step forward. And I want to remind DREAM Act-eligible youth that because of the intelligent action by President Obama on August 15, they will be able to apply for work permits and protection from deportation. On August 15, Mr. Speaker, they will take a step out of the shadows and into the light. I encourage them to take this step, and I want them to know that help and resources are available. But first, a warning: any progress on immigration is soon followed by some unscrupulous attempts to make money off the backs of deserving immigrants. So I say to my friends today: Be careful. There is no reason that applying for relief through President Obama's use of prosecutorial discretion should be expensive or cumbersome. If someone says the only way for a DREAMer to apply is to write a big check, my advice to the DREAMer is they should run in the other direction; they are being lied to. But DREAMers should run toward help because help is on the way. In Chicago yesterday, the Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights and I announced a workshop that will be held on August 15--the very first day the 1 million young people can apply for work permits and come out of the shadows and get deferred action from deportation. The event will be held at Navy Pier in Chicago. Mayor Emanuel, myself, and Senator Durbin--who has played such a leadership role on the DREAM Act for years--will be there. We will have all the resources anyone needs to apply that day. It will be free. We will answer questions and we will provide the resources necessary to thousands of young people that we expect will attend. And we are not alone in Chicago. All across the country, plans are being made by immigrant advocates and organizations and elected officials for how to help DREAM Act-eligible youth to apply for their work permits and a stay of deportation. Tomorrow, I will be joined by my colleagues to talk about resources available coast to coast. As one important step, I encourage people to visit this Web site: dreamrelief.org. That's dreamrelief.org to find out more about who is eligible, how to apply, and where people can receive assistance, dreamrelief.org. On August 15, across America, thousands of honest, hardworking, law- abiding DREAM Act-eligible youth immigrants should be celebrating by lining up and taking that historic step toward equality. It's a day of long-overdue fairness for our young people, and I don't want one eligible young person to miss this opportunity. I want our young DREAMers to demonstrate to America on August 15 what they've demonstrated to their communities and their families and their friends their entire lives: they've worked hard and earned this right by excelling in school, by helping their neighborhoods, and by serving our Nation. I know who you are--you are the next generation of leaders of our great Nation. On August 15, show all of America who you are. We need your example because it's vital to remember that every time we've expanded civil rights in America--every time--someone tried to stand in the way. From women's suffrage, to voting rights for African Americans, to Americans with disabilities, to marriage equality, someone will raise their voice against expanding the rights enjoyed by some Americans to all Americans. There is always someone who says these rights, these liberties, this equality, it's for me, it's not for you. So I ask my DREAM Act-eligible friends--1 million strong--on August 15, show America who you are and remind America that freedom and equality is for all of us.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to announce today that more than 100 of my colleagues have joined me in writing to President Obama to thank him for his action to use prosecutorial discretion to stop deportations for DREAM Act-eligible immigrants. We are pledging our continued and strong support for this policy. My colleagues and I, 104 of us, are standing together to make clear that we think America is a better place with the immigrants who will be helped by this new policy. Of course, not everyone agrees. Progress doesn't always mean consensus. My colleague, Mr. King of Iowa, wants to sue the President, take him to court, because Mr. King is determined to deport every last young person who is DREAM Act eligible. Mitt Romney says that he would veto the DREAM Act and does not support steps to protect these very young people. Let's remind ourselves exactly who the Republican candidate for President believes should be deported. DREAM Act-eligible young people who have lived in America for more than 5 years. Most of them were brought to our Nation as children, many of them as infants, toddlers, yes, babies. They've stayed away from crime. They attended our high schools and colleges. They are no different from your children or my children. They regularly excel at school. Some are valedictorians. They are athletes and musicians and leaders. Many of them want to serve our Nation in the military. They are leaders in their high school ROTC. They are, in every sense of the word, except for the very narrow, exclusive sense promoted by Mr. King and Mr. Romney, outstanding young Americans. Apparently, when Mr. King and Mr. Romney look at the winner of your high school science fair or a young immigrant eager to become a soldier, they see a threat to our national security. Sensible Americans see their friends and neighbors, young people who want to make America better. They want these young people to be treated fairly, and they also want our Nation to be safe. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. King and Mr. Romney a question: In a world where our law enforcement officials have limited time and resources, who should they be focused on investigating, detaining, putting behind bars, rounding up, and deporting--the captain of your high school chess team or a drug smuggler? I know the answer. I think most of Americans would agree. Immigrants who break the law should face serious consequences. Immigrants who are busy studying for exams should simply be left alone. That's not just my opinion or just the opinion of immigrants or advocates or 104 of my colleagues. Despite those few who would like to sue the President and force him to kick high school kids out of this country, President Obama's actually legally and responsibly using prosecutorial discretion to leave young people alone and focus instead on actual criminals. It is the consensus legal opinion among experts. Even the Supreme Court has weighed in. In their Arizona decision last month, the Supreme Court wrote: A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. ``Whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all,'' says the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court's opinion is not enough, then I submit the opinions of Members of Congress, including those of Members I don't often agree with when it comes to immigration. These Members include Lamar Smith, the chairman of our Judiciary Committee; David Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee; and even Brian Bilbray, chairman of the House anti-immigration caucus. Just a few years ago, as this letter notes, they weighed in forcefully on prosecutorial discretion. In a letter to a previous President's administration, these staunch opponents of immigration reform enthusiastically defended prosecutorial discretion, writing: ``The principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established.'' They wrote that legal experts at Immigration Services ``apparently well- grounded in case law'' show that the Immigration Services has prosecutorial discretion in the initiation--the beginning--and the termination of deportations. It's simple, really. The Members of Congress who signed this letter with me today, the Supreme Court, President Obama--and yes, even Lamar Smith and dozens of his colleagues just a few years ago--get it. It is time to leave hardworking immigrants alone. When we do, our law enforcement officials can focus on catching the actual bad guys. July 18, 2012. President Barack Obama, The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: We write to thank you and express our appreciation for your recent decision to grant ``deferred action,'' protection from deportation, and work permits to certain young people who call the United States home and who are not an enforcement priority for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We welcome the opportunity to ensure that our constituents who fit the criteria for relief are among the estimated 800,000 individuals whose lives will forever be changed as a result of your leadership. DREAMers coming forward to apply will mark a new chapter, but not the last chapter, in a long struggle for inclusion in society. The new policy represents an important down payment toward achieving broader reforms in the future. The implications of your policy are already reverberating well beyond those who are potentially eligible for deferred action. With this announcement, you have changed the public discourse about immigration and immigrants, and our communities are now excited and hopeful. Even those who attack immigrants for political purposes are second guessing their negative posture toward the young immigrants you are protecting. You have opened the door to reform, and people of all political stripes recognize that change is coming and is inevitable. We recognize that there are those who will want to take the power of discretion away from you and the Executive branch. Like you, we agree that you are on solid moral and legal ground and we will do everything within our power to defend your actions and the authority that you, like past Presidents, can exercise to set enforcement priorities and better protect our neighborhoods and our nation. Despite this vital reprieve for a deserving group of promising individuals, we also understand that it does not diminish the need for a permanent solution and comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. President, we stand committed to fixing the broken immigration system once and for all, and we are ready to fight for a permanent solution that benefits all children and families, the economy, our national security and our nation. We thank you again for your actions on behalf of DREAMers. We stand ready to work with you to ensure the policy's success and to use it as a stepping stone for broader relief and future legislative action. Sincerely, Luis V. Gutierrez; Joseph Crowley, Xavier Becerra; Steny Hoyer; Howard Berman; Charles A. Gonzalez; Jared Polis; Susan A. Davis; Zoe Lofgren; Judy Chu; Nancy Pelosi; John Conyers, Jr.; Lucille Roybal-Allard; Michael M. Honda; Barbara Lee; Gene Green; Raul Grijalva; James P. Moran; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Janice Hahn; Peter Welch; Jose E. Serrano; Betty McCollum; Ruben Hinojosa; Lois Capps; Yvette D. Clarke; Laura Richardson; Silvestre Reyes; Hansen Clarke; Terri Sewell; Jerrold Nadler; Bob Filner; Dennis Cardoza; Frederica Wilson; Charles B. Rangel; Edolphus ``Ed'' Towns; Jan Schakowsky; Jackie Speier; Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan; Maxine Waters; Bobby L. Rush; Pedro R. Pierluisi; Carolyn B. Maloney; Gwen Moore; Louise M. Saughter; Ted Deutch; Chaka Fattah; Rick Larsen; Jim McDermott; George Miller; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; John Lewis; John W. Olver; James P. McGovern; Joe Baca; Rush Holt; Robert A. Brady; Eni Faleomavaega; Adam Smith; Al Green; Grace F. Napolitano; Earl Blumenauer; John Garamendi; John B. Larson; Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.; Doris O. Matsui; Keith Ellison; Fortney ``Pete'' Stark; Dennis J. Kucinich; Lloyd Doggett; Corrine Brown; Linda Sanchez; Gregory Meeks; Sam Farr; Gary C. Peters; Eliot L. Engel; Lynn Woolsey; Ed Pastor; Maurice Hinchey; Albio Sires; Mike Quigley; Loretta Sanchez; Danny K. Davis; Nita Lowey; Mike Thompson; Anna Eshoo; Marcy Kaptur; David Cicilline; Russ Carnahan; Nydia M. Valazquez; Chris Van Hollen; Steve Israel; Diana DeGette; Edward J. Markey; Henry A. Waxman; Karen Bass; Jim Costa; Steve Cohen; Henry Cuellar; Barney Frank; Ben Ray Lujan; Sheila Jackson Lee; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes yesterday. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 469 and 470.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we've all seen bad horror movies, the ones where every time you think it's safe to relax and take a deep breath, the monster is right behind the door. You know the drill. No matter how hard the teenagers in the basement or the swimmers in the lake or the hikers in the wood try to get away, the creature just can't be stopped. Well, the people of Puerto Rico are stuck in their very own horror movie, one that just won't end, and one with a villain that just won't go away, except the villain isn't a guy wearing a hockey mask or carrying a chain saw. The villain is a bunch of government insiders, and the horror story is about their desire to build a huge gas pipeline. It's a pipeline that the people of Puerto Rico don't want, that experts have said that Puerto Rico doesn't need, and environmentalists have testified will destroy the natural beauty of thousands of acres on the island. And this might be the scariest part. It's a pipeline that Puerto Rico doesn't even have enough natural gas to operate. The name of the pipeline is Gasoducto, and the horror story started in 2010. About all that has been missing from the script is bad music and vampires. The story has featured the Puerto Rican people's tax dollars, as much as $100 million of them, paid to consultants and lobbyists hired by the government, including close friends and allies of the Governor and his ruling party. It's featured the government hiring a consulting team of former high- ranking Army Corps of Engineer employees based in Florida. The consultants magically convinced the Army Corps to take review of the project away from the local San Juan, Puerto Rico, office. Where did they move it to? Surprise--to Florida, right down the road from where the consultants live and used to work. It has featured ever-increasing cost estimates of the project, ballooning to nearly $1 billion. It has featured huge protests and marches by the Puerto Rican people against the pipeline and public opinion polls showing three-quarters of the people strongly opposed to the project. It has featured power supply experts who studied the government plan and noticed one important flaw. Just as Casa Pueblo, countless technical experts, environmentalists, scientists, and I have insisted to the Army Corps all along, the only current source of natural gas supply available for this project in Puerto Rico was too small for a pipeline to even work. And finally, it even featured--after tens of millions of dollars spent--the Governor appointing his own commission to make recommendations about how Puerto Rico can make better use of natural gas to meet its energy needs. The commission, appointed by the very Governor who dreamt up the Gasoducto plan, made three recommendations. None of them--I repeat-- none of them included Gasoducto. Not one. Actually, they discarded it and called it unviable. Finally, the people of Puerto Rico thought the monster must be dead. Finally, we can stop sending tax dollars to connected government insiders, we can stop worrying about our environment, we can stop wondering where in the world the natural gas for a billion dollar pipeline will actually come from. But that's not how horror movies work. Last week, the Governor was quoted in the press as saying Gasoducto was still alive. Why? Because the Governor of Puerto Rico claims that the Assistant Secretary of the Army, who oversees the Army Corps of Engineers, has asked him personally not to withdraw the Gasoducto application. Assistant Secretary Darcy wants him, the Governor, to wait a while before pulling the plug, which is already on life support for this monster. Personally, I find this hard to believe. I don't know why an Assistant Secretary of the Army would want to keep a monster alive that is an unneeded, unwanted insider boondoggle that isn't even wanted by the regime that proposed it in the first place. But I've written to find out, is it true and how could this be? I expect answers, just like I expect answers on my ongoing request to the Army about how the Army Corps of Engineers has handled this application and why the review was moved away from their employees in Puerto Rico and closer to a bunch of consultants who used to head their office in Florida. When it comes to Gasoducto, enough is enough. Like in most bad monster movies, Gasoducto has been almost impossible to believe from the very first scene, a silly, unnecessary waste of time and money. It's time to roll the credits and declare this monster dead once and for all.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes yesterday and today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 452, 453, 454 and 455 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 456, 457 and 458.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for a vote in the House chamber on June 21, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 411. I was also unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for one vote on June 26, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 414, 416 and 419 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 412, 413, 415, 417, 418, 420, 421, 422 and 423.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the immigration policy of the State of Arizona, a policy that Mitt Romney has called ``a model for America,'' to be largely unconstitutional. I applaud the Court for stating that immigration enforcement is a Federal responsibility. The ``show me your papers'' law allows police to demand that individuals prove that they are legally in this country. This law is not just a problem for people who are undocumented. It's not just a problem for immigrants. It's not just a problem for anybody who looks like they might have come to America from somewhere else. It's a problem for every American who cares about freedom. It's a problem for all of us who believe no person should be treated as a suspect based on how they look, their accent, or the spelling of their name. In Arizona today, all that stands between you and a legal nightmare is whether a police officer feels there is a reasonable suspicion to inquire about your country of origin. Yet Arizona politicians will tell you, with a straight face no less, that they can apply this law without using racial profiling, without assuming that someone named Gutierrez isn't less likely to be in this country legally than someone named Smith. That's an amazing skill. Maybe with practice, we can all become like Arizona politicians and police officers who are able to telepathically determine who to accuse of not belonging in America. But let's take a quiz together this morning and learn how to pick out the suspect. Here are two journalists, Geraldo Rivera and Ted Koppel. At a traffic stop, to the untrained eye, we might guess that Geraldo Rivera, for some reason that clearly has nothing to do with the way he looks, might not be from America. Geraldo Rivera's mustache wouldn't confuse an Arizona law enforcement professional. They would know that Geraldo Rivera was born in Brooklyn, New York, and that Ted Koppel was born in Europe, in England, where his parents moved to flee from Hitler and Nazi Germany. Round two, this for our young fans of C-SPAN. This is Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez. These young people have overcome their very different national origins and become apparently a happy couple. I'm sure Justin helped Gomez learn all about American customs and feel more at home in her adopted country. Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry, because I'm not a trained Arizona official, I somehow got that backwards. Actually, Ms. Gomez, of Texas, has helped Mr. Bieber, of Canada, learn about his adopted country. Justin, when you perform in Phoenix, remember to bring your papers. The next round shows how tricky Arizona's game of pick out the immigrant is to play. Here are two basketball superstars. Neither one is Latino. That's confusing already. You have to dig deeper to figure out who isn't the real American. So let's consider their names--Jeremy Lin and Tony Parker. Clearly, ``Lin'' sounds kind of foreign while ``Tony Parker'' sounds American to me. But I'm not an Arizona police officer who would know that Jeremy Lin was born in Los Angeles, and Tony Parker--oops--Europe, Belgium. Wrong once again. Finally, here's just one more. In case the Supreme Court ever wants to meet in Phoenix to consider its ruling about Arizona's ``show me your papers'' law, if these two Justices step out to Starbucks, which one do you think is likeliest to be a suspect, the Anglo male or the Latina? Neither is an immigrant, but Antonin Scalia's father came through Ellis Island from Italy, and Sonia Sotomayor is a proud Puerto Rican with generations of U.S. citizen ancestors. We could play this game all day, but the point is simple. The idea that any government official can determine who belongs in America and who doesn't simply by looking at them is completely ridiculous, unfair, and un-American, and yet this absurdity is the law of Arizona. The Court signaled that it will be watching this law closely, and it should, because we count on the Court to protect our liberties, not restrict them. Because, in America, people should always be judged by their actions. No person, not one, should be judged by the way they look, the sound of their voice, or the pronunciation of their last name--not in Arizona, not anywhere, not ever. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent yesterday for votes in the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 412, 413 and 415 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 414. personal explanation

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent yesterday for votes in the House Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 379 and 380.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 2012, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Votes 294, 295 and 296.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association in Chicago, Illinois and wish to congratulate them for their 50 years of committed community service. Their visionary leadership, strategic partnerships and compassionate dedication to our community has made a real and lasting difference in the lives of the residents of Logan Square and the Chicagoland area. Since 1962, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association has dedicated the last five decades to building a healthy community by directly serving thousands of residents each year and impacting the lives of tens of thousands more with nationally-recognized programs in education, housing, immigration, health and the arts. The Logan Square neighborhood has benefitted greatly from the Association's commitment to change and community involvement. Among the Logan Square Neighborhood Association's many accomplishments are Parent Mentoring programs that help students, teachers and families bridge cultural differences between immigrants' homes and the schools their children attend, creating a new approach to parent engagement in schools. By partnering with local schools, the Association established Community Learning Centers that allow elementary schools to provide convenient, evening continuing education and physical activities. The Association partnered with community organizations to banish slumlords, ending unethical practices and helping make affordable rental housing available to families. Their home ownership programs have helped more than 100 moderate-income families purchase their first home and led to the first homeownership program for teachers that was adopted by the Chicago Board of Education. The Logan Square Neighborhood Association has also developed programs focusing on living wage jobs which helped to create more than 1,400 permanent, living wage jobs in the Logan Square community. Because of their commitment to change and to improving the Logan Square community, it makes me proud to have the Logan Square Neighborhood Association serve the residents of the 4th Congressional District. It is with great honor that I commend the Logan Square Neighborhood Association for their 50 years of effectively serving our community. I wish them continued success.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 196, 197 and 198. personal explanation

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 152 and 153.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Last Thursday, a different kind of March madness took place in the NCAA basketball tournament. In a game between Kansas State and Mississippi State, Angel Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican point guard for Kansas State, was met with taunts from Mississippi State students while he was getting ready to shoot a free throw. The taunt: ``Where's your green card?'' That wasn't the only March madness. Earlier this month in San Antonio, Texas, a white high school in San Antonio chanted during the regional basketball championship trophy presentation. Their chant: ``USA, USA, USA.'' Why did they chant USA? Because their team had defeated San Antonio's Thomas Edison High School, a team of mostly Latino players. One U.S. citizen asked to produce his green card, one entire team of Americans taunted as if they were foreigners. These young people, subjected to hatred and bigotry, handled it well. Angel Rodriguez ignored the taunts and played a great game. If he hadn't been busy helping Kansas State win the game, he might have mentioned to everybody that he was from Miami or that all Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States. I'm impressed that the kids from Thomas Edison High School kept their cool. They deserve our praise not only for being good basketball players, but just for being great kids. Mississippi State and Alamo Heights have apologized for the taunts. That's an important step in the right direction. That's not the issue. The issue is why people think it's okay to treat Latinos as if they are second-rate Americans, why so many people think being Latino means being a suspect in our own country, why they look at a young man named Rodriguez and think he doesn't belong in this country. It's because misguided kids taunting Latinos is not really the disease. It's the symptom. The heart of the sickness is more troubling. The truth is, when it comes to Latinos and immigrants, far too many so-called leaders in our Nation are starting the taunts. On the campaign trail and on talk radio and on TV, and even here in this Chamber, there are leaders that act like the biggest bullies in the schoolyard. If elected officials have no boundaries when it comes to scapegoating and demonizing immigrants and Latinos, then why should young people at a basketball game know any better? Why does an American, a Puerto Rican citizen basketball player, get taunted about a green card? It's easier to understand when you hear the frontrunner for the Republican nomination of President promoting a national immigration policy that makes all Latinos look like suspects and all immigrants look like criminals. Mitt Romney has said that Arizona's anti-immigrant law--a law that essentially demands racial profiling of anyone who looks like they might be undocumented--is a model for our Nation. But that's not all Mitt Romney has said to American Latinos. He has said all 11 million immigrants, most of them Latinos, should self-deport, even if they've lived here since they were children and have American citizen families. Mitt Romney has even gone as far to attack the first Latino Supreme Court justice. He believes that Justice Sotomayor is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He's proud of the support of anti-immigrant extremists, including the author of Arizona's anti-immigrant law. He has attacked the DREAM Act, a perfectly reasonable bill. And Mitt Romney is hardly a lone voice. It is sad. One Member of this House said he would be for any measure to stop illegal immigrants ``short of shooting them.'' Even hanging them? gassing them? One other colleague of ours here called undocumented immigration a slow-rolling, slow-motion terrorist attack on the United States. Pat Buchanan wrote a book entitled ``State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.'' Folks like Buchanan and Limbaugh regularly use words like ``hordes'' and ``swarms'' to describe immigrants. Maybe Mitt Romney thinks he's just saying what he needs to say to get the Republican nomination, and maybe some elected officials think their extreme rhetoric doesn't really carry outside the Halls of Congress. But America knows better. So does a group of Kansas State basketball players and a group of good kids from San Antonio, Texas. They know that words matter very much. Here's my advice to the Romneys and the Buchanans of the world and a few of my colleagues here in the House: Instead of bullies, why don't you be leaders? And why don't you try some words that bring people together instead of insults that tear our Nation apart.