Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on April 2, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 115, 116, and 117. In addition, I was inadvertently delayed and missed votes on June 1, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 210, 211, and 212.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on April 28, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 138.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for a vote in this chamber on May 6, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 152.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today, along with Congressman Paul and a number of our colleagues, I am introducing legislation to overturn the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) ``preemption regulations.'' These misguided, unprecedented, and unchecked pair of regulations expand federal regulatory authority by preempting state consumer protection laws. The OCC regulations exceed the limited preemption authority granted the agency by Congress. Our legislation will stop the OCC from eroding strong safeguards that have been used by the states for more than a century to enforce consumer protection laws. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801) provides a mechanism for Congress to review and nullify regulations and prohibit the agency from promulgating substantially similar regulations--without changing the underlying statute. In this case, each Congressional Review Act resolution--one for each rule--will function like a ``referendum'' on an OCC rule. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate before the recess. Last week, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan expressed concern about the OCC's actions and their potential to undermine the dual banking system. He urged legislators to maintain an ``appropriate balance'' in the nation's dual system of federally and state-chartered banks. I would hope that my colleagues would join our effort to accomplish that balance by overturning these misguided rules.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was also unavoidably absent from this Chamber on April 20, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 118, 119 and 120.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment on this legislation regarding the OCC preemption rules, but withdrew it in anticipation of revisiting that important issue soon on other legislation. I do, however, want to state my strong support for a particular provision of H.R. 1375, the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2003. I am very pleased that credit unions will be permitted to offer remittance products to nonmembers under this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, Charlie Gonzalez and Doug Ose for their work on this important provision. Credit unions offer the lowest cost remittance products and the best exchange rates on the market. In addition, increased competition in this arena will provide more favorable options for consumers. This is most important because many purveyors of remittance products charge extremely high fees and provide very unfavorable exchange rates to their consumers, and they often fail to provide adequate disclosure. I have legislation that addresses this issue, requiring meaningful disclosure of fees and rates, in the language that is used to advertise and/or transact business with consumers. I hope this meaningful legislation will soon advance to floor consideration. Again, thank you, Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, for including this important remittance provision in the legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was also unavoidably absent from this Chamber on March 16, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 58, 59, and 60.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, due to illness I missed roll call votes 12 through 18 that were called February 2, 3 and 4, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I not been ill and been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. I was also unavoidably absent from this chamber on March 2 and 9, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 32, 33, 42, 43 and 44.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today, H. Con. Res. 287, commemorates the life and legacy of Raul Julia and recognizes his role in tearing down barriers for Latinos around the world. Both on stage of off, on film and in the community, Raul Julia embodied the strength and spirit that made him a hero and a role model for so many actors and audiences alike. He had that rare talent, and that unique ability to move people with each performance and to motivate them to embody the passion and purpose he brought to his craft. Throughout his career, Raul Julia often declined traditional roles in Hollywood blockbusters and mainstream plays. Instead, he sought out innovative and groundbreaking parts that tested his talents. He shined as a Fellini-esque filmmaker in the Broadway musical Nine, touched our hearts as slain Salvadoran Archbishop, Oscar Romero, and captivated audiences as political prisoner Valentin in the award- winning film, Kiss of the Spider Woman. He also was able to show his depth as an actor with characters ranging from Gomez Addams in The Addams Family to Chico Mendes in the Burning Season to Rafael the Fix-it Man in Sesame Street. But, what made Raul Julia so special and so one of a kind was that his work extended well beyond the stage and the screen. As committed as he was to perfecting the parts he played, he was equally dedicated to the charitable causes he pursued. That included the Hunger Project, a non-profit organization focused on ending world hunger. In 1987, Raul Julia told Elle Magazine, ``There are 38,000 people dying of hunger each day and most are children. And, being a celebrity, I communicate about it as much as I can.'' In addition to fighting hunger on the global stage, Raul Julia was equally involved in local causes by working with numerous nonprofits and social service agencies to help families in need. He also was able to use his influence in the entertainment industry to create a culture that opened up new opportunities for Latino actors and writers to share their talents. He was instrumental in the formation of the Puerto Rico Traveling Theater, which continues to promote and showcase bilingual plays and new Latino writers and actors. It was this dedication and determination and vision that made Raul Julia a mentor and a model for so many. When he passed away a decade ago, thousands of people attended his funeral in Puerto Rico to pay their respects and to acknowledge his enormous contributions. They wanted to thank him for his courage and his character and his inspiration. And that is why it is so important that Raul Julia's memory lives on. So that he can inspire the next generation of actors to rehearse harder and to reach farther. And so that all people, regardless of race or country of origin, understand the importance of giving back to their communities and to addressing the problems plaguing our society. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this resolution provides one more opportunity to pay our respects to the passion and the vision of this one-of-a-kind actor and outstanding humanitarian and activist. And I urge its passage.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Safeguarding Assets for Employees in Bankruptcy Act, along with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). The SAFE in Bankruptcy language is designed to protect workers' claims when their employer files for bankruptcy. My bill would create a priority for claims arising under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or what is commonly known as the WARN Act. The WARN Act requires an employer to provide 60-days notice to workers before closing its doors. If a company fails to comply with the law and gives fewer than 60-days notice, workers are entitled to salary and benefits, according to the Federal legislation, for up to 60 days. My legislation provides a priority for those claims of 60 days in bankruptcy court. When a company closes its doors and files for bankruptcy, the effects on the employees and the community are often devastating. A number of my constituents have lost their jobs at the Fannie May Candy Company in Chicago, which has closed its doors and filed for bankruptcy. These employees, many of whom had loyally served the company for decades, up to 37 years, were provided with only 10 days notice before they lost their jobs. Too often, companies hope to duck their responsibilities of 60 days of pay under the WARN Act by filing for bankruptcy, assuming that the claims for the workers would be paid last and only if there is any money left to all the others owed in the estate. My legislation makes these claims a priority, ensuring that companies will think twice before ignoring their responsibilities to employees under Federal law. In addition, my legislation provides a long overdue increase in the wage cap for employees from $4,000 to $20,000 and eliminates the lookback periods for these claims. The current lookback period limits the recovery of benefits to those earned within the last 90 days, which unfairly penalizes employees whose benefits have accrued over a longer period. As in the case of Fannie May, the contract said for every year of employment they would get one week of severance pay. Well, we have employees that were there for 37 years, and they are getting nothing. These small reforms are designed to soften the blow to employees who have had the rug pulled out from under them without warning. Unfortunately, in the current economy, this problem is not limited to my constituents but is occurring in every district. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting these needed reforms for the loyal workers of Fannie May and other hard-working employees across the country. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that when a company closes its doors and does not even follow Federal law under the WARN Act and gives them the 60 days, they simply walk into court and say, we filed bankruptcy, now we do not have to pay them the 60 days, that those employees that were owed 60 days are properly adjusted in bankruptcy court. That is what my legislation wishes to do to honor the work of hard- working Americans. With that, I will bring this up to the desk and introduce this legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber, on January 21, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 4. I was also unavoidably absent from this Chamber on January 28, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Nos. 8, 9 and 11. I would also like the record to show that I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 10.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on January 21, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote number 4. I was also unavoidably absent from this Chamber on January 28, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call numbers 8, 9 and 11. I would also like the record to show that I would have voted ``no'' on roll call number 10.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this resolution and thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, for introducing it. My friend Senator Paul Simon was a statesman, a respected leader, and an unwavering champion of the little guy; and he possessed a heart, a smile, and a baritone voice that could fill a room. He was truly one of a kind, a principled human being, a principled politician, a real reformer, and an unapologetic idealist whose words were followed by genuine and unrelenting action. From his time as a young journalist rooting out corruption in Illinois, to the 14 years he served in the general assembly in Springfield, to his distinguished tenure in Congress, Paul never wavered in his fight for fairness and justice. He never backed down. No matter the odds, no matter the political ramifications, no matter how unpopular or lonely his positions, he remained fervent and passionate. Paul was a role model for many of us in the Illinois delegation today and for many who continue to seek public office. I know he is a role model for me. During his tenure in the Senate, Paul fought ardently and selflessly on the issues that made a real difference in ordinary people's lives. He always saw the good in people and used that good for the benefit and the betterment of our country. He stood up with us in the fight for immigration reform and on so many other issues important to my constituents and to this country. But my friend's legacy transcends politics. Paul was a beacon of hope for anyone who wished to dream the American Dream. He embodied the type of heart needed to sustain the uphill battles required to make real change, and he was the consummate underdog and dedicated his life to public service. He was always for the underdog and giving a voice to the concerns of the voiceless. Paul simply would have no part in pandering to the special interests. To him, public service was about one thing, people, and he maintained that steadfast commitment to them. We lost an irreplaceable friend, a teacher, and a mentor. He touched countless lives in countless ways, and we will never forget him. But just remembering Senator Simon is not enough; just honoring him is not enough. He would have wanted us to do more. He would have wanted us to stand together, to fight together; and I think that is what this resolution is really all about. It is about recognizing and building on Senator Simon's accomplishments, his ideas, his life and, indeed, his legacy. We should not let this enormous loss be the end of his work. We all have a responsibility now in this Chamber and across this country. We must embody Paul's heart and his spirit. We must embrace his honesty and his integrity. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and this country face many challenges in the coming months and years. I think we would be well served to pause and ask, what would our friend, Senator Simon, do? I am confident that by asking that simple question, we will set ourselves on the right course.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when I came here in 1993, the Republican majority, then the Republican minority, spoke about a balanced budget amendment and that we had to balance the budget not on the backs of future generations. We no longer hear about a balanced budget amendment. They came and they said if they would become the majority that we would have term limits so that Members of Congress could be people legislators and not stay here all of their lives. They no longer talk about term limits. But astonishingly that night, I could understand those changes. Philosophically and politically they changed their mind and said it was okay to run deficits, it was okay to bust the budget, that these were okay things to do; that it was okay to tell the people that they were only to come here for three terms, 6 years, and then return to their districts, and that was okay but they had a change of mind. But what happened that night was different because I never recall a single instance in which a member of the Republican majority said that I was offered a $100,000 bribe in order to break my promise to the people, to change my position on a public policy issue. And that is what the debate should be here about tonight, and until we get to the bottom of that matter, it is a shame and a blemish on this House.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on September 3, 2003. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 460, 461 and 462. On September 4, 2003, I missed rollcall vote 467 and would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on July 8, 2003. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 334 and ``yea'' on rollcall Nos. votes 335 and 336. On July 10, 2003, I was absent from this Chamber for a journal vote No. and I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 346. On July 14, 2003, I was absent from this Chamber and I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 354, 355, 358 and 359 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 356. I was also absent from this Chamber on July 17, 2003, and would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 387. Furthermore, on July 18, 2003, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 396 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 397. On July 21, 2003, I was absent from this Chamber and I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 398, 399 and 400. I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on July 24, 2003 and would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 441. I missed rollcall vote No. 452 on July 25, 2003, and would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was present today in this Chamber on November 21, 2003. However, I was inadvertently not recorded on rollcall vote number 667. Had my vote been recorded, it would have been a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was also unavoidably absent from this Chamber on June 3, 2003. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 232. On June 9, 2003, I was absent from this chamber and I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 249, 250, and 251. I was also absent from this Chamber on June 11, 16 and 19, 2003, and would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 257 and ``yea `` on rollcall votes 258, 259, 260, 261, 276, 277, 278, and 294. On June 24, 2003, I was also absent from this Chamber and would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 305.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on May 13, 2003. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 183, 184, and 185. On May 19, 2003, I was also 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 192, 193, and 194. Furthermore, I was absent from this Chamber on May 23, 2003, and had I been present in this Chamber, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 226.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on November 17, 2003. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 620, 621, 622 and 623.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently absent from this Chamber today, November 6, 2003, and missed rollcall vote 615. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present in this Chamber, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on October 30, 2003. I would like the record to show that, had I been present in this Chamber, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 580, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 592, 595, and 597. I also would have voted ``yea'' on rolecall votes 581, 582, 583, 591, 593, 594, 596, 598 and 599. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on October 31, 2003. I would like the record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 600 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 601.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on October 29, 2003. I would like the record to show that had I been present in this Chamber, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 574 and 575. I also would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 576, 577, 578 and 579.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on October 28, 2003. I would like the Record to show that had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 569. I also would have voted ``nay'' on rolecall vote 570. Further, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 571, 572, and 573.