Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidable absent in the House chamber for rollcall vote 508 on Wednesday, September 14, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, Oscar Lopez Rivera is the last Puerto Rican political prisoner still held in Federal custody, now for more than 35 years. He never killed anyone and wasn't charged with killing anyone, but he is still in jail. The man who shot President Reagan, John Hinckley, Jr., is no longer being held. Other high-profile offenders get clemency and have their sentences reduced. All of us have seen in the past months that the Obama administration commuted the sentences of hundreds of nonviolent drug offenders. Most of us have applauded that decision, and Oscar Lopez Rivera is still in jail for 35 years--35 years. No matter what party or faction or class or race or walk of life you are from in Puerto Rico or in the Puerto Rican communities all over the United States, you know about Oscar Lopez Rivera and what he symbolizes for the Puerto Rican people. He is our elder statesman, our Nelson Mandela, our pride, and our sense of nationhood. We all cheered for Monica Puig at the Olympics and heard our national anthem played for the very first time. Yet there is a piece missing from our national identity, a piece missing from our souls because Oscar Lopez may be forgotten and may die in jail. It is with deep sadness that I say that it is looking more and more like there is no meaningful review of his case going on at the Justice Department or at the White House or anywhere else. I met with President Obama on June 8 in his office, and I took the opportunity to ask him about the case of Oscar Lopez Rivera. Lin-Manuel Miranda said that Oscar's case was on the President's desk when they met, and everyone in Puerto Rico relaxed. But the President told me: No, his case is not on my desk. You need to talk to McDonough, my Chief of Staff. I did that at 3 that afternoon. He said: I don't know anything about the case, but the Deputy Attorney General will meet with you and discuss the case. I tried and tried and tried to get the information from her about where the case stood and how the process of clemency works under the Obama administration. Well, 10 weeks later--yes, 10 weeks later--I heard from the DOJ's assistant to the assistant's assistant in legislative affairs, and he said: I don't know anything about Oscar's case. He went on to say that Deputy Attorney General Yates will not meet with me or anyone else. The reason is they only make contact with outside parties when they initiate it, when they are reaching out for more information on a candidate to make a decision. So they are not making a decision. Basically, they said, don't call us, we will call you. But no one I know--no one--has received any kind of contact from the DOJ, which makes it pretty clear to me that they are not seriously reviewing the case. To recap, the President said: It is not on my desk. The Chief of Staff said: I don't know anything about the case, talk to this person at DOJ; and that person, more than 2 months later, told someone to tell me that we will call you if we are seriously reviewing the case. And there has been nothing from the Obama administration. That is why I continue to call on Puerto Ricans and people of good conscience to come on October 9 to Washington, D.C., as we join together to show our unity and resolve that Oscar Lopez Rivera should be set free to return to Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to be rude, but my message to Puerto Ricans about Oscar Lopez Rivera is so important, I will deliver the rest in Spanish with a translation provided to the House. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) I am sad to say that our optimism and confidence that President Obama would finally set Oscar Lopez Rivera free is in jeopardy. Every indication I am getting from the President and his staff is that the review of Oscar's case is not progressing, so we need to make our voices perfectly clear and work together to send the strongest possible message to the President. If you need to walk, take a bus, crawl, or swim to get to Washington on October 9, you should do so. We will be gathering on Sunday, October 9, across the street from the White House in Lafayette Park with celebrities, leaders and Puerto Ricans of all kinds. We cannot let our brother die in jail. We cannot let our nation be ignored. We must stand together as Puerto Ricans--no matter who we are, no matter where we were born, no matter where we live now--and tell the President of the United States and the government here in Washington that 35 years is enough. Enough. We want our brother, Oscar Lopez Rivera, to walk amongst us and to touch his feet on the warm land of Puerto Rico again. Show that you care and that you will not be silent. Join us on October 9. Me da tristeza decir que el optimismo y la confianza que el Presidente Obama liberara a Oscar Lopez Rivera esta en grave peligro. Cada vez que me he comunicado con el personal del Presidente me han indicado que la evaluacion del caso de Oscar no esta progresando; por eso tenemos que hacer nuestras voces perfectamente claras y trabajar juntos para mandarle el mensaje mas fuerte posible al Presidente. Si tienen que caminar, tomar un autobus, gatear o nadar para llegar a Washington el 9 de octubre, haganlo. Estaremos reunidos con celebridades, lideres, y Puertorriquenos de todo tipo el domingo, 9 de octubre al cruzar la calle de la Casa Blanca, en Lafayette Park. No podemos dejar que nuestro hermano muera encarcelado. No podemos dejar que nuestra patria sea ignorada. Debemos seguir unidos como Puertorriquenos--sin importar quienes somos, donde nacimos y donde vivimos ahora--y decirle al Presidente de los Estados Unidos y al gobierno aqui en Washington que 35 anos es suficiente. Ya basta. Queremos que nuestro hermano, Oscar Lopez Rivera, camine entre nosotros y que sus pies toquen la tierra calida de Puerto Rico una vez mas. Demuestren que esto les importa, y que no se quedaran callados. Unete a nosotros el 9 de octubre.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Monday, September 12, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 496 and 497.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is almost as if the majority would prefer to go into the final stretch of the election season with fresh reminders of how dysfunctional things have become. No action on commonsense gun control measures, no action on immigration or climate change, no action on the Zika virus that is taking a huge toll in the United States and Puerto Rico and is poised to take an even bigger one. Congress is still in denial that Zika is a real threat and that the next generation of children could be exposed to the disease with dangerous and debilitating birth defects. It is hard for me to articulate this out loud, but, in just a few weeks, the first group of children born with brain development and physical problems associated with the disease will be born in Puerto Rico. We are looking at more than 15,000 reported cases of Zika in Puerto Rico and more than 2,000 pregnant women. At the current pace, Zika will infect a quarter of the island in the next year. This is the first mosquito-borne disease that successfully infects children in the womb through the placenta. It can be sexually transmitted. Humans give Zika to mosquitoes and then go on to infect other humans. And Congress has the same response it has to almost everything-- nothing. In this case, nothing flavored with a little partisan posturing over abortion in an election year. The issue for some people seems to be that we can fund research, prevention, and treatment as long as one of the most important proven and effective healthcare delivery mechanisms for women is excluded because Planned Parenthood is on the Republican hit list. No matter that funding Planned Parenthood in Puerto Rico or anywhere else would be the prudent use of Federal funds if our goal is to prevent the spread of disease and prevent--that is prevent, not terminate--unwanted pregnancies during this crisis. Politics and elections always seem to trump good, sensible policies. So nothing yet from Congress, despite the pleas from the Obama administration, the CDC, and the American people. But Congress is not the only place in denial about Zika. Having spent time talking to people on the island of Puerto Rico, the people are also complacent about this disease and the impact it will have. Many suspect that it is all hype from Washington and yet another crisis to give the United States more control over the island of Puerto Rico. Given the island's history, the point of view is not unreasonable that Congress just appointed an unelected control board, or junta, to take control of the island's government and finances. For decades, the United States used Puerto Rico, and especially the island of Vieques, for target practice for our military. And for more than a decade, the United States has been denying the health and environmental impact of that bombing, including cancer and other diseases that people on the island know are real because their relatives are dying. And back in my mother's day, in the 1950s and the 1960s, family planning that came from the United States was forced sterilization. So I understand why people are skeptical when so far it has been hard to demonstrate the consequences of the Zika virus and how it could make life any worse than it already is. But, again, in just a few weeks, when we see children born with mental and physical impairments, it will become clear that Zika is real. Puerto Rico must rise to the challenge presented by Zika and bridge the deep ocean of distrust between the Puerto Rican people and the United States. That is why I spent a lot of my time over the past month meeting with public health experts, doctors, and scientists. Every one of them was Puerto Rican, not people sent from the U.S. Puerto Rico needs an integrated, comprehensive mosquito vector control center that Puerto Ricans are coming together to discuss, so it can be created quickly. This is the mosquito tracking eradication that is deployed when a disease is detected so that resources can be concentrated on a neighborhood or city if an infectious disease like Zika is present. You saw it work in Miami. Puerto Rico does not have access to contraception that you would expect in the 21st century, but Puerto Rican doctors, gynecologists, scientists, and experts are also strategizing about how to make modern, effective, reversible family planning more widely available so that women can delay pregnancy. But while Puerto Ricans can drive the process of addressing Zika in Puerto Rico--and this will lead to much greater acceptance of those strategies by the Puerto Rican people and greater success in the long run--that does not get Congress off the hook. Puerto Rico, like the United States, needs this Congress to fund the President's request for funding and also for the Federal Government to do its job. In Puerto Rico, this includes the Environmental Protection Agency addressing toxic landfills that dot the island, which are breeding grounds for mosquitos but have been overlooked by the EPA. A generation of children in Puerto Rico and all over the United State are counting on the U.S. Congress to protect them from the Zika virus, and I hope this Congress puts politics aside and rises to the occasion. They are American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico. They will be coming to the United States when they need health care. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the op-ed piece I wrote for The Hill newspaper on Zika and Puerto Rico. [Sept. 12, 2016] U.S. and Puerto Rico Must Cooperate on Zika (By Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez) The rapid spread of the Zika virus in Puerto Rico is a very, very big problem for the U.S. and Puerto Rico but the colonial relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico is making it a lot worse. The reason this matter is so important to the United States--beyond the obvious concern for the well-being of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, of course-- is that thousands of U.S. tourists and visitors go back and forth to Puerto Rico and thousands of Puerto Ricans leave the Island permanently for life in the U.S., driven out by the financial crisis gripping the Island. Zika is the first mosquito-borne virus known to cause birth-defects and to be sexually transmitted, so an outbreak of the magnitude that has already hit Puerto Rico is a public health crisis for the United States as well. If you talk to average Puerto Ricans on the Island as I often do, they are not experiencing Zika as a big issue. They do not think the threat is real. Most people who are infected feel no symptoms and the negative consequences only affects pregnant women--or so most people think. Puerto Ricans, having lived with mosquito transmitted diseases for decades, have become immune to dire warnings from so-called experts and some are resigned to the false notion that nothing can be done. Even with 13,791 cases reported, an estimated 2,000 pregnant women already infected and a disease trajectory that indicates 20-25% of the population will be affected this year, Puerto Rico has resisted guidance or help coming from Washington. Why? The colonial attitude of the U.S. towards Puerto Rico and the understandable response to such treatment effects the psyche of the population. A half-century of Navy target practice bombing on the inhabited Island of Vieques (among other places in and around Puerto Rico) was followed by decades of U.S. government denials that cancers and environmental destruction in Vieques were connected to the U.S. government's actions. History is informative: Previous public health interventions from Washington included forced sterilization of women of my mother's generation. This treatment as second-class (at best) citizens of the United States deeply impacts the Puerto Rican psyche, with long term effects. And this is helping Zika spread. Now, a control board imposed by the U.S. government through Congress' PROMESA legislation is preparing to take over decision-making that will determine the future of all Puerto Ricans living on the Island. Distrust of Washington is at an all-time high in Puerto Rico, based on my observations. And unfortunately, this is making it harder for health officials to do what needs to be done to control the Zika outbreak. Unlike in Miami, Florida, there was a swift and sharp backlash from Puerto Ricans when the idea of spraying Naled--an insecticide--was raised. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) sent a shipment to the Island in anticipation of the Island requesting help, but the backlash in local media ranged from basic environmental concerns all the way up to elaborate conspiracy theories that a fictitious colonial genocide of the Puerto Rican people was at hand. In reality, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden has personally assured me that Naled is a pesticide used widely for a long time--including in Miami and other U.S. cities--with very few consequences for people. The consequences for the environment and other insects--including bees--can be minimized through sensible application of Naled. But, in this era of deep distrust, none of the facts are reassuring to Puerto Ricans. The Naled shipment, if it is still in Puerto Rico, remains unused. Due to years of random unchecked chemical pesticide use by private providers, mosquitos in Puerto Rico are highly resistant to common chemical strategies. Naled was one of the only effective options currently available. Mosquitos breed quickly, bite quietly and thrive in urban and rural areas-- sometimes hitting four or five people in a single meal--so the spread of the disease in Puerto Rico is happening astonishingly quickly. Part of the problem can be addressed if the CDC and Puerto Rico work together to build on the success they have had in addressing the Dengue Fever virus, another mosquito-borne disease that--like Chikungunya--has hit Puerto Rico hard. The CDC scientists have provided research and resources to combat Dengue for over 35 years. An important first step would be for Puerto Rico to create an integrated, comprehensive mosquito control center, but given the financial crisis in Puerto Rico, this will only happen if the federal government funds it and the Puerto Rican people accept it. A group of international and local technical experts in vector control management met in San Juan in May of 2016 and came to this same conclusion. The potential to control and eliminate the Zika-carrying mosquito from Puerto Rico is possible with a well-funded mosquito control center that implements an integrated comprehensive vector management approach using safe, effective and innovative strategies. Miami and every major U.S. jurisdiction has a vector control unit and Miami's sprang into action to address the outbreak there, including spraying with Naled. Such a unit provides the infrastructure and expertise to address an outbreak like Zika, manage its spread, and is constantly working to provide protection from mosquitoes that cause diseases like Dengue and Chilcungunya, which are endemic in Puerto Rico. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could help by addressing the crisis of more than two dozen toxic municipal landfills that seem to be flying under EPA's radar. These are breeding grounds for mosquitos and the Island's government needs help to address these hazards, as I and others have noted to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. This must be combined with an investment to address the immediate needs of those infected and to help women avoid or delay pregnancy. Access to modern, effective, reversible birth control has been late in coming to the public health system in Puerto Rico, but access is growing. Women's reproductive health is a critical need, but for Republicans in Congress, contraception and women's health care are lightning rods that tend to induce divisiveness or paralysis or both. The most important thing Congress can do is stop squabbling and fund the President's request for a national strategy to fight Zika, which would include funding to help Puerto Rico address the 17 disease at ground zero. Doing nothing is what this Congress is good at, but there comes a time when Republican leaders need to put their country before their party--even in an election year--and let the resources and experts of the federal government fight this disease. Let us prevent as best we can an outbreak that will be tremendously costly in lives and hardship in the decades to come. Congress must act now. The CDC must be allowed to act now. The next generation, the future of Puerto Rico, is likely to be born with reduced brain capacity, birth defects and a range of developmental disabilities. Let's face it, in the arena of evolution--the mosquitos are winning. Puerto Rico--and Puerto Ricans--must understand how serious this really is and address it aggressively with all tools at their disposal, including help from the federal government. We need to act in concert for the good of Puerto Rico and the United States.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the beautiful, enchanted island of Puerto Rico, the birthplace of my father and mother and my wife. Yes, the colony of the United States in the Caribbean Sea where, in case you forgot, everyone is born a citizen and now even more of a colony of the United States now that Washington has appointed a Financial Oversight and Management Board or, as most people call it, the Control Board, la Junta de Control. Seven members--four put forward by Republicans, three put forward by Democrats--were announced last week, and I was not pleasantly surprised. I have made it clear in this Congress and elsewhere that I oppose the PROMESA legislation that created the board that Congress passed before we left. Now I look at the board, and I see a mix of people, some with ties to the former Tea Party Governor's regime, some with close ties to Wall Street, and most with experience examining the legal and administrative aspects of bankruptcy, not in governing an island of 3.5 million actual living, breathing human beings. I was not surprised to see political insiders or those who are close to the bondholders. I assumed as much and still assume, until proven otherwise, that most everyone on the Control Board or who lobbies and influences or helps the Control Board is doing the bidding of the bondholders who profit from Puerto Rico's debt and economic hard times. The fact that four of the seven members are Puerto Rican doesn't make me feel any more optimistic. If you look at recent history in Puerto Rico, just having a majority of Puerto Ricans shouldn't give you much comfort. Wasn't it Puerto Ricans who beat and pepper-sprayed demonstrators at the university and at the legislature, who have gone after journalists and unions and lawyers in politically motivated attacks, who have put the needs of investors, big Wall Street fat cats, and political insiders ahead of the people, the environment, and the future of the island? The Control Board and its members, no matter who they are, start with a deep ocean of mistrust from the Puerto Rican people who question why a new layer of opaque, undemocratic, colonial oversight and control is being imposed in secrecy. That is why I challenged the appointees to the board to go the extra mile to make their deliberations and meetings and decisions as transparent as possible. Do not meet in secret just because Congress allowed you to. When they are governing the people of Puerto Rico, will they do so in Spanish, the language of the Puerto Rican people? Will they even meet on the island of Puerto Rico? Will they make available the logs of who they meet with, who tries to exert influence over them, what Wall Street executives are spinning them or treating them to expensive meals and giving them gifts, as authorized under PROMESA? Yes, they can take gifts. When this Control Board is making decisions that close schools or hospitals, that threaten the environment, public institutions, and every aspect of society in Puerto Rico, will the Puerto Rican people even be given a minimum amount of information in their own language about who is influencing the seven members of the Control Board? The Junta de Control must take the extra effort to tell the Puerto Rican people what their decisions mean, why they are being made, and how decisions were determined. As Members of Congress who have essentially grabbed the reins of self-determination from the Puerto Rican people and handed them to this Control Board, are we going to be afforded the level of transparency that we need to determine if what is happening is what we want to happen? I understand, Mr. Speaker, that some of our colleagues do not like to be reminded of policy issues that were already voted on, especially complicated policy issues that don't seem to impact them directly or people in their district. They just want to vote on them and forget. Well, I am not going to let Congress forget about Puerto Rico or the board that we have appointed to rule in secrecy over the people of Puerto Rico. We cannot just set it and forget it like one of those super-duper wonder machines they sell on infomercials. Puerto Rico is ours. Its people are ours. Its land is ours. Its bays are ours. Its toxic landfills and lush forests, its schools and hospitals and health care clinics--these are all ours in the sense that we have been given a sacred duty to govern over Puerto Rico responsibly. An unelected, unaccountable Control Board with no mechanism for oversight, with no commitment to transparency, with no promise of bilingualism or inclusion, stocked with insiders and people with questionable links to the very problems the board is supposed to resolve, this does not give me great confidence that this Congress will be alert when the people of Puerto Rico, our fellow citizens and, more importantly, our fellow human beings, are in need of help. Tell the board, do not meet in secret, do not take the free gifts and dinners just because Congress allowed you to; serve the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, September 6, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 479 and 480. I strongly support the passage of H.R. 5578, the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016, which takes an important and much-needed step in ensuring that survivors of sexual assault will have access to the administration of a rape kit as well as rights to have that kit preserved, to be informed of the results, and to be notified of intended disposal of that kit. Although the rape kit backlog still overwhelms forensic labs throughout the country, this bill takes concrete steps to empower survivors to be informed of and make decisions regarding key evidence.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we saw children, 6-year-olds, murdered in their classroom. We saw young people who were dancing murdered. We saw police officers murdered. What did we do? Nothing. We went home. We saw children who were going to be infected with the Zika virus, and pregnant young women's babies were going to be born with deformities. What did we do? Nothing. We saw people being poisoned in Michigan. What did we do? Nothing. Don't tell me to wait for a moment of silence, and don't tell me to pray. Because, before I pray, I make sure, before I ask God for anything, that I have done everything humanly possible that I can do, and then I ask and I pray to Him for His help.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I will not be on vacation or traveling on junkets to far-off lands during the next 6 or 8 weeks that Congress is in recess because I am going to be involved in a campaign to free Oscar Lopez Rivera from incarceration. Oscar Lopez Rivera is regarded as the last political prisoner from Puerto Rico that is still being held in a Federal penitentiary. Oscar is a friend and a mentor. And at 73 years old, he is not beaten, broken, or sad, as you can see by the smile on his face. Even after spending 35 years in jail, nearly half of his life, he is a hero to many people in Puerto Rico and throughout the Puerto Rico diaspora. It warms my heart that people from every walk of life now understand that the 35 years Oscar has served for crimes that were not violent is too long to be in jail. There is a groundswell of support to tell President Obama that, after 35 years, it is time to let Oscar Lopez Rivera come home to his family, his island, and his community. Enough is enough--ya basta. Thirty-five years is enough. And this comes from people of every political background: conservatives, liberals, statehooders, Democrats, Republicans, Populares, and, yes, those who believe in independence like I do. And every generation from the youngest, hippest kids, like Residente of Calle 13, to old people like me, from the richest to the poorest, whether you live in Bayamon, Ponce, Orlando, Chicago, or New York City, the Puerto Rican people are united in our call to free Oscar Lopez Rivera. Internationally, Bishop Desmond Tutu is with us, and a long list of Nobel Peace Prize winners have joined the campaign to free Oscar Lopez, along with world leaders, community leaders, and average people across Europe, Latin America, and the world. Oscar Lopez is a decorated Vietnam war veteran, a father, teacher, mentor, and a friend. Yet, he has languished in Terre Haute, Indiana, for three-and-a-half decades. President Obama has less than 200 days left as President, and the chorus of supporters for the freedom of Oscar Lopez Rivera will continue to call on the President every day to release our brother Oscar back to our community so he can live out his days in peace and with his family. Commutation is the only option--the only option. It will be a minimum of 10 years before Oscar can talk--that is just talk--to a parole board. It is now or never, and President Obama holds all the cards. We could not allow Oscar to die in jail. Obama must commute his sentence. A coalition, La Coalicion por la Liberacion de Oscar Lopez Rivera, has formed with lawyers, union leaders, elected officials, community leaders, and citizens from every walk of life in Puerto Rico and wherever Puerto Ricans live in the United States. This coalition just announced a unity event, a gathering in Lafayette Square across the street from the White House, on October 9, 2016. So, Madam Speaker, when the Congress leaves this week for 6 weeks or more, I am not going to go on vacation. I am going to go work to build awareness about Oscar Lopez Rivera and build awareness about October 9 right here in Washington, D.C., at Lafayette Square. The 9th of October in Washington--el 9 de octubre en Washington. We all have to show up and show our support for Oscar and his family. So I will be in Lorain, Ohio, this Saturday and in Philadelphia and New Jersey later this month. I will be in Puerto Rico and California. Wherever I go, I will be telling people to come to Washington to show support for Oscar Lopez Rivera on October 9, 2016. If you live in New York, it is about a 3\1/2\ hour drive to D.C. Oscar Lopez Rivera has been in jail for three-and-a-half decades, so I don't want to hear any excuses. October 9th is a Sunday. So if you live anywhere up and down the eastern seaboard, you can go to sunrise service at your church and still make it in time to show your solidarity with Oscar. If you live in Chicago or Orlando, okay, it is going to take you a little longer. You might even have to pay for a hotel or airplane ticket, but your Boricua nation needs you to represent. I ask everyone who is watching today or who sees my remarks online to commit yourself to joining me and others in Lafayette Square on October 9 in Washington, D.C. It is up to us. It is up to you. President Obama has done so much to address injustice, to address unfair prison sentences for nonviolent offenses, to address the inherent injustice that all too often characterizes our system of justice. I thank him and praise him for that. In this case, with this elder statesman of the Puerto Rican diaspora for this nonviolent, exemplary inmate, for this father and war hero, for Oscar Lopez Rivera, we respectfully say enough is enough--ya basta. Free Oscar Lopez Rivera.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, July 11, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 401 and 402 and ``nay'' on roll call vote 403.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I had planned to talk about something else this morning, but the events of the last 12 hours changed my plans. I watched this morning on TV and online--like a lot of Americans-- another of our fellow Americans shot down by the police. This time it was in St. Paul, Minnesota. Earlier this week, it was in Baton Rouge. But we know it is everywhere--in Chicago, in Baltimore, in South Carolina. It seems that every week or month another Black man is shot by the police, and we always have the same reaction: Oh, it is a tragedy; there should be an investigation. A lawsuit is filed, and another settlement. Oh, the Justice Department and the FBI need to oversee the investigation because we cannot trust the police to police themselves. And then we go back to business as usual, and nobody actually does anything. State by State, city by city, and county by county, we might make this reform or that reform, but there is no national strategy to stop police from killing people, especially Black people, especially Black men. I wept this morning as I watched the mother of Philando Castile describe her son. She said he had a job, he served children in the cafeteria, and that he was a calm young man. She also said that he was not a thug. Why does a Black woman in the 21st century in the United States of America, while a Black man sits in the Oval Office, almost 50 years after Martin Luther King, Jr., was gunned down, why does she have to start her description of her son with ``He was not a thug''? She said: ``We are being hunted.'' Mr. Speaker, this is another sad chapter in American history. I do not feel compelled to say in describing my grandson Luisito: Well, first and foremost, he is not a gang banger, he is not a thug. But for this Black mother and for a lot of African American mothers in this country, that is something they feel a necessity to say. This mother did everything right. Her son was still shot dead by the police. This young man was riding in the passenger seat of a car with his fiancee and 4-year-old little daughter in the backseat. He had a permit to carry a weapon, which he announced to the police. So he had gone through the background check, gone through the training, and had the concealed carry permit. But he was shot dead in front of his loved ones, his fiancee and daughter. Why is it in 21st century America we have to have a conversation about how to avoid being shot by the police? Why do I have to instruct my grandson about deescalation if he comes in contact with the police, about strategies to prevent a sworn public servant, an officer of the court, a trained member of law enforcement, and I have to instruct my teenage grandson how to prevent that person from shooting him to death for no reason? Why, Mr. Speaker? We have no national strategy, no national conversation. When Americans are literally crying out in the streets that, yes, Black lives matter, we have no response from the Congress, the people's House. None. The head of the FBI announces he won't press charges against a candidate in the Democratic Party. Stop everything; we need to have hearings, congressional hearings. Benghazi, let's spend millions on hearings, political hearings. Planned Parenthood, let's form a special committee to do what the majority party feels is important from their political point of view. But a young Black man is shot by police in his car in cold blood? Nothing. Young men are shot by police, videotapes are withheld from the public, and nothing happens. Mr. Speaker, I think Black lives matter. I think the lives of young men in inner cities across this country matter. And I think this Congress should be the place where America comes together to decide what we are going to do about young Black men getting shot by the police. Not next week, when it is going to happen again. Not next month, when it is going to happen again. Not waiting safely until after the election, when it happens again, again, and again. Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to come together and lead, and we need to start right now.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Tuesday, July 5, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call votes 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349 and ``yea'' on roll call vote 350.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, June 21, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 334 and ``yea'' on roll call votes 335 and 336.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call votes 308 and 322 on Thursday, June 16, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call votes 308 and 322.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, June 13, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 297 and 298.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call vote 283 on Thursday, June 9, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 283.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. I submitted 10 amendments for consideration, and not one of them was ruled in order to be debated today by my colleagues. But I don't oppose the bill because I didn't get an amendment in here. The fact that my amendments were deemed unsuitable for debate by the Congress of the United States is an indication of the underlying problems with the bill. If you can't debate the future of Puerto Rico here in the Congress of the United States, imagine when you give it to seven people unelected by anyone in Puerto Rico or in the United States that can meet in secret. They can meet in secret without informing us of any one of their decisions. If we can't have a debate about Puerto Rico, if it is so important, why not take time to have a debate about the amendments that are offered by people here. We are engaged today in a wholly undemocratic activity in the world's greatest democracy. We are debating how we will take power from people who are virtually powerless already. As I have said throughout this debate, Puerto Rico, by virtue of court cases and the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, ``belongs to, but is not a part of the United States.'' I say to all of my colleagues: treat them with dignity, with respect. Do not put blinders on as though they do not exist. Yes, the Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States says that they are a territory and that, therefore, they are property of the United States of America. But I submit to each and every one of you that they are live human beings with hearts, with souls, and they should demand and receive the respect of any other human. Don't treat them like a piece of trash. Don't treat them like an inanimate object that has no right to dignity and to respect, which is what we are doing here today. I cannot vote for this. President Obama referred to the special place that Kenya owns in his heart because, he says: It will always be a special place because that is the place of the birth of my father. Let me submit to you that Puerto Rico is the place of the birth of my father. And I cannot come here and turn my back on the place of the birth of my father with this outrageously undemocratic and this outrageously unfair proposal to the people of Puerto Rico. Think about it. You are imposing a junta, because that is what they are calling it. There will be no difference between this junta and the junta of Pinochet in Chile, as far as the international community is concerned. And why? Because yesterday--and the Speaker of the House of Puerto Rico is in the gallery--they approved a resolution rejecting this junta. Elected by the people of Puerto Rico. And what does the Congress of the United States, the democracy of the world, say? We don't care. Today, as we speak, the Senate in Puerto Rico has a resolution rejecting it. And just this past Sunday, every candidate for Governor in Puerto Rico, every last candidate for Governor of Puerto Rico that was successful had in their platform a rejection of PROMESA. How many times do the people of Puerto Rico have to reject this proposal so that the Congress of the United States treats them with some respect and some dignity? And I just want to say: Control board? Where was the last control board we know so much about? Flint, Michigan. And what did the control board do? They poisoned the people--American citizens--in Flint. Let me suggest to you that if you give power to a control board unelected and unsupervised by anyone here, be careful. Be careful. Remember Flint. Remember the poisoning of the people and what the control board did there. That is exactly what we should suspect will happen. People say: Luis, what is your alternative? Our alternative is quite simple: have a conversation. Not a conversation that begins: we will not spend a penny on the people of Puerto Rico. That is the way our conversation went. We will not. You have to show me a solution in which we do not spend a penny. Well, let me tell you, we spend money. The Jones Act imposed on the people of Puerto Rico the most expensive merchant marine in the world. It costs $500 million a year. Why don't we lift that from them? We believe in democracy, we believe they should be free. Why don't we lift that from them? Medicaid and Medicare. Have you seen the reimbursement schedules to Puerto Rico? They pay the same in FICA taxes, but don't receive the same in terms of reimbursements. In 2006, the wisdom of this Congress was to say to the people of Puerto Rico: we don't care that you are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. We are eliminating section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code that created jobs. The people of Puerto Rico want jobs. They want jobs and they want the dignity and the respect of being American citizens of this Nation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And they demand the dignity and the respect that comes. They don't come here on their knees. They are a proud people. They are a people who want to use their creativity and their energy. This Congress of the United States has said they are a colony. I didn't say that. The Committee on Natural Resources says: we have plenary powers over the people of Puerto Rico. I didn't say that. You said that. If you have plenary powers over the people of Puerto Rico, then assume your responsibility that comes with those plenary powers over the people of Puerto Rico. Please don't tell me you are going to put Puerto Ricans on the board. I lived in Puerto Rico. I remember when the sugarcane cutters would cut the sugarcane. Let me assure you there were Puerto Ricans in charge of exploiting those workers in the sugarcane field. There have been many times in history when the very same people who have been put in charge exploit their own. Give us dignity. Give us transparency. Do it at least in the Spanish language so the people can know what is going on. At least King George, when he would come with his decrees--before he burned this building down--would write his decrees in English so that we would understand what he was doing.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The people of the enchanted island deserve better. It is my duty to my heritage and to the land where I intend to return some day and where someday--hopefully, not soon--I intend to be buried. As President Obama said so profoundly when he visited the land of his father's birth, Kenya, a nation with one of the richest histories of the struggle for freedom against the colonial power, I, too, Luis Gutierrez, am deeply and profoundly connected to my father's birthplace. I cannot add my vote to this bill and go back to Puerto Rico or to the Puerto Rican people in my congressional district in Illinois with my head held high. I cannot and will not, not when I know that the majority of votes that will pass this legislation if it passes today will come from the Democratic Party, a party that, for all its flaws, is a party I expect a lot more from in times like this. At a moment in American history when Latinos are quite literally being dragged through the mud by the other party and maligned for being Latinos and distrusted and disrespected because of where their parents or grandparents were born, I expect my fellow Democrats to stand up tall when the lives and destinies of so many citizens--the entire island and its people--are held in the hands of the U.S. Congress. By law, they do not have a vote here. By law, they need others to vote on their behalf. By law, Puerto Rico belongs to, is property of but not part of, the United States. By law, this Congress owns Puerto Rico and must treat that ownership as stewardship, as a caring and respectful seat of power over the powerless. And because it is the Democratic Party that will supply so many folks to enact this bill, I expect my colleagues to demand more. I expect us not to support a sub-minimum wage. I expect us not to waive overtime rules that pay people for the work they do. I expect my fellow Democrats to stand up for equity and equality for Puerto Ricans in our Tax Code, in Medicare and health care, so that they don't have to flee Puerto Rico to go to Orlando, Newark, or Chicago. I expect Democrats to join me in opposing the same type of unelected control board that has no accountability to the people that it is controlling--the type of control board focused on austerity without consequences of action for the people; the kind of control board that made decisions in Flint, Michigan, and that poisoned the people that did not elect them, that acted slowly to remedy the situation until other governments and other elected leaders accountable to the people they govern have to step up and begin addressing. Let me say, I am going to offer a translation in Spanish. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) This is not my promise. My promise is that the people of Puerto Rico be respected, that we don't treat them as if they were colonized slaves. I reject this bill. Let me tell you that my promise is clear: to continue my work to defend Puerto Rico. As it is said by the Puerto Rican people: precious, it does not matter what tyrant treats you with bad intentions, precious you'll be. Esta no es mi promesa; mi promesa es que el pueblo de Puerto Rico se respete y que no se trate como si fueran colonizados esclavos. Yo rechazo esta propuesta, y les digo que mi promesa es clara; de trabajar para defender. Porque como se dice pueblo de Puerto Rico preciosa, no importa el tirano te trate con negra maldad.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Tuesday, June 7, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 269, 270, 271, and 272.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 273 and 274, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 275.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, as it turns out, deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants and banning Muslims from entering the country might not be the most radical anti-immigration ideas that the Republicans have come up with. There seems to be a sinister, anti- immigration arms race breaking out in the Party of Trump. Last week, a Federal judge--Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas, pictured here--the same one whose judgment on immigration executive actions is being deliberated by the Supreme Court, ordered the punishment of every single lawyer in the Justice Department in 26 States. His claim is that some DOJ lawyers misrepresented to him whether they were complying with his injunction suspending the immigration executive actions announced by President Obama in November of 2014. After his injunction, they were only supposed to issue 2-year work permits under the old rules to immigrants who applied for and received, after an extensive criminal background check, the ability to be treated as the lowest priority for deportation. But the remedial ethics classes are for every single Department of Justice lawyer in 26 States. You say you weren't in any way associated with the case before the judge? Too bad. Never practiced law that is remotely related to immigrants or immigration? Sorry, the judge is ordering your punishment. Never been to the State of Texas in your life? Tough cookies, the Texas judge knows best, and is ordering you around as if you had argued cases yourself before his court. Overreach much? The newspaper La Opinion called Judge Hanen's plan ``onerous and absurd.'' I think that is an understatement. Judge Hanen is also using some good old-fashioned scare tactics to see if he can compete with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the GOP Presidential nominee for the title of who is so shamelessly anti-immigrant. Judge Hanen has called for the Department of Justice to turn over the names of 100,000 people who were possibly granted the 3-year, not the 2-year, work permits. So if you come forward, pay hundreds of dollars, submit your paperwork and fingerprints, then 2 years later a judge says, Though you have made no mistake and have zero--I want to repeat--zero-- responsibility for the controversy, you, the applicant, before the American government, could have your name and address published for every two-bit vigilante and Twitter troll to read. I thought Republicans were the ones who didn't like activist judges. I thought they wanted as little government as possible and to leave the legislating and, I suppose, the intimidating to the politicians here in Washington, D.C. So when the Republicans up the ante in one area, they have to up the ante in another. Nowhere is this crass political opportunism more apparent than right here. This morning we are having a little hearing in the Judiciary Committee aimed at--get this--shutting down legal immigration as much as possible. Your son's fiancee, your mom's doctor, your neighbor's nanny, your grocery store's janitorial crew, if they are coming legally to the United States, Republicans want to stop it, slow it down, and make it cost a lot more. The party obsessed with illegal immigration now has legal immigration firmly in its sight. And if you are from certain countries or are of a certain religion, you must have a special security review. I thought the campaign promise to bar Muslims from traveling here to the USA was a campaign promise that would never be realized unless your leader actually won the campaign. Don't get me wrong. If I thought Republicans were proposing a process to make things more secure and give the U.S. a better immigration system, I would support it. And I think we could pass something that was on a bipartisan basis in Congress today. But come on, guys. Do you really believe that the House of Representatives is trying to craft a sensible bill related to immigration in an election year? Do you think the American people are that gullible? No. The Party of Trump has launched an all-out radical assault on legal immigration, and hopes everyone is so scared of the ``rapey'' Mexicans, the sex-crazed Italians, and the Vietnamese immigrants with Ebola on the one hand and ``ziki flies'' on the other. Lock down the whole system, they say. Lady Liberty, lower your lamp, cover up your poem, and take a seat because terrorists got in once, which is enough reason to keep everyone out of America--from the computer programmer to the ski instructor, to the refugee fleeing systematic violence. If you ask me, maybe it is not the hundreds of Justice Department lawyers who have nothing to do with Judge Hanen's courtroom who need onerous remedial ethics training classes; maybe it is Judge Hanen's allies here in the House and throughout the Republican Party who could use a mandatory lesson on right and wrong.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, May 23, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 229 and ``yea'' on roll call vote 230.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, May 16, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 194 and 195.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Speaker of the House is receiving a special visitor today: the heavyweight, undisputed champion and leader of the Republican Party, the person who speaks for every single House Republican, the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party. And just so that we are clear on how important this visit is, I hold in my hand the actual menu from the cafeteria today. This is the menu from the Senate Carryout, and today's special is--wait for it--taco salad. They even have little pictures of the taco salad. The Republicans love the Hispanics so much that they put taco salads on the menu so that we can honor the love and affection that their Presidential nominee feels for each and every one of us--the Hispanics. I am sure that that love and respect extends to all the working men and women in the cafeterias, not just one part of Hispanics, but the other working men and women who are part of the Blacks, the Asian, and the Whites. They work hard every single day in the cafeterias of the Capitol and the surrounding buildings. It is not something I am proud of, but the reality is many of them don't even make a living wage. Oh, and, look, it says here that May is Strawberry Festival Month in the cafeterias. Now, let's see if we can guess who picks the strawberries that will be served in the cafeterias, shall we, Mr. Speaker? I would venture to guess that every single strawberry that is served on yogurt to Members of Congress will have passed through the hands--rough hands--of an undocumented immigrant. Whether it was growing them, picking them, packing them, shipping them, unloading them, or some other part of the process, the Strawberry Festival Month really means ``undocumented farm worker month.'' We are all complicit. Any food you eat will have been touched by undocumented immigrant hands, immigrants that the Republican Party wants to remove from our country by the millions--11 million people, their families, their businesses, their homeownership, their consumer buying power, their U.S. citizen wives and husbands, and their U.S. citizen children. They have all got to go. Now, it was less than 2 years ago, upstairs in this building, that the respected chairman of the House Rules Committee said to me, in a committee hearing, that he was unaware of anyone in the Republican Party, he said: ``There is no one in responsible Republican leadership who would suggest or support mass deportation.'' He said it was ``inflammatory'' for me to suggest otherwise, just 18 months ago. He said it was ``extremely distasteful'' of anyone, including me, to suggest Republicans would favor driving out 11 million immigrants. Now the standard bearer, the leader, the nominee, Orange Chief--El Jefe Anaranjado--who is leading the party into the November election is calling for the mass deportation or removal of 11 million people, in detail, out loud. So as we eat our taco salads today or have a sweet, delicious strawberry, I hope my colleagues chew on the words and keep in mind the philosophy and values your leader is espousing on the campaign trail on your behalf, the de facto head of the Republican Party. Just taste the immigrant labor, the hands of Mexicans--and a lot of other people with and without papers--that went into every morsel of the food that you taste today. I also want you to think about the nearly 1 million American-born Latino citizens who have turned 18 in the last 12 months and the half a million more that will turn 18 before November. Think about the 82,000 Puerto Ricans who have left the island of Puerto Rico--most of them moving to Florida, a very important electoral State--and the tens of thousands more who will arrive before the election as citizens of the United States. As you eat your last strawberry, please, please, please, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will think about the 25 percent increase that we have seen in the first quarter of 2016 in citizenship applications, the 8.8 million eligible immigrants who can apply for citizenship today, and the thousands more who will be eligible before November. Sure, you can chomp on your taco salad, Mr. Speaker, and you can concentrate on the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants who are daily targets of lies and slander on the campaign trail, but come November, the Latinos you will really have to worry about are the more than 27 million Latino citizens, like me, of the U.S.A. who are your constituents, who are eligible to vote, and who are fired up to vote more and more with each passing day.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, May 10, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 180 and 181.