Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, how did we get here? In December of 2010, the House passed the DREAM Act right here on this floor. Almost all of the Democrats voted for it, and a handful of Republicans, too. The goal was to legalize immigrants who had grown up in the U.S., achieved education, and had no way of getting legalization status unless Congress took action. Way back in 2001, I had introduced the first bill to legalize immigrant youth. So it took almost 10 years until it passed in the House in 2010. And later that same week, there was a vote in the Senate. Fifty-five out of 100 Senators voted for cloture on the DREAM Act to legalize the status of undocumented immigrant youth. We know you need 60 votes in the Senate to move something forward, so the DREAM Act was blocked, even though it had a majority of the votes of the Senators because of a filibuster led by Republicans. Not just any Republican led the filibuster, but the leader of the opposition to the DREAM Act was none other than the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions. So yesterday the President, unwilling to go out to the cameras and announce he was killing the DACA program himself, sent Jeff Sessions out to tell 800,000 immigrants: We don't want you here anymore. Included in that announcement was a halfhearted sales pitch for Congress to pass legislation. But remember, when Sessions had a chance to do exactly that, he led the fight to stop it. That is hypocrisy on steroids. So President Obama finally took the only action he could take 2 years later and crafted a narrowly defined program call DACA that has never been successfully challenged in court. DACA recipients are teachers, nurses, and one is even a Chicago policeman who straps on his gun and badge to protect people every day in my city of Chicago. During Hurricane Harvey, DREAMers with DACA were first responders and volunteers and those who gave their lives to save others, like Alonso Guillen of Lufkin, Texas. Look, we want a clean DREAM Act, an up or down vote. Democrats, let's be clear. This is a crisis that requires swift passage of legislation to fix it, as big a priority as anything else we need to pass this month. Our votes are needed on the debt ceiling, Democrats, and on this bill and on the CR. What are we getting for our votes, Democrats? When the CEO of Microsoft says that you can only take my DREAMers with DACA by coming first through me, that is a challenge to every policymaker in this Chamber and especially to my Democratic colleagues. When will we throw down and say: No, you cannot have our votes unless you give us the DREAM Act? When, Democrats? When will we say: You cannot have our vote unless we can bring 800,000 young lives along with us? When, Democrats? Let's demand a vote on the DREAM Act. We can pass it right here, right now, and give our young people, the future of our Nation, the safety and security they need and deserve to contribute to the United States of America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is the only country they have known. They are American in everything but a piece of paper, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves by not allowing a vote. 800,000 young people, once, twice, three times registered with the government, and what do they get? Six months. Pack your bags and leave. They have pledged allegiance to only one flag, the United States of America and this country. This cowardly action turns its back on them. I say no CR. I say no debt ceiling. Let's have a vote first on the DREAM Act.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, I was a guest at Lincoln United Methodist Church in Chicago, where we had an emergency meeting to discuss how we would defend the DACA--Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--initiative started 5 years ago. DACA has allowed nearly 800,000 DREAMers--immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and who grew up here--to work and live here if they meet certain requirements, go through a background check, and renew their application periodically. Now, Republicans, led by the Governor of Texas, are planning to sue the President if he doesn't rescind DACA. And given this President and his opinion of Mexicans, Latinos, and immigrants, we are not expecting the President to put up much of a fight. So for a few weeks now, I have been telling people to prepare for the end of DACA, maybe as soon as September. You can watch the speech on Facebook or YouTube. A lot of Trump supporters got angry about what I said on Saturday. They didn't even take the time to watch or listen to my speech, no. They got fired up by Breitbart, the only publication I can count on to cover everything I say. Breitbart said I was unhinged and said in the headline that I said it is time to eliminate Trump and bring him to his knees. The Washington Times didn't watch the speech but saw Breitbart's fair and balanced coverage and said I threatened Trump with physical violence. FOX News then echoed the idea that evening, saying I was threatening violence and would bring our violent movement to every neighborhood in America. So by the time you got to The Daily Stormer--that whipped cream on top of the White Nationalists/Neo-Nazi banana split--they cited the FOX News story and read the headline, ``Subversive Beanman Luis Gutierrez Calls for Trump's Elimination.'' If FOX, Breitbart, and Daily Stormer report something, it has got to be true, I thought. So I went back to the video to see if I had threatened to assassinate the President. And you know what? I didn't. Here is what I said this past Saturday: ``I am going to make sure that I am there, to make sure of one thing, that we write those articles of impeachment and take the Trump administration to trial before the Senate and eliminate him as President of the United States. He cannot fire Comey, threaten to fire Mueller, and say `I am the king,' `I am a dictator.' '' This is the quote, and I clearly am talking about the impeachment process, which I believe to be nonviolent. I mean, former President Bill Clinton went through it, and he is still alive. In fact, in shorthand, I am saying we should go through regular order. And that is nothing new for me. I have stood on this floor and called on the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to begin the process of hearings and witnesses, just as the Senate Judiciary Committee is doing, because that is our job. Just a moment. Later in the speech, I said: ``This is a democracy, and we will make democracy work. We will make it work for everyone, whether you are gay, straight, Brown, White, documented or undocumented, we are going to make sure democracy works for you . . . '' Meaning the people packed in the church that day, and really everyone else. I continued saying: ``And we are starting here this afternoon at this marvelous church in Chicago. Get ready. Our movement is coming somewhere in your neighborhood.'' So what Breitbart imagined as an incitement to violence was really a call to action for people to get involved in their democracy, which, last time I looked, is still a form of government we aspire to in this country, and it is still nonviolent. But my favorite part of the Breitbart headline and the whole bloodthirsty Brown people motif that drove the coverage from Breitbart to FOX to Daily Stormer is that I said I wanted to bring President Trump to his knees. But what I actually said was, Gandhi, by employing the techniques and practices of nonviolent resistance, brought the British Empire to its knees. Which is actually true, and we should learn from his example. Indeed, Dr. King, a disciple of Gandhi, applied those strategies to the American civil rights movement to great success. And were it not for Dr. King and the other heroes who laid down their lives during the civil rights movement, I would not be standing here before you, and we wouldn't even be standing up or talking about The Daily Stormer, Breitbart, or Trump in defending immigrants and other vulnerable communities. So we owe the civil rights movement a great debt. I want to follow in those footsteps. So I read the headlines in Breitbart and I went back to look at what I actually said. You know what? I stand by it and I won't back down.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for Roll Call votes 407, 408, and 409 on Monday, July 24, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call votes 407 and 408. I would have also voted Yea on Roll Call vote 409.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I think the President has a lot to learn about families. In my opinion, families should be protected and families should remain intact wherever possible, but it is clear the President has other notions. In the President's world, families can and should be cut off from healthcare coverage. So he is working with Republicans to take coverage away from 20 to 30 million Americans so they can say they made good on a campaign promise, regardless of the consequences in real people's lives. In the President's world, children, especially his children, don't have to be honest when they apply for security clearances or disclose all their meetings they had with the Russians. In the President's world, children and grandchildren can be convenient political props, like when a 6-year-old granddaughter is sent into the Oval Office to interrupt an interview with The New York Times, especially when the interview isn't going well for him. But grandchildren and grandparents in the President's world do not have a ``bona fide'' family connection when it comes to being refugees. In the latest incarnation of his Muslim and refugee ban, the President excluded grandparents from the category of those close family members-- only in the Republicans' mind. Well, let me tell you something. If the President can be interrupted by his grandchild to shake up an interview that isn't going so well, I can ask my grandson to help me make a point here in Congress. Here is Luis Andres. Luis Andres is my grandson. You see, in the Gutierrez family, grandparents and grandchildren are pretty close family members and have a bona fide family connection. In fact, Luis Andres lives downstairs from me with his mom and dad in the ground floor unit of a two-flat in Portage Park in Chicago, and growing up with Grandma and Grandpa upstairs has distinct advantages. There is always someone to feed you, watch you, help you study, or just joke around. Throughout much of the world and throughout American history until fairly recently, the idea that families do not include grandparents is laughable. Multiple generations live together or very nearby, and grandparents, even great-grandparents, are an integral part of the family unit and share child rearing responsibilities. So when you are in Syria or Yemen, Central Africa or Central America, places where surviving day to day without being killed by gunmen, government, or gangs is not easy, extended, multigenerational families not only live together and support each other, occasionally they have to flee to safety together. But not if Donald Trump has his way they don't, or at least not when it comes to coming here to America. Thankfully, the American court system disagrees with our President on this. Hawaii sued the President again and won an injunction again, and the Supreme Court, which would ultimately determine the fate of America's commitment to refugees and religious tolerance will determine the case later this year. But in the meantime, over the objections of the President, grandparents are officially part of the family and have a bona fide relationship that allows them, under the law, to bypass the President's attempt to keep them out. Thank you, courts, for recognizing and defending families and giving our President a lesson in the obvious. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I learned about a tragedy in San Antonio where a truck packed with immigrants was discovered and at least 10 people were killed. The truck had no ventilation or air-conditioning. There was no water for those inside who had paid a lot of money to risk their lives to live in America--10 dead and another 20 near death, some of them children, under the hot Texas sun in an apparent smuggling operation. You see, if you cut off legal immigration channels and make people wait decades for a visa, if they are eligible to apply at all, it strengthens the hands of smugglers. If you turn asylum seekers around, in violation of our own laws and international law, those seeking freedom are driven into the arms of smugglers. If, by going through our legal system in requesting asylum, your entire family becomes vulnerable to deportation, being sent back to a place you fled because death was a certainty, then people will pay smugglers to go around our system because there are no ways to go through it. A border wall like the one Republicans will slip into the military spending bill this week in the House will not help matters, but only make them worse. Forcing people to enter the black market because there is no way to go through our visa system will undoubtedly increase the number of times we hear about tragedies like the one in Texas and the number of parents, grandparents, and children who lose everything because we have failed to create and maintain a functioning immigration system. When Luis Andres turns 18 and is able to vote, just like a million young Latinos like him every year are eligible, I know he will remember which party stood for and stood by families and which ones did not. Grandparents, they are part of the American family even if the Republicans don't seem to think so.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it looks almost certain that the Trump administration is going to take about 1.2 million immigrants who currently have documents issued by the U.S. Government and turn them into undocumented immigrants. They have work permits and pay their full share of taxes. They are covered by U.S. labor laws and are not undercutting the wages, well-being, and livelihood of native-born American workers. For all intents and purposes, they are documented workers in the U.S., and many have been here for more than two decades. Nevertheless, the more than 400,000 with temporary protected status, or TPS, and 800,000 with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, could be made undocumented in the coming weeks and in the month of September. Then, once they are categorized as undocumented, President Trump will unleash ICE and Homeland Security to go after them so they can be deported. There are 800,000 young people who went through a thorough background check and have been complying with the rules of the DACA program for almost 5 years. They were brought here as children and grew up in the United States, went to our schools, played sports with our kids, and they speak English probably as well as you and I. They came forward, as they were told to, and we actually reduced the population of undocumented immigrants, got people on the books, and were able to redeploy our resources elsewhere. Now it appears that the leaders in the Republican Party who do not like the idea of so many immigrants having legal status are giving the President an ultimatum: deport the DREAMers, or we will sue. The Governor of Texas, who is leading the charge, has a very sympathetic judge, and it is up to Jeff Sessions to put up a fight, when he himself has been trying to kill legal status for immigrants for years. So, practically speaking, between ending DACA and ending TPS, we are going to dump about 1.2 million people into the pool of 10 million to 11 million people who are living and working here under the radar, outside of legal protections, and without any way to become legal. So this Saturday, in Chicago, at 2 p.m., at Lincoln United Methodist Church on Damen, we are going to get together and organize ourselves to fight back. Yes, there will be legislation from Democrats and even Republicans to fight back. There will be court cases to fight back, even if the Attorney General does nothing, which we fully expect him to do. But fighting for DACA and fighting to keep millions of people in this country who have put down roots and built lives here is going to be a people's fight, and the effort to find ways to protect families and to cope with more than a million people being pushed into the black market requires us to organize in every community across the Nation. It is up to us to teach each other how we will resist this latest insult in our congregations, churches, universities, cities, and neighborhoods throughout the Nation. Immigrants or people who have DACA or TPS cannot do this on their own, but they need to be part of a coalition that fights back. Teachers who work with kids every day and bear witness to the fears students face every day about their parents and families can't do this alone. They need to be part of a coalition that comes together to resist. Employers will face a choice: whether they are just going to roll over while employees are ruled ineligible and work documents are terminated, or to stand with us and stand with their workers and fight for them. So, if you marched with your pink hat at the Women's March, I am asking you now, on behalf of immigrants and the very future of immigration, to stand with us. If you marched for science or the environment, if you have joined us in protesting bathroom laws and discrimination in all its forms, your brothers and sisters need you now. At airports across the country, you stood up for refugees and said no to Trump's Muslim ban. We need you. Black Lives Matter, we need you, and, frankly, we need each other. People are going to peacefully stand up and fight for justice, common sense, and what is right. We need everyone to be there with us, helping us, walking with us. In Chicago, it starts this Saturday at 2 at Lincoln United Methodist Church in Pilsen. The road ahead is not going to be very easy, but we have fought hard to win victories for our country, and for the DREAMers, who are the leading edge of our movement to make immigration legal again in this country. Now is the time. We need your help to protect families and communities and to do what is right. We cannot do it alone.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Immigration Law Center for its leadership and decades-long commitment to defending and advancing the rights of immigrants with low income. On July 25th, the Coalition on Human Needs will rightfully honor the National Immigration Law Center as one of its Human Needs Heroes for the year. Since 1979, NILC has grown to be one of the premier immigrants' rights organizations, strategically using a combination of litigation, policy, communications, and alliance-building strategies to effect social change. During my years in office, I have been proud to work with NILC to advance fair and moral immigration policies. During a debate that all too often plays to fear rather than fact, NILC works to make sure that policymakers remember the humanity of immigrants, their irreplaceable contributions to our economy and culture, and the real effects these laws have on their lives. By defending immigrants' rights to due process, fair treatment as workers, and preventing racial profiling, NILC has benefited our communities and strengthened our democracy. I have been proud to work with NILC on many important bills and advocacy efforts. Over the years, we have worked tirelessly to keep families together through deportation defense. We have fought to reverse cuts to immigrant families' welfare benefits. We have put our heads together to draft smart, fair, and humane Comprehensive Immigration Reform and DREAM legislation to make immigration legal again and to protect young immigrants. We have advocated for immigrants' health by creating legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain healthcare through the Affordable Care Act. Today, we continue to work together to protect our country's immigrant community that is under the threat of mass detention, deportation, and overall criminalization of immigrants. Together, we have not and we will not back down from this threat. I am proud to be an ally of NILC, and I applaud them in their tireless commitment to creating fair and just immigration policies. The National Immigration Law Center has been a trusted source of policy on the intersection of poverty and immigration, an unyielding voice for making sure the debate on immigration reflects the lives of those that it affects, and a staunch defender of immigrant rights. It is my honor today to recognize the National Immigration Law Center for its dedication and skill, as well as to thank them for all that they have done on behalf of immigrants.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Monday, July 17, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 379, 380, and 381.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for Roll Call vote 367 on Thursday, July 13, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted No on Roll Call vote 367.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for Roll Call vote 349 on Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call vote 349.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. We asked him about veterans who are being deported. We asked him why American citizens were increasingly having their families broken up by deportation. We asked him about the 800,000 young people who signed up for DACA and the hundreds of thousands of long-term residents of the U.S. who have temporary protected status. He really had no answers. We know he is on board with Trump's agenda to deport millions and millions of people or he would not have been appointed to his position. But, honestly, he seemed not to understand what his own agency does, the statutory powers he has as Secretary of Homeland Security under current law, or, for that matter, even how Congress works--so naive. Let me give Members some examples. Number one, Francisca Lino lives in Chicago, and her husband and six children are U.S. citizens. For nearly a decade, she stayed out of trouble and reported every year to immigration authorities. Now people who work for the Secretary decided she must leave the country and leave her American citizen children and her American citizen husband this August. Why? What changed, Mr. Secretary? Absolutely nothing, except you. The same goes for Jesus Lara in Ohio. He has four American citizen children who have lived their entire lives here but their family is being broken up by their own government. According to the Secretary, the courts are deporting them, not he or his agency. He denied any responsibility and said he can't do anything about it. But we all know the Secretary of Homeland Security has extraordinary powers to spare families from deportation, especially when doing so would not be in our national interest. I told him he could just pick up the phone and stop the deportation of Ms. Lino and Mr. Lara and spare the American people the cruelty and the hardship. But he is hiding behind the old ``it is out of my hands'' bureaucratic dodge and the old ``I am just following orders'' defense-- the general following orders. But, General, that is completely invalid because we know you have the power to do the right thing. On TPS, a program that currently allows hundreds of thousands of people to live and work here legally, the Secretary has almost unilateral power to extend it. But the Secretary was like: Well, I don't know what I'm gonna do. They have been here a long time. I don't know what I'm gonna do. I have to decide. What kind of answer is that, Mr. Secretary? To me this means that hundreds of thousands of people's lives, the lives that have been built in the United States, are about to be turned upside down. He wants to take hundreds of thousands of legally documented immigrants and make them undocumented and then go after them and their families. How does that make America great? Then there is DACA, the program where 800,000 children and young adults came forward and registered with the government, went through a background check and were rechecked periodically. Now Secretary Kelly says he thinks DACA is illegal, and, once again, it is out of his hands--and up to whom? Do you know whom he says it is up to? Attorney General Jeff Sessions--only America's number one opponent of immigration of any kind. So to me this is our call to action. The way we rose up to support women and Planned Parenthood, we have to do that again and again. The way lawyers and patriotic Americans stood at airports to protect refugees and religious freedom, well, now it is time to protect TPS, DREAMers, and other families in the crosshairs. We are going to have to organize, mobilize, and stand with our allies to protect families, to protect American citizens in those families, and to defend communities because these guys are serious. They want to deport millions of people, and they are coming after the DREAMers and those with deep, long-term lives in the U.S. This is our call to action. We must resist. We must rise up and stand up for American values. Whether the President, the Secretary, or the Attorney General likes it or not, we need to make it clear that immigrants and immigration are here to stay. Last May, the Secretary of Homeland Security set an edict. He told over 55,000 Haitians: You have got 6 months. Get your paperwork ready. You are leaving the country. Then he is going to come after hundreds of thousands of Central Americans that are here legally in this country and have been here for 10, 15, and 20 years. He is telling them also: Get your affairs in order. You are going to be deported from the United States. I am eliminating your legal status. When it comes to DREAMers, I want to make it absolutely clear to everyone today that he is going to end the program, and he is going to begin that process this September. He says: Oh, I like them. They are nice people, but there is nothing I can do. I am just going to talk to my buddy, General Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions has never liked the program when he was a U.S. Senator, and now he is the Attorney General. They will eliminate the program, putting 800,000 people in the crosshairs of deportation. We have the moment to rise up. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) It is the moment to resist, they are coming to destroy our communities, they are coming to deport dreamers. Let's stand up! Get organized and resist. Es el momento de resistir, vienen a destruir nuestra comunidad, vienen a deportar a los sonadores. Parecen, organizasen y resistan.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, July 11, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 345 and 346.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to everyone's attention, especially my Democratic colleagues, a troubling incident that transpired over the recess. It is important that people hear about how women and the LGBT community are treated at the highest levels of the current Puerto Rican government and the values and politics that run deeply throughout the politics of statehood for Puerto Rico. It is fair to say that in the era of Trump, admitting a Spanish- speaking Caribbean country as the 51st State would depend on the strength of democratic votes, so it is important for my Democratic colleagues in particular to understand who the statehooders really are and what they really stand for, beyond their rhetoric in Washington, D.C. The president of the senate in Puerto Rico, Thomas Rivera Schatz, is a key leader of the Statehood Party. In a recent interview on NotiUno radio, he was asked about the Financial Oversight and Management Board, known as la Junta de Supervision Fiscal. This is the controversial board created by Congress a year ago to take over financial and fiscal decisions in Puerto Rico and to prioritize the payment of Puerto Rico's debt to Wall Street. I was one of the chief opponents of the PROMESA legislation that created the junta, and I have spoken out against it on numerous occasions. But it wasn't what the statehood senate president said about the junta that was so offensive; it is how he talked in public about one of its board members--in fact, the only woman on the board and an appointee nominated by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House. Ana Matosantos has impeccable, bipartisan qualifications and also happens to be an openly gay woman. So during the interview, the senate president and statehood leader referred to Ms. Matosantos as Mr. Matosantos, using the masculine pronoun ``senor.'' He did it multiple times so that listeners would not miss his disdain for lesbians and for women. It was no accident or slip of the tongue. Given an opportunity to apologize or backtrack, Rivera Schatz has declined to back down. This is not the first time he has displayed his contempt for women and for the gay and lesbian community. His agenda is clear, and he knows he has many like-minded allies in Puerto Rico's statehood movement. Every time he has had an opportunity to block civil and human rights protections for LGBT individuals, he does so. He goes out of his way to belittle gay and lesbian citizens even when they are the victims of hate crimes. To be clear, I don't see Rivera Schatz as one bad apple. He is a bad apple that exemplifies and is a voice for the other leaders in his party. So as a Puerto Rican and as a supporter of equality, all of this is deeply disturbing to me. Gender and LGBTQ equality issues are deeply engrained values of the Democratic Party, and I think they are core issues that bind Democrats together: issues of justice, opportunity, and fair play. So when the leaders of the statehood movement in Puerto Rico call upon Democrats in Congress to speak about equality and justice for Puerto Ricans, I want my colleagues to think about the agenda they are pursuing in Puerto Rico and the extent to which they have a very different approach to fairness and equality on the island. In closing, I would like to offer a few words to the Puerto Rican people in their own language, Spanish, and I will provide a translation to the desk. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) Core values of equality and fair treatment values I know most Puerto Ricans hold deeply in our hearts. So when the Statehood Party allows divisive and polarizing figures like Senator Rivera Schatz to be their face and their leading advocate in the Senate, it makes me and many others skeptical about the arguments we hear from people who support statehood say the words ``equality'' and ``justice'' in Washington, but fight against equality and justice in Puerto Rico. How can they be taken seriously about equality when their agenda in the legislature is to take away those rights from women, the LGBT community, students, peaceful protesters and others? That is the fundamental hypocrisy I have pointed out to my Democratic colleagues, right now and in private meetings and correspondences. If the statehood movement is really committed to equality, they should act accordingly and not just use it as a slogan when it suits them. Los valores de la igualdad y del trato justo y equitativo son valores fundamentales que la mayoria de los puertorriquenos atesoramos profundamente en nuestros corazones. Asi que cuando el Partido Estadista, el PNP, permite que figuras polarizantes y divisivas como el Senador Rivera Schatz sean su cara y su principal representante en el Senado, eso me hace a mi y a muchos otros sentirnos escepticos en cuanto a los argumentos de los estadistas que usan palabras como ``igualdad'' y ``justicia'' en Washington, pero luchan en contra de la igualdad y la justicia en Puerto Rico. rComo esperan que se les tome en serio al hablar de ``igualdad'' cuando su agenda en la Legislatura es el quitarles derechos a las mujeres, a la comunidad LGBT, a los estudiantes, y a los que se manifiestan y protestan pacificamente? Esta es la fundamental hipocresia que le he senalado a mis colegas Democratas, aqui, ahora, y en reuniones privadas, y a traves de correspondencia. Si el movimiento estadista en realidad tuviese un compromiso con la igualdad, actuarian conforme a la igualdad y no meramente usando el termino como un lema cuando les conviene.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, ever since Donald Trump descended the golden escalators at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by saying Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug dealers, the Republican Party has had Mexican fever, and they have been working feverishly to paint immigrants all as criminals. And when something goes bad, they go back to their old favorite. When Trump's Muslim ban was blocked in the courts, out came the Attorney General to say they were doing everything they could to do more roundups and that no immigrant was safe in America. The Russia investigation not going well for the dear leader at the White House? Hey, let's whip out that Mexican thing, as Vice-President Pence said. Maybe it will keep our voters happy and distracted. Healthcare not going well? Let's just hate some Mexicans today. Listen, almost 8 out of 10 Latinos in the United States are citizens, 1 out of 10 are legal permanent residents. That leaves 1 in 10 who are undocumented, but this policy is about going after all of us, whether we are citizens or not of the United States of America. These bills are nothing new, and they are not really about fighting crime. They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos ``in their place.'' Latinos, African Americans, Muslims, women, they know what it is like to be targeted. Ninety-nine percent of the votes for this bill today will come from people who do not have to worry about racial profiling for themselves, for their children, or the people who they represent, but let's be clear. Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona is the poster child for the kinds of policies the Republicans want to impose on every city and county in the country, and we know the results. Sheriff Arpaio embodies racial profiling and rounding up people because they are brown. Oh, we will sort out their papers later, he says, whether they are citizens or legal permanent residents or whatever. I have talked to U.S. citizens who were detained by Sheriff Arpaio because they didn't carry with them their birth certificate or a passport at all times in the country in which they were born. Let's be clear. Sheriff Arpaio has been sued successfully to stop his racial profiling, and he has been charged criminally in Federal court for his racial profiling tactics, and still the Republicans of the House want to make the law he is being sued for legal in the United States of America. Sometimes Democrats have to stand up for justice, for what is right when the chips are down. Well, the chips are down, and every immigrant family and every immigrant in America is going to remember who stood up for them when they needed Democrats to fight to keep families together when the chips were down.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, for almost 100 percent of the people who would go to jail if this bill is enacted, they are not criminals and have no brush with the law. They were people who lived here for years, who had no chance of coming legally in the first place, and no way to get legal once they were here. Most have lived here for 10, 20, 30 years. They live in families with children, and their children are citizens of the United States just like you and me and our children. They have mortgages and car notes. The problems these moms and dads are trying to solve is if they get deported, how do I make sure my kids are safe in the country in which they were born, the United States? How do I keep a roof over their head and get them ready for school? How do I keep my business open or my career continuing in the U.S. where I have lived, in some cases, for decades? That is the problem they have, and guess what, they come back after they are deported. That person, to me, is not a felon, never committed a crime. That person is not a hardened criminal, never killed anyone. That is a parent fighting for their family. So in painting a picture of all immigrants as resembling a career criminal, like the guy who killed Kate Steinle, Republicans are doing the old bait and switch. The people we are hitting with this bill come back to the lives they have built over decades by the only means we have made available, and now we are going to add a felony and 15 years to that. Let's give moms and dads different alternatives. The people who would go to jail if this bill were enacted would rather have come with a visa. They would get in line for hours to get legal if there were a line to get in, but there isn't, and most Americans believe we should create such a line for them. They would come back legally if they could, but they can't. We should be looking at how to solve that problem. We should be looking at ways to eliminate illegal immigration, and stop hoping that our strategy of the last 30 years of deportation, more restriction, and more criminalization would somehow miraculously start working. It hasn't. It won't. It is time for us to enact comprehensive immigration reform in the Congress and to fulfill our responsibility to the Nation. Look, the question today isn't whether or not this bill is going to pass. It is going to pass. The Republicans are making it a primary purpose. The question really, for me, is: Are Democrats going to participate? Are Democrats going to participate in allowing this to pass? I have just got to say that I know it is difficult. Some people say: Well, I might not come back. It will be difficult. My constituents demand this. Well, let me just say that when I was elected in 1986 to the Chicago City Council, I was there but a month and they had the human rights bill for the gay and lesbian community. I remember the banner headlines: ``Cardinal Says `No.' '' Here I was a Catholic all my life, an altar boy, had three of the seven Catholic rites: communion, baptism, and marriage. Ten years later, I got to the Congress and was confronted here with the Defense of Marriage Act. We passed it. There were only about 70 of us who voted against it. But guess what. Thirty years after I took that vote for gay rights in the Chicago City Council, the Supreme Court said that marriage equality was the law of the land and discriminating against them was against the Constitution of the United States of America. That is the way you create social justice, not by doing a poll and not by trying to figure out what the next election consequences are going to be. I say to my Democratic colleagues: Stand up for social justice today. It wasn't easy as a Democrat to stand up for reproductive rights for women. I remember going to church and I remember being chastised by the priest. I remember being booed by some of the congregants as I left that church. But I stood up for what I believe are women's rights. My children were chased down the street during Halloween by pro-choice people who said I didn't deserve to be trick-or-treating with my children, that I was a bad father and I was a murderer. We stood up, and women have rights in this country. That is the way we do that, Democrats. We stand up for what is right. We don't take a poll, and we don't think of the next election. We do what is right. The immigrant community is looking for champions today, and it is my hope that, as Democrats, we, too, will stand up. When hate visits you, you need to repudiate it. You need to repudiate it because that hate might visit you in some personal way and it might cause you to hate yourself ultimately. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement in opposition to the bill from the Tahirih Justice Center. Tahirih Justice Center, Falls Church, VA, June 27, 2017. Statement of the Tahirih Justice Center Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) The Tahirih Justice Center (``Tahirih'') respectfully submits this statement to the United States House of Representatives as it considers ``The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003; ``The Act'') and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). The House Rules Committee is set to review these bills today, followed by the full House in the near future. Tahirih is a national, nonpartisan organization that has assisted over 20,000 immigrant survivors of gender-based violence over the past 20 years. Our clients include women and girls who have endured horrific abuses such as rape and human trafficking and are in dire need of humanitarian relief. Tahirih urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003 and 3004: By further entangling federal and local immigration enforcement, H.R. 3003 will not only put survivors of human trafficking and domestic violence at greater risk of criminal harm, but will embolden violent criminals who pose a danger to us all. H.R. 3004 will unjustly punish asylum seekers who sought safe haven in the U.S., but were improperly denied access to the asylum process the first time around. H.R. 3003: The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act: The Act seeks to erase the distinction between federal and local immigration enforcement. Such measures erode immigrant community trust of police, who rely on victims and witnesses to help get dangerous criminals off the streets. When immigrants know they can call 911 without fear of deportation, it is perpetrators--not victims or their children--that are deterred and punished. Abusers and traffickers deliberately manipulate and isolate victims to limit their access to information about their legal rights. Despite longstanding protections under the Violence Against Women Act, even victims who hold lawful immigration status succumb to intimidation, and remain afraid of deportation if they come forward. For some survivors, deportation means sentencing a US citizen child to the custody of a violent abuser. Following the recent passage of a state law to increase local immigration enforcement, a client aptly noted, ``This is exactly what [my abuser] has been waiting for.'' We are all less safe when we make it easier for perpetrators to commit crimes. The Act will also increase prolonged detention of survivors, resulting in further traumatization, separation from young children, and limited access to legal assistance and due process. The Act also punishes localities that refuse to comply, by revoking critical funding for core programs that address gun violence, gang violence, and other criminal activity. When local agencies must ``choose'' between continuing these programs and compromising community trust, it is the public that pays the steepest price. H.R. 3004: Kate's Law: Tahirih and other advocates routinely assist clients whose initial requests for asylum at the border are met with hostility, intimidation, and coercion. These individuals are unlawfully denied access to the asylum process by U.S. officials. With their lives in grave danger, women and girls in this situation have no choice but to request safe haven in the U.S. a second or even third time. They are not asking to appeal denial of their claims; rather, they are merely seeking a threshold determination that they may apply for asylum or related protections. Our domestic laws and international humanitarian obligations require that they have this opportunity. H.R. 3004 will punish women fleeing horrific abuse who persist in their quest for asylum by limiting their ability to challenge initial, unlawful removals, and by unnecessarily and unjustly subjecting them to criminal prosecution. We appreciate the opportunity to offer this statement in opposition to H.R. 3003 and 3004, and we urge Congress to unequivocally reject these harmful bills that undermine the safety of survivors of gender-based violence. Archi Pyati, Director of Policy and Programs.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Human Rights First: American Ideals. Universal Values. Human Rights First, June 28, 2017. Re H.R. 3004--115th Congress (2017-2018). Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: We write to urge you to oppose H.R. 3004 (``Kate's Law'') and any similar legislation that would have severely negative consequences for asylum seekers and refugees fleeing persecution. H.R. 3004 seeks to expand the scope of immigrants who may be prosecuted for unlawful reentry and further expands penalties for those who are convicted. But the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers for offenses such as illegal entry, illegal reentry, and document fraud violates U.S. treaty obligations and risks sending genuine refugees back to their countries of persecution. For one, many asylum seekers are forced to ``reenter'' the United States because they were wrongfully deported in the first place through the expedited removal system. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), as well as Human Rights First and other groups, has long documented deficiencies and flaws in the implementation of the expedited removal process, a summary process which gives immigration officers the authority to order non-citizens deported without a hearing. In its 2005 report on expedited removal, USCIRF found that in a significant number of cases, border agents failed to follow U.S. law and refer asylum seekers to the ``credible fear'' process, even when USCIRF researchers were present during the secondary inspection process. Even when border agents make the proper referral for a credible fear screening, asylum seekers are often traumatized and exhausted by their experiences in their home countries, their flight to the United States, and their arrest by U.S. authorities. They are often interviewed by telephone by an officer they cannot see and are at the mercy of interpretation problems and other arbitrary factors that hinder communication. As a result, some may incorrectly be found to not have a credible fear, and may be deported as a result. These asylum seekers must then ``reenter'' the United States after facing continuing persecution in their home countries to seek protection yet again. Moreover, H.R. 3004 would redefine ``reentry'' to encompass an even broader group of individuals, as it will define reentry as including cases of individuals who had been previously denied admission. Human Rights First release a report in May 2017, titled Crossing the Line, which documents cases of asylum seekers who have been turned back at U.S. ports of entry, despite stating to border agents that they had a fear of persecution or intended to seek asylum. While DHS officials have acknowledged that border agents should be following U.S. law and referring asylum seekers to the asylum process, Human Rights First and other groups have found that this practice continues. H.R. 3004 seeks to penalize an overly broad group of individuals that would even include those who were wrongfully turned away from our ports of entry in violation of U.S. law. Secondly, prosecuting asylum seekers for their illegal entry or presence--even in the case of ``reentry''--is a violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention requires that states refrain from imposing ``penalties'' on refugees on account of their illegal entry or presence in the country where they are seeking asylum. For this reason, in 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that prosecutions under ``Operation Streamline'' may place the United States in violation of its treaty obligations. If Congress passes H.R. 3004, more asylum seekers like Maria will be subjected to wrongful criminal prosecutions. ``Maria,'' a transgender woman from Honduras, who had been raped and subjected to other sexual violence, fled to the United States in 2014. U.S. immigration officials failed to respond to her requests for asylum and she was deported back to Honduras through expedited removal without ever seeing an immigration judge or having her fear of persecution assessed by an asylum officer. Facing ongoing persecution in Honduras, she fled to the United States again in 2015, and was apprehended upon entry. U.S. border agents referred her for criminal prosecution and she was convicted of illegal reentry. After she was transferred back to immigration custody, she was determined to be a ``refugee'' who qualified for withholding of removal. Yet, the United States had already penalized her for ``illegal entry'' despite being a refugee. Please contact Olga Byrne at Human Rights First if you have any questions regarding this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Eleanor Acer, Senior Director, Refugee Protection.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from Cities for Action. Cities for Action, June 28, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Members of Congress: Cities for Action (C4A) is a coalition of over 150 mayors and municipal leaders that advocates for policies to promote the well-being of our foreign born residents. Our coalition, representing over 50 million residents, has a considerable interest in protecting all our residents and ensuring that immigrants are not unjustly criminalized. We are writing to you today to urge that you oppose Representative Goodlatte's bill, H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. Kate's Law expands already tough penalties for illegal reentry and allows the government to detain immigrants indefinitely without bond or a court hearing. It also mistakenly implies that illegal reentry cases are under- enforced. Indeed, illegal reentry prosecutions already account for 52 percent of all federal prosecutions. H.R. 3004 would make the criminal sentences for reentry extremely harsh. Additionally, it would impose severe sentencing enhancements on people with minor offenses who reenter the country. H.R. 3004 would also limit the ability to challenge the validity of any prior removal order that forms the basis for a prosecution for illegal reentry, subjecting people to prosecution even in cases where the prior order was issued without due process or was otherwise flawed. In addition, the bill does not provide adequate protections for people who reenter the United States for humanitarian reasons or those who seek protection at the border, putting asylum seekers and families at risk. Cities and counties are opposed to this bill because these measures do not improve public safety and it is based on a false premise that immigrants pose a threat to our communities. Local governments have a strong interest in protecting all residents and maintaining public safety. Therefore, we urge you to oppose Kate's Law and stop its passage into law at every possible turn. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Cities for Action.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from the Committee on Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Charities USA. June 26, 2017. Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/ COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004. The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our parishes include those with and without immigration status, unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of crime in the United States, including domestic violence, armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of fostering cooperation and information-sharing between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on local governments that we fear--and that many of them have warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure public safety in all communities. Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non- compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network, including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the federal government on a number of Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including disaster response and recovery, naturalization and citizenship services, and services for the immigrant, including victims of human trafficking, and domestic violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the protection and promotion of the human person and in some instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not humane or just, nor is it in our national interest. Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion of incarceration and does not include adequate protections for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does not advance the common good nor will it ensure that communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from violence), from being able to access protection, and instead face fines, imprisonment or both. We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and security. The United States has a long and proud history of leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of our views in this regard. Sincerely, Most Rev. Joe Vasquez, Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration. Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD, President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from Friends Committee on National Legislation: A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest. Friends Committee on National Legislation, June 27, 2017. Friends Committee on National Legislation Statement in Opposition to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and Kate's Law (H.R. 3004) The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is a Quaker lobby in the public interest committed to pursuing policies that build just societies, peaceful communities, and equitable relationships among all people. FCNL looks to Congress to legislate on immigration in a manner that honors the value of immigrants and American citizens alike and urges congressional representatives to reject any legislation which would undermine immigrant families and communities. Congress is tasked with creating lasting solutions for our nation. FCNL therefore urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 which together further criminalize immigrants, expand detention, undermine community well-being, and offer no legislative remedy for a punitive and outdated immigration system. H.R. 3003 is an extreme interior enforcement proposal that would affect over 600 cities, counties, and states and raises serious fourth and tenth amendment concerns. Effective policing depends on building authentic trust between police officers and the communities they serve; blurring the lines between federal immigration enforcement and local police results in fewer reported crimes and makes communities with large immigrant populations more vulnerable. Perpetrators of crime, assault, and abuse know that these communities are less likely to report the crime if they legitimately fear it will result in the deportation or detention of an immigrant neighbor, a loved one, or themselves. Law enforcement officials and advocates for survivors of domestic violence agree that the proposals included in this bill would be damaging for the communities they serve. FCNL heeds this call to ensure safety for the most vulnerable among us, and urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003. H.R. 3004 would expand grounds for indefinite detention and decrease legal opportunities for certain migrants challenging their removal. Our call as Quakers to welcome the stranger does not rest on the legal status of any individual. Criminalizing entire immigrant communities based on the senseless actions of a few individuals tears at the moral fabric of our society and will not make our communities safer. H.R. 3004 could prevent migrants from adequately accessing asylum and would increase family hardship through separation by offering no meaningful opportunity for family members to pursue a legal route when seeking reunification across borders. These provisions will only fuel the brokenness of our system, which is already heavy-handed on indefinite detention and dangerous deportations at great expense to U.S. taxpayers and our collective moral conscience. Thousands of faith leaders have urged members of Congress to reject similar proposals in the past and live up to our call to minister to all those in need, especially those who have been marginalized. In keeping, FCNL urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3004. FCNL looks instead for legislation that proceeds from a recognition of the inherent worth of all individuals, as acknowledged in our Quaker faith, as well as in our shared Constitution, laws, and American values. We call on Congress to reform the U.S. immigration system so that it is in line with the Quaker principle to answer to that of God in everyone and ensures we live up to our legacy as a country that thrives because we are a nation of diverse peoples and immigrants. Congress has the opportunity to enact practical solutions for comprehensive reform that includes clear and workable processes for legal entry and eventual citizenship. FCNL is eager to partner on such efforts, and seek the fundamental policy changes we need to help U.S. communities truly prosper.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice. June 27, 2017. Dear Representative Conyers: NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice stands in strong opposition to the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) to be considered this week by the House of Representatives. We urge Congress to reject these bills. In a county that prides itself on being the land of welcome and opportunity, we must ensure that our immigration laws reflect our shared values. As Congress continues to delay comprehensive immigration reform and a permanent solution for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, we are left with the status quo--an enforcement-only approach that tears apart families and keeps people in the shadows. Despite the gridlock in Congress, localities across the country still have the responsibility to uphold safety and peace in their communities. To fulfill this goal, local police and residents have fostered mutual trust to root out crime and promote public safety, encouraging community members to cooperate with local authorities. The ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) does nothing to promote public safety and instead will make communities more dangerous while striking fear in the hearts of our immigrant families. Likewise, ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) would criminalize immigrants who simply want an opportunity to succeed in the United States, and often are simply trying to be reunited with their family. Punishing immigrants for wanting to provide for their families with fines and imprisonment is harsh and cruel--we, as a nation, are called to be better than that. Again, we ask Congress to abandon the ``enforcement first'' policies that have been the de facto U.S. strategy for nearly thirty years, yielding too many costs and too few results. Our antiquated system that does not accommodate the migration realities we face in our nation today does not serve our national interests and does not respect the basic human rights of migrants who come to this nation fleeing persecution or in search of employment for themselves and better living conditions for their children. Pope Francis cautions that ``migrants and refugees are not pawns on the chessboard of humanity'' and he asks political leaders to create a new system, one that ``calls for international cooperation and a spirit of profound solidarity and compassion.'' This is a holy call to embrace hope over fear. Congress should recognize the God-given humanity of all individuals and uphold our sacred call to love our neighbor and welcome the stranger in our midst. Any action that further militarizes our borders, criminalizes assistance to immigrant communities, or weakens legal protection of refugees is neither just nor compatible with the values that we, as Americans, strive to uphold. Sincerely, Sr. Simone Campbell, SSS, Executive Director, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, June is Immigrant Heritage Month in the United States, but to celebrate that, House Republicans have made this anti-immigration week in the Congress. The advocates against legal immigration have their annual talk radio festival here in D.C. this week to extol the virtues of cutting off legal immigration. Dozens of conservative talk radio hosts set up remote broadcasts here to talk about why criminalizing immigrants and turning misdemeanors into felonies is a good thing for America. They may trade stories, while broadcasting on the air, about immigrants doing horribly bad things to people in America, as if we were in a national crime spree of Brown people killing White people. The goal of talk radio hosts is to reinforce the anti-immigration fever that has gripped the Republican Party and allowed a tough- sounding game show host to take over their party. The main organization behind the gathering of talk radio hosts is FAIR, the Federation Against American Immigration Reform, which we should note is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That is the organization in Alabama most directly responsible for suing the KKK out of the mainstream. It is like D. W. Griffith might rise up from his grave to film ``Rebirth of a Nation--the Sequel'' because FAIR and its allies want to take our immigration policies back to the 1920s when the Klan marched openly in Washington and legal immigration was reduced to almost zero. They want to get rid of anyone here who is deportable or could be deportable by passing new laws to criminalize them. Now, to coincide with the talk radio anti-immigration week, Republicans are putting on a passion play of their own in the House of Representatives by bringing two anti-immigrant bills to the floor. So we have a coordinated campaign from broadcasters, lawmakers, and the anti-immigration advocates to pressure Congress into passing bills to paint immigrants as a threat to our national and community safety-- right out of the Trump playbook. The question is not whether or not these bills will pass the House-- they will pass--but whether Democrats will be tempted to vote for tough-sounding measures because they are afraid to be labeled by conservative talk radio hosts as weak on punishing the ``murdering, rapist, drug-dealing Mexicans'' they think are lurking in every alley. Of course, that is not what these bills actually do at all. Truth and talk radio do not often go together--certainly not in the era of Trump. Let's look at the two bills Republicans are bringing for a vote. One bill is H.R. 3004, named for Kate Steinle, a young woman who was shot and killed by an immigrant nearly 2 years ago in San Francisco. It happened in July, and as you may remember, I was the first person to come to the floor and give a speech denouncing Kate's killer and calling for laws that keep people like him off the streets. A week later, while talking about various immigration issues in Spanish with Telemundo, a quote was included in a story about Kate Steinle's killing. After it was aired, rightwing groups circulated it, alleging it was proof that I was insensitive to the Steinle family, when, in fact, I was not speaking about Kate Steinle at the time, and I had already spoken out specifically on Kate's death here on the floor. But what is coming to the floor this week would not have kept Kate Steinle's killer off the streets. It would have had no impact on that case whatsoever. Instead, we are voting on a bill to put other people in different circumstances in jail for longer periods of time. It is a bait-and-switch strategy: use a horrible tragedy to sell a policy that would not have prevented that death so that we put more immigrants in jail for longer periods of time and prevent them from ever living legally in the United States. The other bill, H.R. 3003, is designed to take money away from America's largest cities and counties, specifically from efforts to fight crime--yes, take money away from them. Grants that would help local police fight crime would be eliminated under this bill from 600 of the country's largest jurisdictions. That doesn't sound like crime fighting, because it isn't. So why are we doing this? Because Republicans in Washington think they have a better idea of how to fight crime than the county executives, State legislators, mayors, and local police chiefs. ``Do what we say or we will take away your money'' is what the Republicans are saying to big cities and counties. That is the approach being taken by the conservatives who always talk about how State and local people should be trusted more and protected from Federal mandates. Well, I guess, not when it comes to immigrants. This is why these types of bills are opposed by the National Fraternal Order of Police and other police organizations. So to all the talk radio hosts and advocacy groups: Why are you on the side opposing the National Fraternal Order of Police? And why would any Democrat want to cross that blue line to stand with you?

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes Monday, June 26, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call votes 323 and 324.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, so the ruling party in Puerto Rico staged an election, and they are very proud of the results. They say 97 percent of Puerto Ricans support statehood and that the United States should grant statehood right away because of it. Yeah, they got 97 percent of the vote. That is pretty impressive; the kind of numbers that would make Putin jealous and Saddam Hussein green with envy if he weren't dead already. The reason why the statehooders got 97 percent of the vote was pretty much the same reason those two guys get 97 percent of the vote: only one political party participated. All the other parties thought the election was so rigged and so predetermined for the outcome the sponsors wanted that they didn't even think it was worth participating. The vast majority of Puerto Ricans agree. Only 23 percent of the people voted. Seventy-seven percent boycotted the election because they didn't think it was worth their time; and they were absolutely right, but I guess in the era of alternative facts and made-up statistics about how many people attend your inauguration, you can try to make a one-party vote of 23 percent of the people look like a mandate for statehood. But I am here to warn my fellow Democrats not to believe the hype for one second. Those who are peddling the fantasy of statehood sometimes call themselves Democrats, but we should be aware of an elephant in donkey's clothing. Let's look at leaders of the statehood party here in Washington. Our colleague, the Resident Commissioner who ran on the statehood ticket, is a Republican who caucuses with the Republicans here in the House. She is a proud supporter of Donald Trump and pals around with Steve King and other Members who we might say aren't too friendly to Latinos and Latino causes, much less the Democratic Party line. The Governor's Washington, D.C., office is headed by a Republican, Carlos Mercader, who was appointed to the position by Governor Rossello after serving as executive director of the rightwing political organization called Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, infamous for its constant bashing, yes, of President Obama. That is who is pushing statehood in D.C., which makes me wonder why any Democrat would be embracing them, especially the chairman of the DNC, unless, of course, as the media reports, it is a payback for votes for DNC chairmanship. And as for Governor Ricardo Rossello, leader of the statehood party, the ``Democrat,'' his conservative record speaks for itself, even though he has only been in office for less than a year. As a candidate, he sided with the bondholders and vulture capital funds and opposed any debt restructuring for Puerto Rico, saying that Puerto Rico should pay its debt in full to Wall Street speculators, in spite of massive cuts that that would entail for police, fire, health, pensions, roads, and schools. He hosted, yes, a Democrat, the GOP Presidential candidate, Ben Carson; and the Governor opposes LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, and opposes the teaching of gender equality in the schools. Townhall, the uber conservative website, sees a kindred spirit in Governor Rossello, the Democrat, praising him for his conservative approach to helping bondholders over schoolchildren. And the Governor has withheld his criticism of President Trump, which few Democrats are able to resist, and for Latino Democrats is darn near impossible unless you are just playing the Democratic role to get ahead. When confronted with the obvious, that Trump has denigrated Mexicans as rapists and murderers, promised to build a wall to keep Latinos out, and sneered at Puerto Rico's desire for what Donald Trump called a bailout, Rossello responded, saying of the President: ``My view is I don't know that he is anti-Latino. Obviously, I have heard some derogatory remarks, but I don't know him personally, and it doesn't deter me.'' So instead of spending money to help children whose schools are closing, to fix roads that are falling apart, or to pay doctors enough to prevent them from leaving Puerto Rico and going to Florida, it seems the entire Puerto Rican government is now dedicated to pursuing the unlikely chance of statehood. It is certainly useful as a distraction from what the Governor and his D.C. operatives are actually doing. Mr. Speaker, I have said this before: I hope to be buried one day on that beautiful island of Puerto Rico. But when I am buried, I hope it happens in a free, sovereign nation that has thrown off the yoke of colonialism and dependence on an overseas master, just as this country did, the United States of America, the country in which I was born. I look forward to celebrating the Fourth of July. In the meantime, I think it is important to warn my fellow Democrats that they should get no more in bed with the statehooders than with any other group of rightwing conservatives with an agenda.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Tuesday, June 20, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 309 and 310.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World Refugee Day, a day set aside by the United Nations to reflect upon those in crisis and dedicate ourselves to helping those we can help. To mark this solemn occasion, today, the Judiciary Committee House Republicans will vote to slash refugee resettlement numbers, cut back aid to those fleeing violence and persecution for their religious or political beliefs, and make it harder for children fleeing violence, especially those from Central America, from receiving asylum from the richest, most powerful Nation in the world. Tell me, how does that make America great again, Mr. Speaker? According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, there are more than 65 million people--a record number today--who have been forcibly displaced from their homes. More than 21 million are refugees. Eighty- six percent of the world's refugees are now finding refuge in the developing world, with only 14 percent finding refuge in developed countries like the U.S. or European nations. Worldwide, more than half of all refugees are children. So when anti- immigrant leaders, websites, and TV networks paint those fleeing the Middle East, Africa, and Asia as hardened jihadists, or those fleeing Central America as gangbangers and drug dealers, remember, most of them are just kids--little kids. That is what we are talking about, fleeing their country for their lives. Mr. Speaker, America has, throughout our history, been a beacon of hope to refugees fleeing religious attacks, facing government intolerance and persecution, ethnic strife, or unsustainable poverty. Beginning in the 1840s, when the potato crop disappeared because of a blight in Ireland, the Irish people were left starving. Over 8 million people in Ireland, 3 to 4 million of them faced starvation. About 1 million died mostly of starvation and disease. Another 2 million came where? To America. According to a recent article in The Irish Times: ``Panic had set in by the winter of 1846/47. People risked winter voyages across the Atlantic on unsanitary, unsafe `coffin ships.' '' The article continues: ``People were placed in quarantine stations, or held onboard ships docked at ports.'' ``Refugees experienced violent and racist reactions. Liverpool, Glasgow'' . . . ``Montreal, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia sought unsuccessfully to restrict entry'' of the Irish. A lot of this sounds familiar to me today when we discuss the Muslim ban that the courts have blocked and which motivated thousands of Americans to go to airports to demand that the United States honor its visas and honor its commitment to refugees, or as the House Judiciary Committee meets today, to punish children for fleeing for their lives. Roughly 32 million Americans trace their roots to Ireland. That is about 10 percent of the U.S. population. And let's be clear, the British rulers over Ireland were not sending what they consider their best people. They were poor, they were uneducated, and U.S. politicians at the time said that they were sending rapists, murderers, and drunks, even as some, they assumed, were good people. They were from a religion that threatened the United States. They were Catholics who were as foreign to American Protestants, in some regards, as Muslims are today. But who can imagine America without the Irish today? You look down the list of generals, Presidents, Members of Congress, and every aspect of American society today, and we can all say, to some degree, we are Irish. As House Republicans vote today to pass bills to keep out the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, as we pass laws to pull up the drawbridge and put a big ``Do Not Enter'' sign on the Statue of Liberty, I hope my Republican colleagues who can trace roots back to someone who came across the water and risked everything and bet their lives on the United States, I hope all of us will reflect on those ancestors as we deliberate laws and how we would have kept so many of them out. His Holiness Pope Francis, who we all remember just spoke steps away from where I am at right now, reminded us to always follow the Golden Rule in all our deliberations. Pope Francis said just this past Sunday that the nations of the world should continue to welcome refugees; and each of us, as individuals, can learn a lot by meeting with, speaking with, and breaking bread with refugees. His Holiness said: `` . . . personal meetings with refugees can dissolve fears and distorted ideologies and become paths for growth in humanity.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope my Republican colleagues have been listening, as we have a Speaker who is both Catholic and Irish, but I fear they will not.