Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 102 and 103 on Tuesday, March 13, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call 102 and Yea on Roll Call 103.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on September 5 of last year, the day after Labor Day, the temperature was 86 degrees in Washington, D.C., so that was a long time ago. On that date, President Trump and his henchmen announced that they were killing the DACA program. The next day, meeting with my Democratic colleagues, I said I would not support any spending or budget bills that didn't include a Dream Act or some other serious attempt to put Dreamers with DACA in a safe place. That was 6 months ago, and we are right back where we started. The Republicans have a bill to cut legal immigration and abandon the Dreamers in some semilegal limbo, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee had a press conference about it yesterday and is touting his bill as the last chance to get something done about DACA. No, this will not resolve DACA. We will not support it in exchange for it. What the chairman did not mention is that his bill is actually about something else: it is about changing the racial makeup of America's immigrants so that more of them are White and fewer of them are from countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Analysis by the Center for Global Development of Goodlatte's proposal states the following: ``Hispanic and Black immigrants would be roughly twice as likely to be barred by the immigration cuts as white immigrants.'' The legal immigration cuts would bar the majority of Muslim and Catholic immigrants from coming legally to the United States of America. While the President keeps saying that he wants a better class of immigrants coming to America, the cuts would actually substantially reduce the number of university graduate immigrants. The Goodlatte bill would expand some work visas, but we would only add one university graduate for every seven workers removed by eliminating the family visas and diversity visas. Now, tell me, how does cutting out hardworking immigrants and guaranteeing that the only available avenue to come and work in America is an illegal one, how does that protect Dreamers? It doesn't. We are once again chasing bad policies down a rabbit hole, because the real agenda on the other side of the aisle is to leverage the national concern over the plight of Dreamers into a radical reordering of legal immigration to make it whiter. Sorry. That is not the agenda of my party and, frankly, not the agenda of my fellow Americans. So, with more than 80 of my colleagues, we will release a letter today at a press conference we wrote to the leaders of both parties in the House and the House appropriators. It echos what I started saying 6 months ago: we need a budget or spending measure that includes the Dream Act, a clean Dream Act, and that is it. This week or next week, we all know we need to pass a budget to keep the government open, and Democrats are clear: our country, our Congress, and our leaders need to figure out how Dreamers get to live in the country they grew up in, the country they love, the country that has invested so much in them and received so much from them. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security. The Federal courts didn't settle this or give us a permanent solution. They just gave a lot of lawmakers a convenient excuse for inaction. I am not buying it and neither should you, because also in the spending bill there are likely to be billions of dollars for deportation, detention, breaking up families, and breaking down doors in neighborhoods across the country. That is why our letter says we do not only want a clean Dream Act included in the omnibus, but we want to reduce funding appropriated to DHS' detention and deportation machine, specifically funding for detention beds, deportation agents operating under ICE or CBP, and an end to border militarization. We oppose any funding that expands the construction of walls or fencing at the southern border. We should, instead, allocate border security resources to modernize the infrastructure and technology at our ports of entry, which would actually benefit our country and our economy. Mr. Speaker, 6 months after Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions instigated this crisis by proclaiming their desire to deport Dreamers and kicking their safety and security in our Nation to this do-nothing Congress, we now have what could be the last opportunity to actually take permanent legislative action. Do not be distracted by the President's nativist agenda or the bills in Congress that seek to implement his nationalist view. Do not give up on taking action that is serious and will actually protect Dreamers and the communities that they live in, and do not allow the deportation and family destruction machine to thrive and grow on our watch. We must take a stand right here, right now, and stand up for what is right and what is beneficial for our Nation. I am proud to stand with the majority of Americans and 83 colleagues who have joined me on this letter. The time is now. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 83 Members to House leadership and appropriators. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, March 13, 2018. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nita Lowey, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Lowey: With the newest government funding deadline on March 23, 2018 looming, tens of thousands of Dreamers continue to lose their protection from deportation since President Trump rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on September 5, 2017. And while numerous stopgap measures to fund the government have been enacted since September of last year, zero legislative action has been taken to protect Dreamers permanently. Congress is long overdue in acting on this issue, and the failure to pass the Dream Act has resulted in countless lives put in peril. Meanwhile the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tears families apart by targeting Dreamers, long-term residents, asylum-seekers, families and children for detention and deportation. As the negotiations for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill are ongoing, we urge you to: (1) include the bipartisan Dream Act; (2) reduce funding appropriated to DHS's detention and deportation machine, specifically funding for detention beds, deportation agents operating under Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and border militarization; and (3) oppose any funding that expands the construction of walls or fencing at the southern border, and to instead allocate border security resources to modernize the infrastructure and technology at our ports of entry. The appropriations for ICE and CBP have come at significant, detrimental cost to our communities throughout the country because all immigrants are in the crosshairs of the Trump Administration's mass deportation agenda. When agents for both ICE and CBP operate without any discretion or regard to length of residence in the U.S. and deep ties in our communities, the fear and mistrust in our neighborhoods is heightened. It is an abuse of ICE and CBP funds to rip fathers from U.S. citizen children and tear severely ill children or young infants from their parents' arms. Now more than ever, we cannot fund the detention and deportation of valued members of our communities on the border and in the interior and vulnerable individuals and families seeking refuge in our country, especially when the key components of DHS that enforce our nation's immigration laws operate with negligible oversight. As Congressional leaders, we must exercise our powers responsibly to protect the Dreamers through legislative action and to wield our power of the purse to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security does not make immigrant families and communities casualties of a reckless, indiscriminate detention and deportation machine. Sincerely, Luis V. Gutierrez; Adriano Espaillat; Raul M. Grijalva; Jerrold Nadler; Zoe Lofgren; Michelle Lujan Grisham; Judy Chu; Joe Crowley; Jan Schakowsky; Jose E. Serrano; Steve Cohen; Eliot L. Engel; Ted Deutch; Dina Titus; Nydia M. Velazquez; Lloyd Doggett; Carolyn B. Maloney; Linda T. Sanchez; Gene Green; Paul D. Tonko; Alcee L. Hastings. Al Green; Albio Sires; Peter Welch; Barbara Lee; Adam Smith; Keith Ellison; Gwen Moore; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Ben Ray Lujan; Maxine Waters; Bobby L. Rush; Elijah Cummings; Danny K. Davis; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Yvette D. Clarke; Robert A. Brady; Hakeem S. Jeffries; Grace F. Napolitano; Jared Polis; Norma J. Torres; Juan Vargas; Bonnie Watson Coleman. Donald Norcross; Tony Cardenas; Kathleen M. Rice; Mark Pocan; Mark Takano; Darren Soto; Michael E. Capuano; Ed Perlmutter; Nanette Diaz Barragan; Grace Meng; Robin L. Kelly; Jimmy Gomez; Bill Foster; Joaquin Castro; Ruben Gallego; Brenda L. Lawrence; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Brendan F. Boyle; Donald S. Beyer, Jr.; Earl Blumenauer; Dwight Evans. J. Luis Correa; Pramila Jayapal; Ro Khanna; Suzanne Bonamici; James P. McGovern; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; Jamie Raskin; Colleen Hanabusa; Jacky Rosen; John Lewis; Mark DeSaulnier; Val Butler Demings; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Ted W. Lieu; Alma S. Adams, Ph.D.; Salud O. Carbajal; Donald M. Payne, Jr.; John Yarmuth; Alan Lowenthal.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I talked about immigrants Donald Trump doesn't really care for, like the Dreamers who were raised in the United States and are now vulnerable to deportation. Then there are the refugees from war and religious persecution. He doesn't really care for them either. Let's see, there are the people from El Salvador, Haiti, or Africa-- the people from shithole countries. Trump would rather deport than protect them. And he doesn't want them coming here legally either. No, as we all know by now, Trump prefers immigrants from snowhole countries like Norway. Yep, you take a look at the Winter Olympics leaderboard of the countries that won medals and that is a pretty good list of who Trump wants to have here. Norway, check. Canada, great. Netherlands, okay. And we better add Russia to that, too. President Trump has been blocking any kind of immigrant legislation because he will only agree to protect Dreamers from deportation if he can eliminate whole categories of legal immigration. And not just any immigration, but specifically the programs that are filled with people who want to come to the United States legally from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He is especially opposed to diversity in our immigration system, and among the programs he insists we eliminate is the one most often used by immigrants from Africa. So Trump's immigration approach is pretty simple: If you are White, you are all right. If you are Brown, you are a little lower down. And if you are Black, just go back. The other group of people Trump is particularly angry about are family members of U.S. citizens--yes--and those who are on the path to becoming U.S. citizens. He insists that we need to take away the rights of U.S. citizens to petition for their family members. Nope, Trump thinks U.S. citizens cannot be trusted to petition for their own family members, which is kind of strange because he doesn't have to look very far to find an immigrant American citizen who petitioned--legally--for Melania's parents to come to the United States. According to The Washington Post: ``The parents of First Lady Melania Trump have become legal permanent residents of the United States and are close to obtaining their citizenship, according to people familiar with their status. . . . ``Immigration experts said''--they--``very likely relied on a family reunification process that President Trump has derided as `chain migration' and proposed ending in such cases.'' Remember, the in-laws are from Slovenia, and that country won two medals at the Winter Olympics, so I guess they are okay. It is okay, apparently. Now, let us remember that the First Lady of the United States is here in this country because she applied for, and received, an ``extraordinary ability visa,'' which is often called the Einstein visa because we give it to Nobel Prize winners. But I guess we also give the Einstein visa to musicians and artists and runway models. The First Lady's extraordinary abilities are many, I am sure. Now, I want you to recall that one of the issues in Jared Kushner's security clearance was that he owes so much money to foreigners, that some people might be able to leverage that debt into an application for another visa program just for millionaires and fat cats. Yes, in America, if you have $1 million, or you look like $1 million, you can get a visa. But if you look like a parking attendant or a busboy or a field hand or the king of Wakanda, in the eyes of our President, you are just not welcome in the United States of America. Look, let me break it down from my perspective. This is not the country we aspire to be. My mother came from Puerto Rico with a fifth grade education, and Puerto Rico has never won a gold medal at the Winter Olympics. But guess what? Her daughter--my sister--is a great public school teacher and her son is a Member of Congress, and I think that is what the American story should always be about. Not special treatment, not special programs just for the rich and the beautiful, and not, apparently, fast-tracking for the President's family, especially when he is going after so many other people's families who look just like mine.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the deadline for the U.S. Congress to secure the futures of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers. Our constituents, who grew up in the United States, have been here at least 10 years, but do not have permanent legal immigration status and, therefore, are deportable, vulnerable, and exploitable. And guess what? The cynics were right, and Congress has taken no action. There have been a few attempts, but the reality is that Congress has not passed a bill, and the opportunities for us to pass a bill are dwindling. How did we get here? How is it that we always end up here when it comes to immigration? Well, it has been a failure of both parties to act, to compromise, and to legislate. But let's be honest, the President doesn't want these immigrants in this country, and Republicans in Congress only want to do what the President wants them to do because they fear his tweets and the effect it might have on their voters in November. The President said he loved Dreamers. Remember? He wanted to preserve DACA and treat them ``with heart.'' He said he wanted to give a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, and he told a group of lawmakers on national television that he would take the political heat and sign whatever bipartisan approach they were able to come up with, but he was lying, again. Just like his conversations with lawmakers on guns after the massacre in Florida--also with the television cameras rolling--what the President says in public, what he does behind closed doors, what he tweets, and what he thinks from moment to moment do not seem to be connected in any logical way. And when the cameras are turned off, the radical rightwing whispers their orders in the President's ear, and he falls right in line-- whether it is with gun manufacturers or the anti-immigration nativists. And when you cannot trust the President to have a stable opinion for more than 2, maybe 3, hours, it makes it hard for Republicans to figure out what will please him and make him happy from moment to moment. Bipartisan proposals that could have passed the House and the Senate were brought to him and he rejected them, saying that he wanted to eliminate various types of legal immigration avenues used by people, especially people of color and people from the developing world. Without these massive cuts to legal immigration, the President just wasn't interested. And we offered him money for his silly, mindless, stupid, dimwitted, racist wall, but he rejected that, too. In the end, this is not about Dreamers, it is not about the wall, it is not about border security. Do you know what it is about? It is about a deeply held core belief of the President, and many of his advisers, that there are just too many people of color coming legally to the United States. There are too many family members of immigrants, unless those immigrants are members of Trump's own family. It is clear that the President doesn't want immigrants who look like the diverse and colorful fabric of the world. And he doesn't want Dreamers who were raised in the U.S. alongside of our own children, who reflect the diversity of America. Now, to be fair, some of my Democratic colleagues are just as happy about the injunctions in the Federal courts that are keeping the Trump deportation machine from fully engaging and going after Dreamers. Lawmakers--both Democrats and Republicans--don't need much encouragement sometimes to just kick the can down the road. But let's not kid ourselves. Relying on the courts to save Dreamers is a cop-out, and a lot of people are left out if they do not already have DACA. And for the ones who can renew their status, we may be back here in a few days or weeks trying to prevent the deportation of Dreamers and lots of other immigrants if the courts change course, which they may. So I will not let my colleagues in either party rest. For now, every person who has DACA should renew their DACA as quickly as possible for whatever time they have left. I say run, don't walk, to renew. I have been here long enough to know that even when faced with an issue on which 80 percent of the American people agree--whether it is sensible gun control or preventing the deportation of children raised in America--it is the 20 percent of the American people who Republicans are listening to, and playing to, and tweeting to, and playing nice- nice with the White House to appease. And the rest of us, what do we get? Nothing--on immigrants, on guns, on climate change, on healthcare, or on taxes--unless we, as voters, simply reshuffle the deck.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 92 and 93 on Monday, March 5, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on both of these votes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when we left Washington before the Presidents Day recess, we watched our colleagues in the Senate vote on a series of bills to address immigration. Only one bill received 60 votes, but it was 60 votes against the bill offered by Senator Grassley, the bill that most closely matches the President's hatred for immigrants. So a supermajority in the Senate opposes the President's plan for massive cuts to legal immigration and massive deportations. Then, yesterday, President Trump's campaign against immigrants received another blow. The Supreme Court declined to take a case from California and declined to lift an injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to continue to process renewals for the DACA program, which means that those who signed up for DACA over the past 5 years can renew their DACA now, and the arbitrary deadline the President set for kicking 1,000 people per day out of the program beginning next Monday has, like so much of what Trump does, been stopped for now. Just take a moment to appreciate what happened. The Attorney General and the President, without offering any evidence, told the American people that they had to end the DACA program because it was illegal and the courts would strike it down, they said. As it turns out, the truth is almost the exact opposite of what the President and the Attorney General have told the country. No court has ever found DACA illegal or even legally suspect. Their actions to kill the DACA program have been found highly questionable by the courts. But let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, just because the courts have taken no action and the Senate failed to take action does not mean that the House and Republicans are off the hook for DACA. The President still plans to kill DACA and make hundreds of thousands of immigrants, who are currently documented and known to our government, into undocumented immigrants forced underground--vulnerable, exploitable, and deportable. The House has an opportunity--indeed, a responsibility--to step up to the occasion and craft a permanent solution. The good news is that the solution is supported by 8 out of 10 voters in the United States: a pathway to citizenship. Can we, as a body, rise to the occasion to do something Americans want us to do? Can we set aside questions of who wins and who loses politically long enough to do what is right? We won't know unless we try. Many on the other side say there should be only one option: leave or be deported, but that is not what we do to American children. And let's be clear, these are American children. We do not force American children to live in exile for 10, 20, 30 years. We do not educate and acculturate our youth and then force them out of the country. If you are an American patriot, the last thing you want is for the world to see us deporting our own Americans. Just ask your donors, the Koch brothers, who know that saving the Dreamers is what they call something demanded as patriots. So, Mr. Speaker, the ball is in our court. We need to take action now. If we can draft a compromise to protect Dreamers and allow them to live in their home country, America, if both sides concede something to the other, we may get to a solution. That is what leaders must do. A compromise will likely be painful for all. We need to show the country that we are willing to take the heat and that we are ready to legislate. The President set us on this course. He pulled the legal rug from underneath the Dreamers and then cloaked his position on immigration in an ethnocentric, pro-European, pro-White agenda that will hurt America. But the racists--and we must call them out for what they are--the racists who are driving immigration policy in the White House are defining the agenda for every House Republican and are shaping the brand of the Republican Party not just as the party opposed to illegal immigration, but, now, as the party opposed to legal immigration; not just as the party who doesn't want poor or Latin American immigrants, but doesn't want Brown or Black or anyone who isn't White in this country. If that is how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle define themselves and want to be remembered, then they should do nothing. But I have a greater faith in this institution and in the ability of this Congress to rise above racism and to do something the American people want us to do without regard to race, religion, or national origin. I am a Democrat who will work with Republicans if Republicans are serious about reaching a solution, but it must start with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: ``Yes, we want to solve the problem, and we want to rise above the racism emanating from the White House today.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 79 and 80 on Thursday, February 15, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call vote 79 and ``Nay'' on roll call vote 80. Had I been present for roll call vote 80, on final passage of the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), I would have voted nay due to the vast setbacks this bill poses for the disability community. As a civil rights issue, the ADA Education and Reform Act would gut protections and key enforcements for an already vulnerable population. The onus falls on businesses to be proactive and to follow proper guidelines to ensure access for all. I particularly find troubling the ``notice and cure'' provisions detailed in the bill, which allows businesses to postpone compliance and fundamentally changes the American with Disabilities Act.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for Roll Call votes 70 and 71 on Tuesday, February 13, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 70 and 71.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for rollcall votes 72 through 78 on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 74, 75, and 76, and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 72, 73, 77, and 78.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we sat here and heard the President's State of the Union Address in which he spoke about immigration and immigrants. A couple of things I want to highlight: No, Mr. President, not all immigrants are, A, Latino, and not all immigrants, Mr. President, are members of organized gangs, MS-13. I know you don't want to be fair and you didn't want to talk about the immigrants who are doctors, healing people every day in our hospitals; the immigrants who are teachers, educating Americans every day in our schools; the engineers who are innovating and creating new infrastructure that keep us safe and keep us modern in America. No, you don't want to even talk about the millions of immigrants who toil in our fields, without papers, without documentation; and we know and we see the fruit of their labor, both literally and figuratively speaking, when we go to our grocery stores. Who do you think does that work, does that hard work in the fields? People born American citizens? No. People who have come here. But we didn't want to talk about that. And then, after you criminalized immigrants and made them these scary people who come to rob and to maim and to murder, you then went ahead and said: And by the way, those who come here legally, sponsored by their relatives, by their parents, by their brothers and sisters, by their immediate family members, they too pose a threat. You said, Mr. President, they come here as immigrants and then they sponsor an unlimited number of distant relatives. Well, last time I checked, in my personal life, my wife, whom you can sponsor, is a pretty close relative to me; my children and my parents. Those are the only people that you can sponsor. Yes, parents, children, and your spouse. But you said there were unlimited. So, if that is a lie, what part of what you said was true? Well, virtually nothing. Because if the underpinning of one of your arguments is shown to be false, then what is true? And then this week we saw this administration go from calling immigrants criminals to saying they are just downright lazy. No. I say to the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States, the DREAMers are not lazy. They may be afraid because it was an executive order which many of them feared a new President might revoke and put them in jeopardy; that is true. But lazy, they are not. They scraped together the $500, went through the background checks, not once but twice and thousands of them three times, in order to get what you today want to take away from them: their ability to work and to live freely in this country with nothing from the government. So, if you didn't think the criminalization of immigrants was wrong, if you didn't think the demonization of them as hordes of people who can bring unlimited numbers of distant relatives--that lie was wrong-- if you didn't think calling them just lazy was wrong--no--you know what I see? Barack Obama said he saw people who were inculcated with the same values that he inculcates in his very daughters. He made a direct relationship between DREAMers and his own children. I want to go one step further than that. I don't see my children in them; I see fellow Americans. I see fellow Members of the House of Representatives. And I know that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans that that could be, but it shouldn't because it is the way forward. And they are going to come, and they are going to be integrated because we are going to get them the one thing that they need--that piece of paper--because they are Americans. They are serving in the Armed Forces and dying for us today. Serving in the Armed Forces. And they are working, and they are healing. Why can't we let people who are doctors and lawyers and people who are nurses and people who are in the Armed Forces stay? They have been through the background checks. Because that is not the kind of America that some of us want to see in the future. So today they are going to bring over from the Senate a proposal. They are going to lift the caps, and they are going to say: Let's vote on our budget. Well, I say to everybody, don't collude with this administration and deport DREAMers. Vote against the budget.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for Roll Call votes 51 and 52 on Monday, February 5, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call vote 51 and Nay on Roll Call vote 52.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for rollcall votes, 53, 54, and 55 on Tuesday, February 6, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 53, 54, and 55.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for Roll Call votes 45 and 46 on Monday, January 29, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 45 and 46.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I had an interesting meeting yesterday with General Kelly. Twenty-five Members of Congress, almost all of whom are descendants of immigrants who came here with nothing, whose parents came here with nothing, sat down with the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States. He said, basically, that we are the wrong kind of people in America, and that people like our parents who came here to this country really are bringing the country down. Because when he says he is for a merit-based system, he is saying he is not for my mom and my dad being able to come to this country. But interestingly enough, all of us who came to this country because of a family-based immigration system wound up as being Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. But he was saying: You know, I am meeting with a group of Congressmen, and you really shouldn't be here because your parents really are tearing the country apart and bringing it down. That is what he means when he says: I want to replace the system with a merit-based system. And that was very telling in the meeting yesterday. But, you know, we want a system that is family-based. That is the system the Democrats want because we believe that businesses are created by immigrants and that it is essential for their families to be united as they come to this country so that they can achieve American success and we can all achieve the American Dream together. That is exactly what they want to stop with the merit-based system; unless, of course, they come from Norway, then they continue to come. We hear from the party of family values and the party of Donald Trump, who even employs his children at the White House. The Trump Organization, just think about. Here is an organization where the dad created the business, handed it down to the son. The son is now going to hand it down to his children. But they don't want immigrants to be able to do exactly the same thing and follow the same course that, apparently, has been so successful for the President of the United States. Here is something else we learned from the Chief of Staff: when people from one party work with people from another party, that is not bipartisanship, he said. Bipartisanship, defined by General Kelly and this White House, is when people with completely different, opposite views of the world work together. So only a Senate deal between people who believe in immigration and those who don't believe in immigration and who want to end our immigration system as it is, unless you come from Norway, that is the only way it is bipartisanship. That is like saying that if a Republican and Democrat are working together on an environmental issue, it is not bipartisanship because it is a Republican and Democrat, unless the Democrat and the Republican are persons who believe in climate change, working together with a Republican who believes that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Do you know what kind of legislation you get? You get nothing. You get a stalemate. You do not move the agenda forward. But that is their bipartisanship, and that is what we learned at the meeting yesterday. Look, Democrats and Republicans are working together--Senator Graham, Republican; Senator Durbin, Democrat. They put a proposal on the table, and the President rejected it. That includes, just so that we are very clear, Democrats giving up things that are unprecedented in that Senate deal that was put on the President's desk. Members of the Hispanic Caucus meeting with General Kelly can't fathom supporting the Senate deal. But guess what. That is bipartisanship. That is what it comes down to, which brings us to the votes this week. Republicans might not need our help because you are the majority party, we are the minority party. But just in case you do need our help in getting a budget approved, I want you to know we are ready to stand to help you to keep the government open and to approve a budget. But what I learned from the meeting with General Kelly, and everybody should understand, is that Democrats are more united than ever before. If you want our help on the budget, you have got to release the 800,000 DREAMers you are holding hostage. You have got to do it. Democrats aren't going to blink. We are going to stand by our values. There comes a time that, if you say you stand for justice, you have to actually take a stand and hold it and not back down, and that is what Democrats are going to do this week. We are not going to back down. Need our help? Release the 800,000 DREAMers you hold hostage. And guess what. We are ready to pay a handsome ransom for their release.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for Roll Call votes 18 and 19 on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 18 and 19.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for Roll Call votes 9 and 10 on Wednesday, January 10, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on Roll Call votes 9 and 10.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, President Trump took action to undocument 200,000 immigrants from El Salvador, who have TPS and have been working regularly and renewing their documents in the U.S. for more than 20 years. He said the same thing to 58,000 Haitians. They need to leave in another 16 months. This is the same thing that happened with the DREAMers. He made them undocumented, 800,000 of whom are working. Mr. Speaker, I am tired of coming to work here and meeting people in the cafeteria and people who are sweeping floors and doing all kinds of work here in the Capitol who now are in fear of losing their legal protected status and being able to work here in this country because they are undocumented. They want to make people who are working, yes, right here in the Capitol of the United States undocumented. For that, I call upon us to do the work that we were sent here to do and to protect people. We shouldn't be sending 58,000 Haitians back to the poorest country in this hemisphere from the richest country. That is unfathomable and unconscionable and we shouldn't do it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for Roll Call votes 685, 686, and 687 on Monday, December 18, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on Roll Call vote 685 and ``Yea'' on 686 and 687.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for Roll Call votes 674 and 675 on Tuesday, December 12, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call vote 674 and Nay on 675.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, every day, 122 people with DACA lose their protection from deportation. They lose their government-issued identification that allowed them to stay in this country and work legally. DACA is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that the President ended in September and which will completely expire in March. But let's be clear: people don't have until March. People are already losing their DACA coverage on a daily basis. So when reporters and politicians say that Congress can stall until March to enact the Dream Act, they are flat wrong. We cannot wait until March. The Dream Act and the protections of the DACA program are not light switches we can turn on and off. Every day we delay the passage of the Dream Act, another 122 DACA recipients lose their status. They go from being documented to being undocumented, and their worlds are turned upside down. It is not just their lives, but also the lives of American citizens who love them, who employ them, and who rely on them. Young DREAMers came forward and reported to the Department of Homeland Security and paid their own money for a criminal background check by the FBI. In fact, many of them have successfully completed their paperwork and biometrics three times. They paid all of this processing--the paperwork, the background checks, and the fingerprints--with their own money. By definition, they arrived in the United States as children, and, by definition, they all arrived at least 10 years ago--a year and a half before Obama even got sworn in as President. There are 800,000 of them--800,000 young Americans who have been playing by the rules, doing everything their government has asked them to do, and who have been living productive lives in communities in every State of the Union. As of today, more than 12,000 have lost their DACA status and protection. Let me tell you about a few of them. Mayron owns three businesses. He lives in Washington State and has lived in the U.S. since he was 11 years old. His DACA expires on December 22, the day after the CR is set to expire and the day we are all supposed to go home and return to our families for the Christmas holiday and New Year's. He submitted his DACA renewal well before the application deadline that was arbitrarily set for last October. But he made a mistake. His check was for $465, not $495, so he will be deportable as of December 22. He has lived his entire life in the United States, yet, if Republicans and the President have their way, he will be sent back to Honduras. His three businesses and those who work there? Who knows what will happen to them. Another DACA recipient named Saul is from California. Thanks to the security and stability provided by DACA, he has pursued a career in education. I was a teacher, and I know that the monetary rewards are few, but the rewards for your soul are many, and the rewards to our society of having dedicated teachers are just as priceless. But without DACA and without the Dream Act, Saul has no future in teaching, and we may squander the passion he would bring to a classroom. His DACA expires on December 29, and this is anything but a Merry Christmas for him as we drag our feet here in the Congress of the United States. Finally, there is Brittany in New York. She is a childcare provider who works with infant twins--one of whom has a severe health condition. Her employers are now scrambling because Brittany's DACA expired last Thursday, and she has no clear legal path forward. The family said: We are devastated at the thought that she may not be able to work in this country and know we won't find another caregiver who is as reliable, nurturing, and unshakeable as Brittany. Most Americans don't understand why taking away legal status from a childcare provider who is employed, cherished, and loved by her employers will somehow create law and order. How does creating more undocumented immigrants help? It doesn't make America great. It doesn't even strengthen security or our economy. I don't think it even benefits the Republican Party politically to send this young American woman like her away. But it is up to Republicans and Democrats to stand up for Brittany, Saul, and Mayron. Democrats must be clear that we value the contributions of these young people and will not allow their stories to be ignored. Republicans--even the brave ones who have said that they are for solving the plight of the DACA kids--must do more than write a letter or whisper quietly in the Halls that they hope something happens. It is up to us right now. I am not leaving, and I am not shutting up until we do.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for Roll Call votes 672 and 673 on Monday, December 11, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 672 and 673.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for Roll Call votes 658, 659, 660, and 661 on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call votes 658, 659, and 660, and I would have voted Yea on Roll Call vote 661.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, every day that Congress does not pass the Dream Act, 122 DACA recipients lose their protection from deportation. That is 122 every day--young people who arrived in the U.S. as children, have gone through multiple background checks, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years. Every week that passes, nearly 1,000 DACA recipients lose their protection from deportation. By Christmas, the number of DACA recipients who will have lost protection will reach 13,492. But now we are hearing that we may have a short-term CR or a series of CRs and that the whole budget and funding debate may get kicked down the road to next year when all 800,000 young immigrants who signed up for DACA begin losing their status. Mr. Speaker, with Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and White House, I am pretty sure you will not need my vote to pass the next budget. So I will vote against any short-term CR because I assume you have the votes to govern as you see fit no matter how much I and other Democrats disagree with your priorities on women, on children's healthcare, the environment, or DREAMers. Now, if Republicans decide they do need help from Democrats to approve a budget, they know where to find us, and we are more than willing to help if what we are voting on meets minimal standards of priorities for the American people. For me and a lot of my colleagues, that means a vote on the Dream Act right now this year. The votes are here, the legislation is here, and the American people are already in support. So, Mr. Speaker, at some point, Republican leadership should just get out of the way and let America vote. That is what leadership, compromise, and bipartisanship look like. Now, we certainly know what it doesn't look like. In the middle of the night last weekend, Republicans voted to give a tax cut to the richest Americans. They dressed it up as a tax cut for all of us--for everyone--but we all know that it is an obscene tax cut for the obscenely wealthy and rich in America. Not a single Democrat in either House supported it. This chart explains part of the reason. It is tremendously unpopular with the American people as the small slice in red on this chart shows us. According to a Gallup poll, just 29 percent of Americans support the Republican tax cut for billionaires and the multinational corporations. That is what partisanship looks like. So what does bipartisanship look like? It looks like the Dream Act. Overall, 86 percent of Americans support the Dream Act, a bill to legalize immigration status of immigrants who arrived in the United States as children. Yes, 86 percent. That is a big slice of red on the chart. That number comes--get this--from a FOX News poll, just in case you think I was using a partisan poll where they put their thumb on the scale to show things in my favor. Sixty-three percent of Trump voters back citizenship for the DREAMers. So here is a proposal supported by an overwhelming number of people, an overwhelming number of Republicans, and an overwhelming percentage of Trump voters. But we can't get a vote. Yesterday, 34 Republicans in this body wrote to the Speaker asking him to please allow a vote and something to protect the DREAMers. Clearly, all 34 percent of those Republicans can read the chart in red. They want to do something that is both politically popular and the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. The reason Republican leaders will not allow a vote on the Dream Act, or at least are acting like they won't, is because they know it will pass. So you take 34 Republicans who wrote the Speaker and add 194 Democrats, and do you know what you got? A majority of the House. For all of those Republicans who oppose the Dream Act, they get a Christmas present. They get to vote against it. What better way to associate yourself with the comments of your President on Mexicans, on Muslims, and on everything else than to vote against the Dream Act? So, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to let your Members vote against the Dream Act as an act of charity in the Christmas spirit. Republicans will get what most of them want: an opportunity to send a message to their base voters by voting on something the rest of us agree on--just like the tax bill--but this time, with the passage of the Dream Act, at least a majority of the American people will get something out of it, too.