Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. First of all, I will insert into the Record, since obviously the majority has not read it, a statement of administration policy dated October 7, 2004, from the White House, George Bush's White House. In it, it says on page 2, paragraph 3: ``The administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal . . . The administration has concerns with the overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the bill that are unrelated to security concerns.'' This is the President of the United States of America, the leader of your party that you went to New York and nominated, who is going to debate Senator John Kerry tonight. So if you are right, Senator John Kerry could say tonight to President Bush, You have standards that are less secure because you believe that people should be expedited and should not be expedited. You believe they should not be, that the matricula consular somehow allows illegal criminals, murderers, rapists and others to roam around our country; that you oppose their quick and immediate deportation; that you are giving harbor to terrorists in the United States of America. If we are to believe what the Republican majority has just said, and President Bush has contradicted your position in his letter of official policy, then somebody is wrong and somebody is right here. But I do not think your colleague, the President of the United States, is weak on national defense. I do not think the Republican majority is saying to the President of the United States that he thinks it is a good idea to have murderers and rapists and other criminal elements freely being able to roam the United States of America. Yet, indeed, if you are right, that is what the President supports, because we have his official document of the administration policy, and he says remove this kind of language from the document, that we support it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 should be about restructuring our Nation's intelligence agency, strengthening our homeland, and better protecting our citizens by following the framework recommended by the 9/11 Commission. However, as currently written, H.R. 10 violates our Constitution and attacks immigrants by subjecting immigrants living here less than 5 years to expedited deportation at the hands of overworked immigration agents and without access to a judge. Restricting States from issuing driver's licenses to immigrant drivers, placing public safety at risk. Prohibiting Federal acceptance of consular cards and other identity documents issued by foreign governments other than passports, no matter how secure these documents are when trying to secure a Federal entrance even to a Federal building. Deporting asylum seekers to their torturers and authorizing the deportation of immigrants to countries that lack a functioning government, all without judicial review. Prohibiting habeas corpus review of a variety of immigration issues. These anti-immigration issues do nothing to protect our homeland. In fact, leaders of the 9/11 Commission wisely called on House Republicans last week to remove these controversial provisions from the bill for fear it would slow its progress through Congress. As if that is not enough, family members of 9/11 victims recently sent a letter to this body urging a ``no'' vote if these provisions that I have mentioned are not stripped from the bill. I applaud the commissioners and the 9/11 families for their courageously speaking out strongly against these dangerous provisions. It is unconscionable that certain Members this body would politicize national security in a misguided attempt to advance their malicious attacks on our Nation's immigrant community in the name of public safety. Immigrants died and lost family members in the Twin Towers, they helped rebuild the Pentagon, and they serve on the front lines in Afghanistan, Iraq and the global war on terror. It is shameful that legislation that rose directly from the tragedy of 9/11, legislation that bears the name of the darkest day of our Nation's history, legislation designed to ensure that we are never again attacked on our soil, would be so malicious an attempt against a group of serving, sacrificing, and helping people and try to put on their shoulders the responsibility of the post-9/11 world. Republicans in this House still have time to do what is right and reasonable, as the Senate has done in their legislative package, by capturing the recommendations without attacking our Nation's newcomers. Republicans and Democrats alike should vote for the Menendez substitute, the components of which have been endorsed by the commission and even the White House. If Republican leaders insist on playing politics with this critical legislation, I will vote against H.R. 10, as it is anti-immigrant, un-American, and flies in the face of 9/11 families and the commission's hard work. I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent this evening from this chamber. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 487, 488, and 489.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent this evening from this Chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 473, 474, and 475.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on September 13, 2004, and September 21, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 441, 442, 443, 457, 458, 459, and 460.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I regret having to offer this amendment, which blocks funds to implement and enforce the OCC preemption regulations issued earlier this year. The last time we addressed this issue on the House floor was during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), my able colleagues, offered an amendment at that time that would have prevented any funds in that bill from being used to enforce these preemption regulations. At that time the opposition did not argue against the substance of our concerns, these ill advised preemption regulations that prevent State attorneys general from protecting their consumers. Instead, those opposed to our amendment merely put forward procedural arguments and indicated that this matter should be taken up under regular order, considered in the Committee on Financial Services. We strongly agreed with those sentiments. In fact, 10 members of the Committee on Financial Services sent a bipartisan letter to the chairman of the committee as well as to the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee. In this letter, we asked for consideration of legislation to overturn the preemption regulations that I introduced in April of this year. This letter was sent 2 months ago, July 21, 2004, and we have not received the courtesy of an acknowledgment, much less a substantive reply. Therefore, we are forced to once again address this issue on appropriation legislation. That is truly unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because many Members on both sides of the aisle believe that these regulations not only represent a drastic expansion of the OCC's power but they also greatly exceed the OCC's congressionally granted preemption authority. Furthermore, the OCC's regulations effectively deny citizens the protections of their States' predatory lending and other consumer protection laws. While the OCC claims that it can provide consumer protection equal to that currently provided by State consumer protection agencies and the State attorneys general, we are concerned that replicating the functions of 50 State consumer protection agencies would require an enormous increase in the budget and the power of the OCC, yet will still deny millions of consumers the same level of protection they currently enjoy today from their State regulatory agencies. Perhaps the most important question regarding the preemption amendments is whether Congress intended to allow the OCC to preempt all State consumer protection laws applicable to national banks. Clearly it was not the intent of Congress to create a national banking consumer protection agency when it granted the OCC limited preemption authority. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his cosponsorship in support on this issue. But there is still time to enact on this legislation before the end of session. After all, we are only asking that we have a subcommittee hearing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that we wrote this letter on July 21, after we had the appropriations markup here on the House Floor. And it was stated by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) that we should go back to our committee. Well, 10 Members, bipartisan, sent the letter and said, Let us have that markup; let us look at the OCC. I just want everyone to understand that they have said continuously that local government, State government at the local level are the incubators of democracy, and we should let local governments do it because they do it best, and we should get the Federal bureaucracy less and less out of people's lives. Well, guess what the OCC, the big Federal bureaucracy has just done to every Attorney General across this country? It said, Step aside, we are in charge of consumer protection. That is wrong. Lastly, just so that my colleagues know, you only can call them Monday through Thursday, Monday through Thursday if you have a complaint. I have checked all the 50 States and all of the attorneys general of all the 50 States. Fortunately, they work 5 days a week, some of them more than 5 days a week, with local offices closely accessible. So I am going to withdraw the amendment but suggest that we are going to continue to have these debates until we have a vote up or down on the OCC and whether it can or cannot do this.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to strike the Culberson provision. It says something that this amendment is supported by such a diverse coalition, the Bush administration, the banking industry, immigration groups, Members from both sides of the aisle joining together to remove language that is at its heart designed to keep immigrants out of the regulated banking system. This issue is one that I have worked on since I was elected 12 years ago to the Congress of the United States, and that is, how do you transfer money back to loved ones that really need it? If we want to have a debate on immigration, let us have a debate on immigration. I think that is a substantive debate we should have. As a matter of fact, it was the President of the United States who, on January 7, said we should take people who live in obscurity and are exploited; the leader of the Republican Party, as I saw him at the convention in New York, in command of the Republican Party and your candidate for President, who said we should deal with this immigration issue. As a matter of fact, it is President Bush who Members are attacking here tonight who are saying is making our system unfair because it is President Bush and his administration that supports this amendment. Let us make that absolutely clear and have no quibbles about whose policy this is. This is the Bush administration's. Since the PATRIOT Act, we dealt with the regulation and the Treasury Department for more than a year before these provisions were enacted. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how Members of the President's party can say the banking industry is trying to sugarcoat this. Members know what they get with the matricula consular. Ten million people live in the United States who are probably undocumented. We should know something about them. Where is the political will in this country and the requisite resources to deport those 10 million people? This Congress has never had a serious debate about deporting and putting the resources towards 10 million people. We never will. Some Members walk up here and say there are 2 million undocumented Mexicans in California as if they are just there. Do Members know what they are doing? They are cleaning bathrooms. They are picking the grapes. They are doing the arduous work that many of us born in this country will not do. Let us face up to it, they are working, and they are contributing to our economy. They are not just here stagnant. Let us have a real debate, but the matricula consular is not the place to have debate on immigration policy. They are going to continue to come. They came before the matricula consular; they will come after the matricula consular. Let us give an identification that local economies and local administrations want. That is the matricula consular.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer along with my colleagues an amendment to increase funding by $25.5 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency that is critically important to our efforts to combat terrorist financing and money laundering. I am pleased to work, once again, with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), my cochair on the congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force. We have also worked on these issues in our roles on the oversight subcommittee in the Committee on Financial Services, and I thank her for her leadership on these issues which are so important to both of us. Since its establishment in 1990, FinCEN has been dedicated to collecting, analyzing, and distributing financial data to help identify and trace financial intersection of potential criminal and terrorist activity. While FinCEN is a small agency with relatively little funding, the agency is at the center of our Nation's anti-money laundering infrastructure, supporting the critical work of the financial services, law enforcement and intelligence communities. Recently, the 9/11 Commission stressed the importance of building global alliances. FinCEN also plays a key role in our country's international efforts to trace illicit money by actively promoting coordination with other countries. The agency chairs a global network of 94 countries that works to improve funding and information sharing and interaction. Increasing funding for FinCEN by a small amount would have a significant impact on our government's ability to fight the global war against terrorism. In fact, it is estimated that the agency needs $25 million to expand and improve its capabilities. It will help FinCEN secure the appropriate application of state-of-the-art technology that would dramatically improve its ability to track and expose terrorist financing. I hope we can all join in adding this very, very necessary $25.5 million.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 422 and 423.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and missed three rollcall votes. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 391, 392, and 393.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 2004, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 357. I would like the record to show that, had I voted, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and missed a rollcall vote. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 388.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this chamber on July 12, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 359, 361 and 362 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 360.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, the resolution we are considering today, H.R. 2768, provides for the minting of a commemorative coin to honor the life and legacy of Chief Justice John Marshall, an important figure in United States history. He was a soldier during the Revolutionary War, a member of Congress, and Secretary of State before serving as chief justice for 34 years, the longest period of any justice in our Nation's history. He authored more than 500 opinions, which helped shape the fundamental principles of the Constitution, most notably the principle of judicial review. His leadership helped set the course for our court to become the powerful and prestigious institution that it is today. Most Chicagoans recognize the name John Marshall as that of the John Marshall Law School, located in the heart of the city's legal and financial district. This institution has a long and continuous tradition of diversity, innovation and opportunity. Students receive an education that combines an understanding of the theory, the philosophy and the practice of law. Alumni from John Marshall Law School are active participants in local and national politics. I initially became aware of this bill through alumni of John Marshall Law School. I have since become a strong supporter because not only does it honor Marshall's legacy, but it also has the potential to generate millions of dollars for the Supreme Court Historical Society. I believe the Society is an important tool for all Americans. It helps keep us educated and informed of our Nation's highest court and its activities. As I spoke to other offices about this legislature, I was pleased to be able to secure an additional 40 cosponsors for this bill, helping to move it forward. However, I am disappointed that it took so long to get it past the House Financial Services Committee, which reported it out on April 27, 2004. I would have liked such a worthy, bipartisan issue to have been brought on the floor for voting much sooner. Nonetheless, I am pleased to be standing here in front of you today and I urge you to support this honorable and worthy legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on July 6, 2004. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 326 and 327.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment, which would provide no funds in the bill be used to defend the OCC preemption regulations in a court of law. Earlier this year, the OCC issued preemption rules that indicated that many State laws did not apply to national banks, did not apply to national banks, and State officials such as the attorneys general elected in each and every one of our States did not have authority over national banks and to help consumers. I think that is crazy. I think that is insane. And it does not defend the consumers. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and I and our staffs, with their inspiration and innovation, have brought this amendment to the floor because we want to defend consumers. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the OCC, regulates national banks. The name of the agency causes most people to think of it as the Mint or that it would be responsible for printing money. It is certainly not the agency that consumers think to call for help when a bank has violated the law, and perhaps it is because the OCC's Consumer Call Center is open only for business 28 hours a week and closed on Fridays. At least the attorneys general and your bank regulators in your States are open Monday through Friday, 40 hours a week, to defend consumers. That is what the OCC thinks about consumer protections. They will not even defend you 5 days a week. When my constituents have a problem with the bank, they call the Illinois Attorney General, as I am sure in every other State people call their Attorneys General. But according to the OCC, the Attorney General has virtually no authority over the big powerful national banks. And that is wrong. I remember when the gentleman from Alabama came here talking about States right and saying they are the incubator of ideas. Everything is done better at the local level. Yet, the gentleman from Alabama comes here, and we should have struck his words, I will not, calling us crazy on five different occasions. It is not crazy to protect consumers. It is crazy not to protect consumers because that is our main responsibility, to defend the people and not to be quoting from the Bankers Journal. They publish that journal to defend their interests, and it should be our priority to defend the interests of consumers, as crazy as that may seem given all the special interest money that runs around the Congress of the United States.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on June 21, 2004. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 276, 277, and 278.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor an exemplary public servant from Puerto Rico, the Honorable Luis Melendez Cano, mayor of the City of Vega Baja. Luisito, as he is popularly known, has been Mayor of the City of Vega Baja since January 1973. Luisito, who also is a pharmacist, earned the rank of Captain in the U.S. Army National Guard and became Mayor at age 33. Luisito has served the citizens of his fast-growing city with enthusiasm, a strong sense of patriotism and total devotion to the highest ideals of public service. He is known and respected for his honesty and dedication to the best interest of the people he serves. Mr. Speaker, public service is one of the highest callings an individual can embark on. Please join me in recognizing the stellar record of this dedicated public servant. A man who committed himself to the improvement of the City of Vega Baja and its people. Luisito, I congratulate you for your many years of selfless public service, and I wish you and the people of your city much success in your future endeavors.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on June 18, 2004. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, and 275 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 270.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this chamber on June 14, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 234 and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 232, 233 and 235.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this chamber on June 8 and June 9, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 229, 230 and 231.