Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call votes 86 and 87 on Monday, February 13, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call votes 86 and 87.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call vote 85 Tuesday, February 7, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on roll call vote 85.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call votes 79 and 80 on Monday, February 6, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call votes 79 and 80.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, as we all learned on Sunday, Adolphus Busch came to America from Germany to make the king of beers. He didn't have a visa. He had a boat ticket and, of course, our country welcomed him. Well, not exactly. In the Super Bowl ad that aired, Mr. Busch was told: ``You are not welcome here. Go back home.'' But then the young man eventually reaches St. Louis, meets Mr. Anheuser, and Budweiser--one of the most unmistakably American brands around the world--is born. All of us assumed that the President was watching the ad because it was, after all, the Super Bowl and it was broadcast by FOX network, his favorite. But I wonder if the message sank in. Mr. Speaker, to borrow a line from a different advertiser: I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I think the next time it will be a Bud. But then there was the little girl and her mom who walked to America from Latin America in the 84 Lumber ad. They didn't have a visa either because, well, we don't generally allow visas to people from Latin America who are seeking a better way of life here. If they did qualify for a visa, that little girl would be a grown-up adult by the time the visa was processed, given our broken immigration system. We learned that FOX television told the advertiser to edit out a border wall scene in the original version of the ad. I guess even FOX was worried about being attacked by the twitter in chief. I am not sure what 84 Lumber sells, but I think I am going to go out and buy some. Mr. Speaker, I haven't had a cup of coffee in 30 years. I don't drink the stuff. You can bet, however, I am going to go find my way into a Starbucks sometime soon because they just announced--in the midst of all of this political turmoil--that they will hire an additional 10,000 refugees. The CEO of Starbucks said in a letter recently: ``There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.'' Apple and Netflix were among the companies to strongly oppose the President's ban of travel from certain Muslim countries and the halt to the refugee program. I know this because I googled it--and Google is another company that has stepped up as a corporate citizen to say that restricting legal immigration by visa holders is bad for their bottom line, bad for a nation built by immigrants, and bad for a nation that is a leader of and dependent on the world economy. Mr. Speaker, there is no more iconic world brand--no commercial symbol more associated with America and Americans around the world than Coca-Cola. Unlike coffee, Mr. Speaker, I enjoy a Coke and a smile several times a day. The company issued a statement recently that said: ``Coca-Cola Co. is resolute in its commitment to diversity, fairness and inclusion, and we do not support this travel ban or any policy that is contrary to our core values and beliefs.'' Mr. Speaker, I am not here to advertise products or to tell anybody what to shop for or who to buy from, but it is a pretty important moment in our history when America's largest companies are going out of their way to say that this President's anti-immigration agenda runs contrary to core values of their corporation and core values of the United States of America. When the CEO of Uber has to resign from a corporate advisory council because the President's policies are so toxic, you know there is some bad policy there. You see, the reality TV host in the White House who is all about burnishing his own brand, has damaged, Mr. Speaker, the most important brand in world history: the American brand, the Statue of Liberty, and the bald eagle. Mr. Speaker, American consumers who drive our economy, the men and women who open up businesses that feed our economy, and those who wake up every day to make the products, at this moment they are being asked to get involved and to make their choices be known. As the Starbucks CEO said recently: ``If there is any lesson to be learned over the last year, it's that your voice and your vote matter more than ever. We are all obligated to ensure our elected officials hear from us individually and collectively.'' Here is my message: I am not handing over my money to people or companies that take that money and invest in hate, invest in bigotry, invest in discrimination; that destroy the image and the reputation of the United States of America. I am not putting one dollar into those companies. I am not going to use my money to support that. I guess I am going to find myself a Starbucks and buy whatever they have there that is not coffee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks, we have lurched from one fiasco to another, played out on a national and international stage. There were press briefings and Presidential statements filled with official lies. We have witnessed tragedies, late night firings, policy changes, and clarifications, also known as backtracking, and then we have come back for another round of fiascos. We are told we will not have a National Security Council as we always have had, one with the top minds of the intelligence community and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No, instead, we will have a nationalist security council, with Breitbart's Steve Bannon and his personal experience as a former Navy officer right there in the situation room. I am not feeling safer already. The President has acted to criminalize immigrants and to make every immigrant an equal priority for deportation. Trump actually buried a requirement in his executive order to count, every week, the number of crimes committed by immigrants and to have the government officially tally every single week the number of Mexican rapists, criminals, and drug dealers--the ones Donald Trump has been talking about since he launched his campaign. But interestingly, by law, the Federal Government and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cannot conduct research into how many people are killed by guns--that is outlawed--and how we can prevent gun violence--that is outlawed. No, the NRA and its wholly owned subsidiary, the Republican Party, has outlawed that. But the new immigrant rape report is ripped from the headlines of Breitbart and other rightwing websites, except that now it is the basis of government policy. We are really getting a lesson in who is and who is not a criminal in this post-``1984'' world of newspeak. We all know that there are millions of undocumented immigrants from all over the world, but this administration keeps whipping out that Mexican thing. Let's face it, the people thinking up these policies think all Latinos are Mexicans and all Mexicans are immigrants. So if you are an immigrant from Mexico, except for a few good ones, you are a criminal, a rapist, or a murderer. Millions and millions of people who the President wants to deport are people with traffic violations. They drove without a license in many States because the State in which they live and pay taxes does not issue driver's licenses to them. They are moms and dads who came back after they were deported because that is what moms and dads tend to want to do: to be with their children, watch them grow up, nurture and love them. And Trump's targets include young people and teenagers who are listed on a ``gang registry'' because a local cop thought they dressed or acted like they might be in a gang. But if you hire maids or nannies and do not pay the proper amount of Social Security and FICA taxes, or if they are undocumented immigrants and you don't pay the taxes, you are not called a criminal. No, you are called a Cabinet Secretary. In fact, we will put you in charge of the budget, including Social Security, the one you failed to pay. Or you can run the Department of Commerce, yes. If your business engages in the shady business of foreclosing on grandmas and widows, you get to be the Secretary of the Treasury. If you close down the Department of Energy, that is what you want to do, close down the Department of Energy, guess what you get to do. You get to run it. If you oppose public schools, you get to be Secretary of Education. And if you have opposed every inch of progress for civil and human rights in this country with every fiber of your being--immigrant rights, gay rights, basic civil rights for people of color, basic protections to make sure that everyone's vote counts equally--well, in that case, guess what you get to do, you get to run the Department of Justice, the agency ultimately charged with making sure everyone gets equal protection under the law. Up is down, down is up, and it is only his second week. I feel our new President has some learning to do, and a lot of that learning has to do with the three branches of government, like what the executive branch should do when a Federal judge tells them to stop doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place. I think the new President has a lot to learn about the freedom of religion, the separation of church and State, and how our refugee policies work. I think the people of Chicago could teach him a lot about the Fourth Amendment and its ban on unreasonable search and seizure and the illegality of holding immigrants in jail without a warrant. So I am offering to give the President my copy of the Constitution, autographed by Khizr Khan, the father of a U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq in 2004, who asked a question I don't think any one of us knows the answer to. That question is: Has the President ever read the Constitution? I am proud I will be standing with Mr. Khan and other leaders of different faiths later today at a press conference on the actions taken by our new dear leader. We can all see through the emperor's new clothes and his Chinese-made tie, and the view isn't pretty, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am an American man, born in Chicago, to parents who were born citizens of the United States. The ban on legal immigration from seven countries does not impact me or my family directly, but, as an American, I am speaking up today. I am an immigrant. The proposed roundup of millions of immigrants will not hit my house directly, but, as an American, I am standing up today to say I, too, am undocumented. I have not fled systematic persecution, but, today, like a lot of Americans, I am speaking out and saying clearly that I, too, am a refugee. Today, I am an 81-year-old man who was originally from Iran who traveled with a heart problem to the United States--with my American family and a green card in my hand--and was detained at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. Today, I am a Fulbright scholar who was put on a plane back to Iran because our government did not understand what the new President was doing, how he was doing it, or what people already traveling should do. Today, I am a citizen of the United Kingdom--I am English--with a green card, who was blocked entering at O'Hare with my U.S. citizen wife and my U.S. citizen child. That is who I am today. Today, I am a student who is in the middle of my academic career at the University of Chicago who does not know whether I can come back to school and continue my education. Today, I am one of more than 67,000 refugees who is already approved for travel and certified by both the United States and the U.N. in a painstaking process that took me years to complete, but I am stranded overseas. Today, I am gay or Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Shia, Sunni, am from a tribe or ethnic group that is systematically targeted for persecution, or am living in a country anywhere in the world that cannot protect my basic safety, and the United States is closed to me. Today, I am an immigrant who has a green card and who has followed all of the rules to the letter, but I cannot renew my green card or lawfully apply for citizenship here in the U.S. because I am from one of seven mostly Muslim countries on Trump's list where, incidentally, there are no Trump hotels, buildings, or golf courses. By now, the entire world knows that the President of the United States screwed up bigly last week and caused an international and domestic crisis and that his staff is lying when they say it was a ``huge success.'' When the German Chancellor has to lecture your President about the Geneva Convention, you have made one hell of a bad decision. When the Prime Minister of England is saying on one day that the U.S. and Britain have a special relationship but that, on the very next day, you are keeping her citizens out of your country when they are green card holders, your country has made a mistake. When Rudy Giuliani--of all people--makes it clear that the President requested a Muslim ban and that they dressed up the policy to make it look better but still carved out exceptions to help Christians, you are probably acting in an unconstitutional manner. That is not what one but two Federal judges thought: that there are significant enough constitutional issues that have been raised by recent executive actions to stop the President's order from being implemented. Honestly, even at this hour, I am not sure they are fully complying with the orders or will reverse the actions of government officers at airports who coerced--intimidated--green card holders into signing away their rights and being deported. On Sunday, the glaring bald spot of the President's executive order was combed over by the Secretary of Homeland Security, who said that keeping out travelers who already live in the U.S. and have green cards is not in the interests of the United States, to which the entire world said, sarcastically: Ya' think? Today, I am an American, and I am standing up. Today, I am one of the millions of Americans who went to airports, Trump hotels, or town squares and who is marching peacefully, praying privately, and preparing personally to act as an advocate for immigrants and other families in our communities--women, Jews, gentiles, LGBT, and every one of every color and shape. Today, they did not come for us, but we could not be quiet. We joined arms and worked together as Americans. We pledged to stand up for those who are being targeted so that we can protect each other and stem the next wave of targeted attacks.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call votes 66 and 67 on Monday, January 30, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call votes 66 and 67.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's immigration ban so that students like Maryim can return to classes at the University of Chicago and other students can continue their studies at U.S. colleges and universities.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 60 and 61 on Monday, January 23, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call votes 60 and 61.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call vote 32 on Wednesday, January 11, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 32.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call votes 27 and 30 on Tuesday, January 10, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 27 and I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 30.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, we hope for the best from the new President, but we must prepare for the worst. Everyone who has looked at the record of the key advisers to President-elect Trump on the issue of immigration has reason for very deep concern that the new President is going to follow the advice of some of the most extreme voices in the immigration debate. As for the new President himself, he is a bit of an unknown because he changes his mind on key issues just as quickly as his Twitter feed refreshes. He says he has a plan for this and a plan for that, but they are secret plans, and, as far as we know, they are even secrets to him. He knows more about computers and the Internet, ISIS and terrorists, Russia and NATO than all of the policy experts put together, and he thinks of himself as kind of the ultimate Presidential adviser to the new President. But it is Trump's lieutenants who worry most of us. They are the most clearly ideological and dangerous set of leaders ever assembled in American Government on immigration and any number of issues we care about. They are vindictive when it comes to our immigrant community. The truth is that among the new President key advisers are some of the staunchest opponents of legal immigration. They are against legal immigration. That is right. While we all oppose illegal immigration, and some of us have been working for years to upgrade the American system so that immigrants come with visas instead of smugglers, the people with access to the Presidency disagree, and they don't want immigrants to come here at all from anywhere. Look, we have made legal immigration extremely difficult for everyone and simply impossible for most people. And then we have been relying on deportation, walls, enforcement, and curtailing due process rights for immigrants, and that constitutes their immigration control strategy for the past 25 years. And it hasn't worked for 25 years. But the American people want a humane, sustainable, secure, and effective legal immigration system and a way for people who already live and work here peacefully in America to be able to do so within the law. So, Mr. Speaker, this is why I will join a few thousand allies here in Washington this Saturday at the historic Metropolitan AME Church on M Street to send a clear message that immigrants and their allies are standing up for immigrant communities. And check out the Web site. The D.C. rally will be one of more than 50 public actions and marches across America on or about this Saturday the 14th, where leaders of the immigrant rights' movement will stand alongside elected officials, faith, labor, education, and LGBTQ leaders to say: we will not allow mass deportation or immigrant roundups on our watch. That we do not want endless delays that keep families waiting 10, 15, 20 years for a visa. That we don't want people to have to choose between 10 years in exile or the green card for which they qualify under U.S. law because our laws have been crafted to punish people by keeping them in an undocumented status even when they can apply to be here legally. That we are committed to defending immigrant communities if and when the new President and his henchmen develop Muslim registries or neighborhood sweeps or mass roundups disguised as ``fugitive sweeps.'' We will fight attempts to criminalize immigrants and fight attempts to take away documents from people who are now in the system and working on the books, like the 750,000 young people who signed up for DACA. With the BRIDGE Act, we will fight so that DREAMers are protected from deportation and can lead the fight for millions and millions of other immigrants who have no options under our current law. Let's just be clear, 76 percent of Latinos in this country are citizens of the United States. So three-quarters of us can vote or will soon be able to vote. And for Latinos under 18, the percentage of Latinos who are U.S. citizens is 93 percent. So don't think you can deport us into silence. Don't think that deporting everyone and eliminating legal immigration, as some in the new President's circle may fantasize, will suddenly make Brown people disappear from America. We are here and we are joined by allies of every color, shape, national origin and segment of society. We are men, we are women, we are children, we are straight, we are gay and trans, rich and poor, old and young, and everything in between; and we are locking arms with all of our allies to say that when you come for any of us, we will force you to come for all of us. We are here to stay and we stand together. I ask all of those interested to please go to the Web site, www.togetherforimmigrants.com. Join us this Saturday.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes 12 and 15 on Thursday, January 5, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 12 and ``yea'' on roll call 15.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes on Monday, January 9, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 24 and 25.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you where I will not be on Inauguration Day. I will not be here or outside at the inauguration ceremony. I will be in Washington late that evening because the event that I am going to is on January 21. It is the Women's March on Washington. You can get more information on Facebook, which is how I heard about it, or should I say, how my wife, Soraida, heard about it. I said to her a little after the election: You know, honey, I don't think I can go to D.C. and watch Donald Trump get sworn in. And she said: Oh, you are going to D.C., just not for that. And she told me about the Women's March. She said: You and I are going together. Now, I can already hear the phones ringing in my office with people calling to say: Oh, you Democrats are sore losers and you just hate Republicans. No. I went to George Bush's inauguration and I work with Republicans all the time. Just read Breitbart, which seems to write an article anytime I even glance favorably at a Republican colleague. But this is different. I knew that George W. Bush and I would disagree on many issues from trade to health care, to the war in Iraq, but I never thought that George W. Bush was trying to make my own country hostile to me personally, to my wife, to my daughters, to my grandson. I never felt he was a threat to the Nation that I love so deeply and have served now for more than a quarter of a century. The reason that I am not going is that I cannot bring myself to justify morally or intellectually the immense power we are placing in that man's hands. I could not look at my wife, my daughters, or my grandson in the eye if I sat there and attended as if everything that the candidate said about the women, about the Latinos, the Blacks, the Muslims or any of the other things he said in those speeches and tweets, and that all of that is okay or erased from our collective memory. We all heard the tape when Donald Trump was bragging--bragging--about grabbing women by their private parts without their consent. It is something I just can't unhear, bragging to that guy on TV that he would grab women below the belt, as if that was hitting on them. Sorry. It is never okay. It is never just locker room talk. It is offensive and, if he ever actually did it, it is a crime. I hang out with Republicans, with Republican-elected officials in an actual locker room in the Rayburn Building, and if they ever started talking like that, I wouldn't just walk away. I would tell them to their faces that they are wrong, and I wouldn't allow it to go unnoticed or dismissed as normal or excusable. I don't know a Republican colleague of mine in this body who would let that type of comment just slide as if it were just okay. So that is why I will hold hands with my wife and march with the women on January 21 in D.C. And that is why I am calling on all of my progressive allies to come and march with the women as well. If you care about a living wage, come and join the women. If you care about the environment, come and join the march. We know as a society that when women win, we all win. So I plan to be there. It is deeply personal and deeply patriotic to march, to make my opinions known by walking with my allies arm in arm. I want to be able to look at my two beautiful Latina daughters and my beautiful half- Puerto Rican, half-Mexican, but 100 percent American grandson, Luis Andres, in the eye with a clear conscience. When the new President denigrates Latinos or Mexicans or immigrants as drug dealers and criminals, I want to be able to say that I did not condone or allow that type of speech to go mainstream. That was not normalized on my watch. Because the future President said that the American-born children of immigrants were not capable of being American judges, I cannot sit there as if this inauguration is okay and I forgave him. I am deeply honored to return to the U.S. Congress, and I want to thank the people of the Fourth Congressional District. My constituents knew that when they voted for me, I would be a fighter; and I don't intend to let them down. If the new President comes for the Muslims, I will be a Muslim. If they come for Planned Parenthood, I will stand with Planned Parenthood. When they deny climate science, I will make my voice heard. I will use whatever peaceful means available to make sure the words and the actions of our new President do not become the new mainstream and normal in America. That, Mr. Speaker, is why I will not be here for Inauguration Day and why I will be marching with my wife and with a million women from across this country.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, my commitment to the State of Israel is steadfast, but my first loyalty is to peace--peace that is protected by genuine self-determination. I know in my heart that the only path to peace is to have two separate, sovereign states that peacefully coexist. The two-state solution is at the heart of American foreign policy, and every President and every Congress since I got here in 1993 put the two-state solution at the heart of what America wants for her friend Israel. As I said on the House floor on December 6, if we are ever going to achieve the permanent peace that allows Israel to exist without fear and Palestine to exist without occupation, we must continue to fight for the two-state solution. But under the current strongman government in Israel, all pretenses and illusions are being stripped away. From settlements, to water, to restricting the Muslim call to prayer in Jerusalem, it seems that anything goes. Today, as America embarks on its own experiment with strongman politics, this Congress is falling in line. This Congress that allowed our Chamber to be used for an Israeli campaign rally and TV commercials is bending to pressure from abroad and pressure here at home. Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the commitment to peace of the American people, so I urge my colleagues to vote with their hearts and minds and defeat this House resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record my remarks on the floor of December 6 in support of a two-state solution. Two State Solution Is Still The Path To Peace In The Middle East [Luis V. Gutierrez Floor Remarks, Dec. 6, 2016] Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about what is going on in Israel and I think it has implications both for U.S. foreign policy and for domestic policy and for our great ally, Israel. As the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu consolidates power and becomes in many ways the one-party rulers of Israel, a number of things are changing that should be of concern to all Americans. Specifically, the increasing dominance of the Likud Party as the one-party in Israel jeopardizes the two state solution that I and many others in the United States and Israel feel is the only way to achieve long-term peace in the Middle East. There is a retrenchment of hard line policies--aimed at solidifying alliances with smaller religious and hardline parties that keeps Likud in power--that will make it harder for Israelis and their allies in America--and anyone who seeks a lasting peace--to maintain progress towards a two state solution. Right now, the Knesset is considering legislation to legalize all Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory on the West Bank, even those constructed on private Palestinian land. Boom, 400,000 people in settlements across the West Bank, it's all legal because they say it is legal. But it's not. And Israel is destroying Palestinian homes at a pace faster than we have seen before. It is provocative, sweeping, and designed to make it harder to ever reach an agreement with the Palestinians. The plan to restrict the Muslim call to prayer in Jerusalem has been revived, again to placate hardline religious constituents, by Prime Minister Netanyahu. There is no clearer statement to people of the Islamic faith that they do not matter, they do not belong, and they will not be tolerated than to restrict the Muslim call to prayer in Jerusalem, a city that has heard the Muslim call to prayer for thousands of years. I think what is going on in Israel with Prime Minister Netanyahu presents a cautionary tale about the consequences of following a political strongman. The strongman has to keep proving that he is a strongman over and over. Like other strongmen who ride fear into leadership--when you base your political career on injecting fear and resentment into political affairs--when you use the backdrop of terrorism and the understandable fear of the Israeli people as a political tool for years and decades--this is the kind of policy that results. There is an appetite for constant escalation of what you are doing to stand up to the enemy you have constructed--an enemy based on, but not the same as the enemies that fight against the state of Israel and tolerance and peace in real life. Strongmen construct a foil--in this case based on the Palestinians, but sometimes exaggerated beyond recognition-- and they need to feed the thirst for more and more action to attack the caricature that has been constructed. But strongman politics in Israel have the impact of making a long-lasting solution that brings peace to the Middle East harder to achieve. The fundamental rights of Palestinians to have their own state, a state alongside the Israeli state where they have the basic rights and dignity to govern themselves and raise their families in peace--that is what many Israelis, many Palestinians, and many around the world have been fighting for. If we are ever going to achieve the permanent peace that allows Israel to exist without fear and Palestine to exist without occupation, we must continue to fight for the two state solution. When I was just a freshman, almost 25 years ago, we celebrated the accomplishments of Rabin and Arafat and President Clinton to build towards a peace that recognizes the rights and dignity of Israelis and the rights and dignities of the Palestinian people. For decades, the United States--under different leaders in different parties from Carter to Reagan to Bush and Obama-- have recognized that peace will only come with mutual respect and tolerance. That is what we have based our foreign policy on and should continue to base our foreign policy on. Having talked with average people and with leaders on both sides of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict--I am convinced that it is the only path to peace. America has been a catalyst--a constructive influence from outside--a nation based on religious freedom and democracy that has served as a model for both Palestinians and Israelis--and we have worked towards helping parties continue to move in the direction of two separate but mutually respectful countries, two nations that are not at war with each other or subservient to one another. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that Israel herself is moving away from the two state solution as a goal and that we as her closest ally must remind her--and ourselves--of what is at stake if we lose sight of this important goal.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call vote 3 on Tuesday, January 3, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about what is going on in Israel, and I think it has implications both for U.S. foreign policy, for domestic policy, and for our own ally, Israel. As the rightwing government of Netanyahu consolidates power and becomes, in many ways, the one-party rulers of Israel, a number of things are changing that should be of concern to all Americans. Specifically, the increasing dominance of the Likud Party as the one- party in Israel jeopardizes the two-state solution that I and many others in the United States and Israel feel is the only way to achieve long-term peace in the Middle East. There is a retrenchment of hardline policies--aimed at solidifying alliances with smaller religious and hardline parties that keep Likud in power--that will make it harder for Israelis, their allies in America, and anyone who seeks a lasting peace to maintain progress towards a two-state solution. Right now, the Knesset is considering legislation to legalize all Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory on the West Bank, even those constructed on private Palestinian land. Boom--400,000 people in settlements across the West Bank. It is all legal because they say it is legal, but it is not. Israel is destroying Palestinian homes at a pace faster than we have ever seen before. It is provocative, sweeping, and designed to make it harder to ever reach an agreement with the Palestinians. The plan to restrict the Muslim call to player in Jerusalem has been revived, again to placate hardline religious constituents by Prime Minister Netanyahu. There is no statement clearer to people of the Islamic faith that they do not matter, that they do not belong, and that they will not be tolerated than to restrict the Muslim call to prayer in Jerusalem--a city that has heard the Muslim call to prayer for thousands of years. I think what is going on in Israel with Prime Minister Netanyahu presents a cautionary tale about the consequences of following a political strongman. The strongman has to keep proving that he is a strongman over and over. Like other strongmen who ride fear into leadership--when you base your political career on injecting fear and resentment into political affairs, when you use the backdrop of terrorism and the understandable fear of the Israeli people as a political tool for years and decades--this is the kind of policy that results. There is an appetite for constant escalation of what you are doing to stand up to the enemy you have constructed--an enemy based on but not the same as the enemies that fight against the State of Israel, tolerance, and peace in real life. Strongmen construct a foil--in this case based on the Palestinians, but sometimes exaggerated beyond recognition--and they need to feed the thirst for more and more action to attack the caricature that they have constructed. But strongman politics in Israel has the impact of making a long- lasting solution that brings peace to the Middle East even harder to achieve. The fundamental rights of Palestinians to have their own state--a state alongside the Israeli state where they have the same basic rights and dignity to govern themselves and raise their families in peace--that is what most Israelis, Palestinians, and people around the world have been fighting for. If we are ever going to achieve the permanent peace that allows Israel to exist without fear and Palestine to exist without occupation then we must continue to fight for the two-state solution. When I was just a freshman, almost 25 years ago, we celebrated the accomplishments of Rabin, Arafat, and President Clinton to build towards a peace that recognizes the rights and dignity of the Israelis and the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. For decades, the United States--under different leaders in different parties from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Obama--has recognized that peace will only come with mutual respect and tolerance. That is what we have based our foreign policy on and should continue to base our foreign policy on. Having talked with average people and with leaders on both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I am convinced that is the only way forward toward peace. America has been a catalyst--a constructive influence from outside, a nation based on religious freedom and democracy that has served as a model for both Palestinians and Israelis--and we have worked towards helping parties continue to move in the direction of two separate but mutually respectful countries, two nations that are not at war with each other or subservient to one another. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that Israel herself is moving away from the two- state solution as a goal and that we, as her closest ally, must remind her, and ourselves, of what is at stake if we lose sight of this important goal.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, November 15, 2016. I would like to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 577 and 578.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, November 14, 2016. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 575 and 576.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, there is an important meeting in the Financial District of New York City, right in the heart of stock traders, the investment banks, and the bond buyers and sellers who trade in the debt of companies, countries, and municipalities. Right there in the nerve center of our financial market, they are holding a meeting. Is it a meeting about Wells Fargo opening up thousands of accounts without the knowledge or consent of their customers? No, nothing like that. Nor anything related to the financial meltdown that our country is still recovering from that started right there. Nope. This is the first meeting of the Puerto Rico financial control board, the junta de control, that has supreme power to rule over Puerto Rico. Now, in case there is any confusion with the geography, New York City has a lot of Puerto Ricans, but it is not, in fact, the capital of Puerto Rico. My staff checked. San Juan is still the capital of Puerto Rico. No, the meeting of the junta de control that has dominion over all aspects of the Puerto Rican people is not meeting in Puerto Rico. The meeting is taking place pretty close to Wall Street, which, I think, is symbolic of the way the junta de control over Puerto Rico came about. It is a very bad omen for the future. Let me explain. There are seven people--not elected, but appointed--who oversee every aspect of Puerto Rico's governance. Four are Republican nominees, there are three Democrats, and there is one nonvoting member of the junta. Several of the members of the Puerto Rico junta de control appear to have deep ties to Wall Street, where you can find many of the bondholders who traded and profited off Puerto Rico's $72 billion in debt. Judge Juan R. Torruella, the first Hispanic appointed by Ronald Reagan to the prestigious U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals summed it up pretty well. He said to the Colegio de Abogados, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, that: ``The principal purpose of PROMESA is to establish a collection agency for bondholders.'' The person who is rumored to be the executive director of the junta de control is a big-time corporate energy lobbyist. He is the former head of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, a trade association of energy producers, which makes everyone concerned about Puerto Rico's environment nervous--with good reason. So holding the first meeting in Lower Manhattan confirms to Puerto Ricans that the junta de control is by, for, and about the bondholders and corporate interests on Wall Street. So I consider the junta meeting on Friday as a home-court game. The board will elect their chairman on Friday. Yeah, they are going to elect a chairman. Kind of ironic because they are electing the chairman to an unelected board because, well, democracy is good for some people--just not the people of Puerto Rico. We have been told that members of the control board met secretly in Washington last week at the Treasury offices. Whether this is actually the first meeting of the control board is in great doubt. And all of this raises the bigger problem of transparency. There isn't any. Under the law, this group can meet in secret anywhere in the world, and their proceedings can be conducted in executive session. The board members can receive unlimited and unreported gifts, meals, even tickets to Hamilton and anything else, and we will never know. The scandal is coming. They are under no obligation to translate anything into Spanish, which, in case you forgot, is the language of the people that they are to control. I will say, to their credit, that, after I wrote to each member of the control board and asked for a public commitment to transparency, a few of them wrote back. None of them made a public commitment to transparency, but a few acknowledged that keeping Puerto Ricans informed, making the meetings publicly accessible, and translating materials in the language of the people being governed were good principles. It remains to be seen whether anyone on the junta de control really fights to inform the people of Puerto Rico, really sets up to be a champion for the schoolteachers and the doctors and the moms and the dads who are struggling, and the firemen, and the policemen who serve the people of Puerto Rico and are heroes. And it is unclear that this control board will step up on behalf of the Puerto Rican people and make creating jobs, creating more jobs and creating more jobs the number one priority of the junta. That is the way we create a tax base for Puerto Rico. That is the way we give puertoriquenos a viable option to live and work in Puerto Rico rather than moving to Florida or some other State. So, Mr. Speaker, as we leave Washington this week and head home for the great exercise in American democracy in November, I want all of us to keep in mind that the island of Puerto Rico, our colony in the Caribbean Sea, is a place that now, more than ever, only dreams of true democracy.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Monday, September 26, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 557 and ``yea'' on roll call vote 558.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for roll call votes on Thursday, September 22, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call votes 542, 543, 544 and 554. I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 555 and 556.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, September 20, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 521, 522 and 523.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I visited four cities in four States to meet with Puerto Rican elected officials, leaders, and members of the Puerto Rican diaspora about a very important campaign. I was in Hartford, Connecticut; Springfield and Holyoke, Massachusetts; New York, New York; and Newark, New Jersey, for activities, parades, and discussions that were very successful. This week, I will be back in Chicago with my fellow Puerto Ricans at the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture to honor the organization and to recognize the talent and cultural contributions of Antonio Martorell and Lin-Manuel Miranda, who make us all proud. But I am not traveling on a campaign for President or for a political candidate. Rather, I am meeting with people all over about a campaign for the current President to take action before he leaves office in January to free Oscar Lopez Rivera, the last political prisoner from Puerto Rico, who has been held for 35 years in an American prison. No one disputes that the President of the United States has the power to grant pardons, commute sentences, and grant clemency. It is a power the President alone possesses as our chief executive. Congress and the courts can do nothing to override him in this case. Puerto Ricans and allies all over the world are asking the President to grant clemency to Oscar Lopez Rivera. He was not convicted of committing a violent crime. Rather, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, espousing the belief that the people of Puerto Rico are capable of, entitled to, and have the right to self-determination and freedom. This man, Oscar Lopez Rivera, who is now in his seventies and has spent half of his life in prison, is no threat to the United States or Puerto Rico. He harbors no nefarious plot to harm anyone. He is simply a man who served an inordinate sentence for the crime for which he was convicted. And now Puerto Ricans want their elder statesman to live out his days in Puerto Rico. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are few issues that unite the Puerto Rican people more than the united front that is assembling to call for the release of Oscar Lopez Rivera. Hundreds have already pledged to join us on October 9 in Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., to make our unity and our commitment known. I know from my own experience that all too often Puerto Ricans are divided from each other along so many lines of politics, class, and geography. But in this case, in this cause, in the united call, Puerto Ricans are united as never before. The House and the Senate of the island's legislature, all the candidates for Governor and major office, current and past elected officials, city councils and municipal governments across the island, from San Juan to the smallest villages, support the release of Oscar Lopez Rivera--across party lines, across lines that often separate statehood advocates and independence and commonwealth advocates. Practically every bishop, every denomination, every congregation, parish, and church--almost the entire faith community on the island-- has called for Oscar's release. It is not just a Puerto Rican thing, Mr. Speaker. It is a movement that has sparked followers across the United States as well. The AFL- CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, Communications Workers of America, and other allies in the labor movement are standing up for justice and standing up for the release of Oscar Lopez Rivera. The ACLU, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and religious leaders of all stripes are onboard. The City Council of New York City and the Newark, New Jersey Municipal Council passed resolutions. My friends and colleagues on the Congressional Hispanic Caucus here in Congress have joined us in the call for Oscar Lopez Rivera to be released. I thank the members of the Hispanic Caucus. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Oscar Lopez Rivera's case and the call for him to be released has received international attention and validation. Presidents, Nobel laureates, leaders, artists, activists, and the world over, know it is time to let Oscar return in peace to his island. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Archbishop Emeritus of the Anglican Church in Cape Town, a true champion of justice across the globe, has expressed his unwavering support for the release of this prisoner. Mr. Speaker, based on the merits of this case, the outpouring of support, and the moral obligation and power that has been placed in his hands, I join freedom fighters, justice lovers, Puerto Ricans, and individuals across the globe in asking President Obama to use his pen to free Oscar Lopez Rivera. Please join us in Washington, D.C., on October 9 in Lafayette Park and let your voice be heard.