Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes today, Friday, September 20 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 477, ``no'' on rollcall vote 479, ``no'' on rollcall vote 480, ``no'' on rollcall vote 481, ``yes'' on rollcall vote 482, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 483.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I plan to vote no on final passage of H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to pass a budget that funds the government and reflects the priorities of the American people. Instead of working with Democrats to end sequestration and pass a budget that will create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and make investments in housing, education and maintaining our critical infrastructure, the Majority is willing to force a disastrous government shutdown in order to try to defund the Affordable Care Act for the 42nd time in the House of Representatives. Instead of lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a clean Continuing Resolution, work on a balanced budget that makes smart investments and responsible cuts, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is what my constituents in the 4th Congressional District of Illinois expect from us in Congress.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Tuesday, July 30. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 419, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 420, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 421, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 422, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 423, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 424, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 425.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to still be waiting for a vote on immigration reform in August. But here we are, 48 hours from leaving town for 6 weeks, and there has been no definitive House action. Many of us will spend time with our children and loved ones, whether on vacation or just in the backyard. I urge my colleagues to think about the millions of immigrant families who are no longer able to spend time together--the mother who was deported yesterday; the sister who feared deportation and left last year; the tens of thousands who wait in line for visas; and the ones for whom there is no line available. For those who are in detention, like the Dream 9 in Arizona, and the many others who, because of their status, a trip to the hospital or getting a traffic ticket could mean they never see their children again. The American Dream will end for 44,400 immigrants who will be deported between now and September 9. I hope they are in your thoughts. Mr. Speaker, I will be inserting into the Record a letter from Jared Polis of Colorado and myself to the President of the United States asking for the release of the Dream 9 held in detention in Arizona.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter, from Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado and myself to the President of the United States asking for the release of the DREAM 9 held in detention in Arizona. July 25, 2013. President Barack Obama, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear President Obama: We write you to express concern for the nine undocumented young people who earlier this week attempted to re-enter the United States from Mexico to return to their homes. They presented themselves at a check point, were detained by U.S. border patrol and are currently being held in the Eloy detention center in Arizona. As we understand it, these ``DREAMers'' are asking that discretion be exercised by federal authorities to allow them back into the United States and to return to their families and communities. An additional goal that they express is to work to change a system that has resulted in the deportations of DREAMers. Regardless of whether we feel their actions are the best way to affect the change they desire, we share their goal to allow DREAMers and others with strong ties to the United States and who were deported to return to the United States. You stood firmly with the DREAMers when you put in place beneficial case by case relief for DREAMers through Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA). We believe that the DREAMers currently detained on the border should have your concern and consideration, as well. We understand that a long term legislative solution is required in order to provide the most justice for the most people. We are deeply committed to ensure that the ability to return to the U.S. for previously deported individuals is enacted into law, and have worked hard to incorporate such relief into the bipartisan proposal currently being drafted in the House of Representatives. We continue to build the bipartisan support needed to pass legislation this year. While immigration reform is making its way through Congress, we ask that the young people currently detained at the border be released from detention and allowed back into the United States. Their actions to lift up the needs of those deported should not result in detention or exclusion from the United States. In fact, their return would likely be allowed under the Senate- passed immigration bill, S. 744, which we all support. Thank you for your leadership on behalf of DREAMers and your support of comprehensive immigration reform. We urge you to release the DREAMers detained on the U.S. border in Arizona and allow them to rejoin their families. We urge you to act with all possible speed to make this happen. Sincerely, Luis V. Gutierrez, Member of Congress. Jared Polis, Member of Congress.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on July 8, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 305, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 306, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 307.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a short time after the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act violated the Constitution of the United States, an immigration judge in New York stopped the deportation of a man who was legally married to an American citizen. According to press reports, the bonds of marriage that tied Sean, an American citizen, to Steven, a native of Colombia, were invisible in the eyes of the law before 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time yesterday; but after the Supreme Court announcement, the bonds of marriage that drew these two individuals together in love and in the sight of God all of a sudden became visible to the United States Government. They materialized before our eyes, allowing a spouse of a U.S. citizen to live peacefully in the United States with his spouse as our immigration laws intended. What a difference a day makes. Well, actually, this step towards justice took a great deal longer than a day. I'm proud that the Supreme Court finally caught up to Sean and Steven. I'm glad that the law of the land finally caught up to the American people, who generally feel that marriage equality, like other forms of equality, is a good thing. I'm glad the Supreme Court caught up to the 21st century, and I'm glad the Supreme Court caught up to me. In fact, what does a 21st century Congressman do on such occasions? I tweeted. And what did I tweet? ``I told you so.'' It was right here on this spot, on July 11, 1996, that the House of Representatives passed DOMA. I came to this well and walked up to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, who controlled the time on the Democratic side, and I asked him if I could speak on the bill. I had a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I have a great deal of respect for him today, now that he's happily retired and happily married. But on that particular day, he said to me, Luis, I have no time for people who are against the bill. Shoo. Go away. Who knows, maybe it was a mild case of profiling. He saw a Latino Catholic from the Midwest and said he can't be a friend. I assured the gentleman that as a Chicago alderman, as a Congressman--you know something, just as a man--I was against discrimination, bigotry, and unfairness wherever and whenever I saw it and that I had fought in Chicago to pass a groundbreaking ordinance on LGBT equality in the 1980s. The gentleman from Massachusetts smiled, welcomed me to the team, and yielded me 3\1/2\ minutes. I went back to check the Record to see what I had said on that night, and you know what? The 2013 me agrees wholeheartedly with the 1996 me. I pointed out that the supporters of DOMA were wrapping themselves up in family values when, in fact, they were preventing families from being recognized as families. I don't know many Americans--regardless of their political party, race, religion, or sexual orientation--who don't believe that family values are vitally important. But I also don't know many Americans who want a couple of hundred politicians in Washington to impose their values on everyone else's families. Let me tell you about some very basic values I think we're talking about when we stand up against this bill: the values of people who love each other; people who share each other's lives; people who care about their future and the future of those around them; people who want to make a commitment that is legal and official and is important to them. To me, that sounds like family values. I am proud to have spoken up; I am proud to have voted against that bill; and I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with Barney Frank and other heroes who said ``no'' and today say ``I told you so.'' Now we need to take another vital step right away. The immigration judge that stopped Steven's deportation because of his legal marriage to an American citizen was absolutely right, but we need to make sure our immigration law reflects the post-DOMA reality across the board. If the Obama administration needs to write regulations to make sure our immigration laws match the Constitution of our Nation, then they better get to work. We can't afford delay. Same-sex couples form families. Our immigration laws are supposed to honor families. So, Mr. President, please make it clear, from your office on down that family unity means all families. We've waited long enough. The Highest Court in the land helped us take another step against discrimination. Now we must make sure that the administration of the law catches up with the letter and the spirit of the law. All families, like Steven and Sean, must be recognized as families for the purposes of our immigration law. What a difference a day makes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, June 17. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 245, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 246, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 247. I was also inadvertently absent for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 256, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 259.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I was inadvertently absent and would like to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 270, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 274, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 283. Amendment No. 102 Offered by Mr. Southerland

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, later today, the Judiciary Committee will mark up the first immigration reform bill offered by the Republicans in the 113th Congress. Since election day, no Member of Congress has done more to highlight and praise the Republicans for their new spirit of bipartisanship on immigration than I. I praise our committee and subcommittee chairmen for their new tone in the Republican-led immigration hearings. When the Republican Party chairman said Republicans have to stop pushing Latino voters away, I said, ``Right on, Reince.'' When young Republicans warned the GOP to change its tune in order to remain viable, I said, ``I think you're right.'' When your former candidate for Vice President and Budget Committee chairman came to Chicago to talk about immigration reform, I brought him to the barrio so that the Latino community could see him and applaud his commitment to immigration reform. Judge Carter, the gentleman from Texas, and I shared the stage in San Antonio to discuss immigration reform deep in the heart of Texas, where we agreed on more things than we disagreed. He and I have met almost every day since January with a small bipartisan group of colleagues to fashion a bill that both parties can embrace. And it's hard work for both parties. On the other side of the aisle, it is hard to talk about immigrants in a new way when your party, its platform, its candidates, its talk radio, and its TV personalities have spoken disparagingly about immigrants for years. When you reference gangbangers and drunk drivers and rapists every time you talk about immigrants, it is hard to switch gears quickly; but most Republicans in this body, up until last week, were singing from a new and more harmonious hymnal. Bipartisan work on immigration reform has been difficult on my side of the aisle, too. I have always fought for universal health care coverage, but discussing health care coverage for undocumented immigrants and their families--even in the context of a legalization program where they pay their full taxes, submit fingerprints, and pay huge fines--is a nonstarter not only for Republicans but for Democrats, unfortunately, alike. I have advocated for LGBT rights from my days as a Chicago alderman, but to work in a bipartisan manner, it's off the table. To keep discussions going with Republicans, I am told that the Diversity Visa Program, which brings in immigrants from Africa and Ireland and around the world who diversify our immigrant pool, is eliminated--no discussion in the name of bipartisanship. Siblings-- brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens--will no longer be able to be sponsored by their family members to come to America, and the fees and fines we charge--billions upon billions--on immigrants so that they can be here legally, that will fund more drones, fences, border guards, and more enforcement on the border, a border that is as secure as I've seen in American history--but we'll do it. I ask my Republican colleagues when is it enough? But I want to keep things moving forward, so I hold my tongue, work within the bipartisan process and stay with the group. I speak well of Republicans who have partnered with Democrats on a serious bipartisan bill this year. A tough, but fair bipartisan bill is moving towards passage, and our tough but fair bipartisan House bill is nearly complete. We're putting aside partisan bickering to solve a difficult policy issue for the American people. In this moment, just in time for the Fourth of July, we get red meat politics for the barbecue and partisan fireworks on immigration. The Arizona S.B. 1070 law was substantially struck down by the Supreme Court. No matter. Now your side of the aisle wants to nationalize it. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is slapped by the Federal courts for systematically denying the civil rights of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. No matter. Let's canonize him. Police and local governments want immigrants in their communities to be able to call the police if they're a victim of crime or witnesses to crime. Too bad. Republicans in Washington know better than your cops, prosecutors and mayors at home. They will cut your Federal funding unless you commit to a full-frontal deportation and local immigration enforcement. When 500,000 Latino citizens turn 18 every year and become potential voters, Republicans seem hell-bent on lining up and jumping off the demographic cliff. While our country demands solutions and leadership, Republicans are feeding the partisan monster red meat as if their calendars already read 2014. As a Democrat, I could probably stand back and watch. If you want to hang yourself on the immigration issue, who am I to stop you? But as an American, I have to tell you what I really feel. Your country needs you to step away from the partisan red meat and fearmongering that has defined your party on immigration. Come back to your senses. Do not push forward a bill that criminalizes every immigrant family and makes everyone think twice before they call 911. You are better than this. America needs you to be.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, June 3. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 184, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 185. I was also inadvertently absent for the following votes and would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 189, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 205.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chair, I just want to make clear something about DACA. I filled out many applications, as I know my colleague from Minnesota has. They pay a fee. They go through an extensive background check. They have to give up their fingerprints and go through an extensive background check if they find they're denied DACA. So don't think it's just show up. Now they're given a work permit for 2 years, and they get to work with that work permit. They don't have any right to health care or to any means-tested program, nothing but the right to work and not to be deported from the United States of America, and they're contributing to this country already. So I just want to make that clear. Why would we want to spend the money of the Federal Government chasing down and hunting down and deporting people who came here as children who do not even know the country that they came from? Again, I want to reiterate: they are American in everything but a piece of paper. And the Congress of the United States should be working to try to see how it is we bring them in and integrate them more fully. I want to express to the gentleman from Iowa something very, very clearly. I want to use every dollar and every resource to go after every gang-banger, every drug dealer, every person that is a criminal doing harm in the United States. But these are children who are doing no one harm. They came as children, they are innocent, and should be treated as such. We want to prioritize our enforcement. We want to prioritize our enforcement so that we go after people who will do American citizens ill. They don't. They're children. They're wonderful, young people. And I would suggest to everybody here, meet one, talk to one. And what you're going to see is, the same values that you inculcate in your own children are the values that have been invested in these young men and women. We should give them a chance. Many of them are being denied as they go through the process. But it is a process that says we should use prosecutorial discretion. It is law. Everybody in this body knows, and you don't have to be a student of the Constitution of the United States to know, that the President has plenary powers to pardon anybody at any time for any reason. Just ask Gerald Ford about Richard Nixon. That is a fact. The President of the United States in this case is taking innocent young men and women who have been thoroughly checked in their background and said, Do you know what? I want to go after the mean, ugly people who want to do us harm, and I want to set aside these young men and women. We voted for it--216 to 208--and it was a proud day in the Congress of the United States. And I just want to say one more time to the gentleman from Iowa, there are Members of your side of the aisle who I know----

Mr. GUTIERREZ. No, I won't. Who are going to continue to work with us in this Congress of the United States to get this finished. Please let us do that work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. First of all, this has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States. The fact is that the Congress of the United States has passed laws granting the President of the United States this executive authority. He has it by statute and by law. As a matter of fact, many of you might remember that in 1999, Congressman Lamar Smith and others wrote to then-President Clinton asking him to use his discretionary power more often. In other words, I'm sorry to say to the gentleman, Mr. King, but I think the gentleman from Texas is an authority on this issue, as he has chaired the Judiciary Committee, and the gentleman from Texas knows best. He signed that letter. And it was bipartisan. So this has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States, not to kid ourselves. Now, if we want to deal fundamentally with if this is good or bad, we can deal with that also. The fact is that this House passed the DREAM Act 216-208--that is a fact--in the fall of 2010, and 55 Senators stood up for the DREAM Act in the Senate. The fact is that a majority of Senators have already voted in favor of it, and a majority of the Members of this House. Now, what I don't find in the Constitution is where it says that a majority of Senators shouldn't prevail. We all know that. It should be just simply 51 out of 100, but that's not the way the Senate works. But that's not in the Constitution of the United States. So what the President is really doing in his executive order is allowing. And I just want people to understand that we're also here for justice and for fairness. It is only fair and just that young men and women--who are no different than my daughters, than your daughters. They are just as American as they are. They speak this language. This is the country that they love. It is the only country that they know. And we're waiting for the paperwork to catch up to those Americans-- that's what they are. They came out by the hundreds of thousands. In Chicago, there were 12,000 in line. They came up with their moms and their dads and they were crying for joy because they had an opportunity to go to school, to become educated, and to contribute back to this Nation--children. We should not hold children responsible for the actions of adults and of their parents. We should give them an opportunity, and that is what this executive order has done. They go to school with your children. They sit down in the same churches with you and pray on Sunday. They play on the same playground. They're an integral part of the communities in which we live. In America, when they hear them speak, they hear the voices of young Americans. And one day we will pass the DREAM Act, and we will not need an executive order. Things are getting better, Mr. King, here. November 6, everybody said stop picking winners and losers; let's fix this immigration issue. And Republicans and Democrats are working together to find a solution. Now is not the time to divide this House and the Senate when it is looking. We can't talk decently about Benghazi or the IRS or anything-- ObamaCare or the budget or guns. But there is one thing. I mean, when you have a Vice Presidential candidate, our colleague, Paul Ryan, come to Chicago and speak, when you have Congressman Carter come to San Antonio with me and speak, things are changing. Let's respect that. Let's respect the love and the intensity of caring about fixing our broken immigration system that has been expressed. I was so delighted, I want to say to the gentleman from Iowa, when your majority leader, Mr. Cantor, gave a speech and said I'm not only for the DREAM Act, I'm for a pathway to citizenship for the dreamer. I said great. I didn't question his motives. I said great. How can I help you? Let's help him, the majority leader, and others--Democrats and Republicans alike--who have said, you know what, let's fix our broken immigration system. We're tired of it dividing families. I want to say I've had them come into my office, American citizen soldiers--going and fighting on the frontline so that you have the right to speak here and protect it--and they have their wives being deported. We should have this discretion so their wives aren't deported. That's only fair and right. Four million American citizen children--Mr. King, 4 million American citizen children have undocumented parents. We should not separate them. We should have discretion to keep those families together. Let's defeat this motion. It has no place in the House of Representatives. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for a vote on Thursday, May 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 181.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Friday, May 17. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 155, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 156, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 157, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 158, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 159, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 160. personal explanation

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am very familiar with the types of threats that this country faces every day and the serious ramifications of cyber vulnerabilities. This is an issue to which the committee has devoted a great deal of time and energy during the last year. In the cyber security realm these threats are growing in frequency and severity, so much so that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, identified cyber security as a top threat facing this country earlier this year. Director Clapper stated in an open hearing just a month ago that the growing cyber capabilities of both state and non-state actors ``put all sectors of our county at risk, from government and private networks to critical infrastructures.'' We have seen more and more brazen attacks, from financial institutions and banks to news outlets, credit card companies, telecommunications providers and even government entities. I believe that we should make every effort to safeguard the privacy of Americans' personal information even as we take steps to prevent attacks to our electronic networks and attempts to steal trade secrets, facilitate critical information sharing, and protect our critical infrastructure. To that end, the committee made a number of improvements to the bill with bipartisan support during our markup last week. Most notably, we voted to remove the authority for private information to be used for broad non-cyber ``national security'' purposes. We also expanded oversight responsibilities for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and restricted usage of information received by private entities to cyber security information. The bill also requires the government to minimize any personal information that is unrelated to a cyber threat. The bill has improved since the last time it was considered by the House of Representatives in 2012. I understand that there remain areas of concern for some of my colleagues. I share your reservations and am disappointed that we were unable to adopt amendments to address some of the liability issues, require private sector entities to make ``reasonable efforts'' to remove irrelevant personally identifiable information, and establish the Department of Homeland Security as the primary receptor of cyber threat information. An amendment to place DHS as the primary agency was not made in order today and I hope that we can continue to work on an agreement to do that. I am sensitive to these privacy concerns and hope that we can continue to improve the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act through amendments today and ongoing dialogue. However, my underlying concerns about the national security implications of ever-present and even escalating cyber attacks compels me to support the bill today.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Congressman Shimkus. And now, ladies and gentlemen, the newest distinguished lady from the State of Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield that 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Bobby Rush. His name obviously ends in R and mine in G and that's why I got to be the dean, but we're sharing this together because this is a joyous day. Congressman Bobby Rush, please introduce the gentlelady.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Illinois, the Honorable Robin Kelly, be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for one vote on February 13, 2013 and votes today. I would like the record to show that had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 40, ``nay'' on rollcall votes 43 and 44, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 45. personal explanation

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Monday, January 14. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 8, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 9 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 10.