Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Friday, April 29, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 178 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 179. personal explanation

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Thursday, April 28, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 173 and 174, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 175, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 176, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 177.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Wednesday, April 27, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 166 and 167, ``nay'' on roll call votes 168 and 169, ``yea'' on roll call vote 170, ``nay'' on roll call vote 171, and ``yea'' on roll call vote 172.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call votes 164 and 165.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, as we were reminded yesterday by the Speaker of the House, Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, and the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to ``make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the U.S.'' Treating Puerto Rico as property is just what is being proposed by the Republicans in addressing the Puerto Rico debt crisis. My friend here, King George of England, would be very proud. I will say, the Governor of Puerto Rico has been working hard to help move a bill forward. He and his staff have been honest and tireless brokers, trying to resolve a crisis decades in the making. He should be commended. But what the Governor and the people of Puerto Rico need are the same protections that any U.S. citizen has when their local government is in crisis and bondholders are circling and demanding payments. Puerto Rico needs the ability to restructure her debt so that the bondholders get something instead of nothing on their investment, the local government is not crippled, and the people are not faced with the collapse of their basic services. Congress, the colonial power, took away the ability to declare bankruptcy, so that was never an option--a move worthy of King George himself. Yes, in the bill the Republicans put forward, there is a restructuring of Puerto Rico's debt. There is even a temporary stay of the debt payments for a short period of time. But at what cost? As I understand it, the debt restructuring for Puerto Rico would only take place if two-thirds of the bondholders on Wall Street approve. So Wall Street fat cats can literally veto what Republicans are proposing. On Wall Street, the fat cats know their Maseratis and yachts are safe, even if Puerto Rican schoolbuses, hospitals, and roads fall into further disrepair. They will live like kings, just like my buddy here, King George. They even bragged about it at the hearing yesterday, saying that the market ``responded positively'' when the Republican bill was introduced, because it signaled that Republicans have Wall Street's back, protecting the profits of the hedge funds. I simply do not see things in the Republican bill that justify relinquishing what little sovereignty Puerto Rico has left to an unelected Federal control board. It is a new level of colonial rule on top of what Washington already has, what Washington already misuses, what Washington usually rather ignores. King George of England would be pleased that, even after 250 years, the U.S. Congress, this Congress, created to replace his tyrannical rule, has so fully embraced colonialism for its distant territories. As Speaker Ryan said yesterday, the fact that Puerto Rico's government is ``ceding its authority to the Financial Control Board is a huge, but necessary, move that will ensure Puerto Rico will learn fiscal discipline from a board of experts.'' Oh, yes, those poor islanders, those uncivilized Puerto Ricans, will see how it is done up close and personal. The board will have the power to reduce the minimum wage, block overtime rules, block laws, regulations, and government contracts approved by the island's democratically elected government. It can overrule the legislature and the Governor if it does not like the budget, and it can fast-track energy projects at the expense of the environment. Does that sound familiar to you, Your Highness, King George? Get this: Congress can impose a control board on Puerto Rico that can hire whomever they want, at whatever salary they want, and the people of Puerto Rico have to pay to for it--period, punto--100 percent. The control board is paid for by those it controls. If that is not colonialism, I don't know what is. It is so good, King George here would be jealous. As if to add insult to injury, the bill addresses Vieques, the island off the coast of Puerto Rico that the U.S. Navy bombed for decades. It turns over the land with no conditions. Now, I am all for the people of Puerto Rico having control of the lands of Puerto Rico; but in the current crisis, without protection, we all know what is going to happen. Hotels, restaurants, and businesses seeking to profit will be looking for bargain prices and will be out to profiteer, just like the pirates who used to control those waters. Mr. Speaker, the people of Puerto Rico want jobs and an economy that allows them to live on the island and thrive; but so far, all the Republican majority has offered is more colonial oversight, more austerity, and more misery. I once again say this Congress should reject the King George approach and free Puerto Rico so that its hardworking people can build the island. We should put them--yes, the people--above all other creditors, bondholders, and profit seekers. That ought to be our priority. The schoolchildren, the elderly, the working men and women, the police on the beat, they need us to stand up for them as human beings, and I call on my colleagues to join me in doing just that.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 139 and 140.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great woman of Puerto Rico, Conxita Martorell Carrion. Along with my wife Soraida and my family, we are deeply saddened by her loss. Conxita was raised in Barcelona, but truly adopted Puerto Rico as her homeland. She loved Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans like few people I have ever met. From the beaches to the narrow streets of Old San Juan, the island was deeply loved by Conxita. Conxita and Richard raised a beautiful family, but what I remember most about her is her passion and compassion for her adopted island home, and especially how she donated her time and love to shelter abused and battered girls. She is in the thoughts and prayers of all Puerto Ricans. And now, just a line or two in Spanish. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) Mr. Speaker, my wife and our daughters will deeply miss the great generosity and welcoming spirit Conxita Carrion shared with our family. Here in the House I wanted to offer my humble thanks and my sincerest condolences to her husband Richard and their family. Sr. Presidente, mi esposa y nuestras hijas profundamente extranaran la gran generosidad y el espiritu acogedor que Conxita Carrion compartio con nuestra familia. Aqui, en la camara quisiera ofrecer mi humilde agradecimiento y mis mas sinceras condolencias a su marido Richard y a su familia.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Monday, March 21, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 130.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Is it in order to offer an amendment to amend section 2 of the resolution to make the text of any amicus brief to be filed available for all Members to review for 3 days previous to its filing?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So it is not in order?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Is it in order to offer an amendment to section 3 that would make available all names of outside counsel that will be providing services to the Office of General Counsel; that way the American public can know who all the outside counsel is?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that every President since President Eisenhower and up through President Obama has used powers granted to them by Congress to set aside the deportation of certain immigrants?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thought I was.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, we shouldn't even be here today. This is partisan politics at its worst. And using the resources of the Federal Government and the legislative branch of government to promote a political agenda is just an affront to all Americans. Why don't you just say it clearly? This is your: I want to deport 4 to 5 million people. I wish the majority would stop talking about the Constitution and really talk about what it is they mean to achieve here. If you want to see people deported, why don't you all stand up and say it? Be men and women of integrity and of your word and say: I want 4 to 5 million unprotected, and amend this to say, ``this is a mass deportation for 4 to 5 million people.'' You keep saying that the candidates out there on the Presidential trail do not represent your values, do not represent who you are politically, and then you come back here and stoke the fire even more. What you are demonstrating here is that you should be doing immigration reform. What you are demonstrating here is your impotence at being able to get it done. Why don't you just say that this is what it is all about? Because out on the campaign trail, on immigration, we get lots of demagoguery from the majority. The debate has sunk to a level where people are actually throwing punches, and worse. Two refugees from Southeast Asia and a gentleman from Puerto Rico were shot and murdered in front of their children in Milwaukee because they didn't have the right accent in their voice. Two students, a Muslim and a Latino, were attacked by a man when they encountered him beating a Black man in Kansas this week, and he turned to them and shouted racist threats and said they should just go and leave the country. We have Go Back to Africa and Hitler salutes, and all of this is becoming more and more what we expect, the reality we see in 2016. And now the Republicans in the House are stoking the same anti- immigrant fears and mass deportation fantasies some more. No, they are not leading. They are not calling for calmer rhetoric, let alone more rational policies. They are playing politics with immigrants, plain and simple. Shame on them. If Republicans are so secure in the validity of their arguments, they should write a brief and submit it, just like the 259 Democrats did last week, without politicizing and using this august body to bring about your partisan political hatred against immigrants. The vote is a political stunt disguised as a legal brief. This is not a legal brief. This is a political stunt. The Republican majority sees a crass political opportunity to stand with the anti-immigrant wing of their party. I guess the Speaker thinks, hey, why play it straight when you can force a purely political vote on immigration, designed to deepen the partisan line and validate the very angry people who go around showing their hatred, their bigotry, and their prejudice in the political process in America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Tuesday, March 15, 2016. I would like to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call votes 114, 115, and 123. I would have also voted ``yea'' on 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 122.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, March 14, 2016. I would like to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 111, 112, and 113.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when we got our first color TV, it was a big deal in my family. We were working class, Puerto Rican, and not used to such luxury; so when we got a color TV, we had really arrived in America. Every Sunday night, my sister and I would watch ``The Wonderful World of Disney'' that always started with the same announcement: ``The following program is brought to you in living color on NBC.'' Then you would hear the NBC chimes. Well, that was a long time ago. Now you turn on NBC, and the furthest thing from your mind is color. What is going on at NBC? Last week Wake Forest University professor and MSNBC television host Melissa Harris- Perry was abruptly pulled from the airwaves without even a chance to say good-bye. NBC said they wanted a show that was more about politics, but I have to say, when I watched her show, Melissa Harris-Perry was talking about politics in a unique way, like few others on the airwaves. She brought diverse voices to the table to talk directly and unapologetically about the politics of race in America, a major theme among candidates and a critical conversation to include on the airwaves. I am sad to see her go, just like Alex Wagner before her, but I am even sadder because I don't think these are isolated cases. Anchorman Jose Diaz-Balart is another voice that seems to be disappearing from English language airwaves. You remember Jose. He is the Telemundo anchorman NBC would bring out to ask a question--only one question--about immigration during the Republican Presidential debates in 2012. You may have met his brother Lincoln. He used to sit over there, and his other brother Mario still does. Jose had a 2-hour show on MSNBC and did a very good job, but Jose is a lot harder to find these days. They cut him back, and now it seems that they are cutting him out. For example, MSNBC announced that they were sending a team of reporters to Florida to report on the primary next Tuesday, but not Jose, one of the most respected and recognized journalists in America, who happens to be from Miami and a Florida political dynasty. Apparently he is not the right guy to report on politics in Florida. Let's not forget the great NBC racism flip-flop last year when NBC severed its ties to Donald Trump because of his racist remarks about Latinos, only to have him host their flagship comedy show ``Saturday Night Live'' a few months later. That was right about the same time last fall when NBC's executives met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and NBC News President Deborah Turness told us, ``We love the Hispanic community,'' as she updated us on strides they were making on diversity in hiring. She made it very clear that she had our community's interests at heart when she said, ``Yo hablo Espanol'' in her beautiful British accent. Most of the news coverage of this meeting was about when she used the term ``illegals'' to describe immigrants, which, in case you need a reminder, is not a good idea when you are meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Well, forgive me for not noticing just how much progress NBC was making on diversity when some of the most visible people of color at NBC, like Alex Wagner, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Jose Diaz-Balart, are disappearing. But let's be clear: this is not about quotas, window dressing, or checking the diversity box. Journalists of color bring a different texture and a different perspective on what issues matter and what should be discussed and debated on television. The reality is that our Nation has become more diverse, and our television and our news media and our political institutions, including the Democratic and Republican Parties, have not kept up. When NBC has a bad year when it comes to race, or when the Oscars have a couple of bad years when it comes to people of color, these are moments to talk about and confront the emotions and ideas we all have-- we all have--about race and ethnicity. It is a good time to think about what the phrase ``e pluribus unum'' really means in America today. This is a discussion we should all be having all of the time here in this body, on news programs, and in entertainment. It is a discussion I hope every family is having at their dinner table.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to give a political speech. This is not the right venue for that. But I would like to share some observations I have about visiting Nevada last week. The first observation is that among a broad and diverse segment of voters, there is a great deal of excitement about the political process. It almost doesn't matter which candidate people prefer or even which party, there is so much enthusiasm to participate. In Nevada, the form of participation is the caucus, and it requires a greater time commitment than simply punching a ballot at your local precinct. Yet, I witnessed thousands of people who were taking hours away from their jobs, at their own expense in many cases, to participate in that process. You can't come away from that kind of activity and not be inspired that Americans are taking their right to vote, their opinions about who should be the next nominee of their party or the next President very seriously. It was really remarkable. Still, there were some people I spoke with who could not afford to take hours away from their jobs, some because they couldn't get permission and others because they simply could not afford to give up a couple of hours of wages, clock out to vote, even when it means not having your vote count. Las Vegas, where I was, is a 24/7 working city; and for many, Saturday is the busiest day of the week, especially for tips. This election year, as we travel around our districts or campaign in other States, I hope my colleagues in both parties will really examine how local governments and States are facilitating or disenfranchising American citizens who are eligible to vote. In Nevada, participation in a caucus at a set time of the day with little or no flexibility serves almost like a poll tax for hourly workers. Voters have to weigh the power of their vote against dollars that would not be in their pockets if they exercise that vote. If you can vote, you should vote, and we should make sure that the laws of our Nation and our communities encourage rather than discourage the participation of every citizen. Another striking observation I made over the weekend was the diversity of the American electorate: women and men, straight and gay, U.S.-born and naturalized, old and young, working class, retired, students, military, executives. Nevada put on a display of how much progress our Nation has made in a few decades. I saw the energy and the determination of young voters, new voters, newly 18, newly citizens, newly engaged in the political process. Everywhere I have traveled, including the high schools in my district in Illinois, I see 17- and 18-year-old Latinos anxious and eager to participate, and they are motivated to register and vote and inspired by their candidates and their parties. Today, tomorrow, and every day for decades about 2,000 U.S.-born Latino citizens of the United States will turn 18 and be eligible to vote. Every day, 2,000 of them turn 18, and they are eager to get involved. There is a similar energy in the people I meet who are applying for citizenship. There are over 8 million immigrants with green cards who are eligible to apply for citizenship right now. And with fee waivers for those with limited funds, many of them can apply for free. And they are applying in droves. This coming Saturday, I will be at a workshop in Denver, Colorado, for people learning about the process and applying for citizenship. A coalition of groups led by the National Partnership for New Americans but also encompassing Mi Familia Vota, a range of labor unions, and advocacy groups large and small across 30 States have invited me to participate in this nonpartisan activity to promote civic engagement and citizenship in immigrant communities across this country. Their goal is to help 1 million eligible immigrants become citizens so they can vote in primaries and general elections this year and make sure they are at America's table. In communities like Denver and Chicago, there is a hunger for citizenship despite all the barriers, despite the costs, and despite the anti-immigrant tone coming from our TVs and candidates. In fact, it is the anti-immigrant tone that people tell me over and over is what is motivating them to apply, study for the tests, and better their English. It is that energy that gives me great confidence in our Nation and in the direction our Nation is heading this year. Immigrants are a part of a growing American coalition of working class voters: women, straight people and LGBT, environmentalists, Latino, Asians, Black, White, old and young, Muslim and Christians, Jewish and agnostic. They are coming together and mobilizing. Together, even as some politicians push them away and try to divide up with suspicions of our fellow Americans, together, their diversity and dedication to democracy is a beautiful thing to witness.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I come with a humble message from the Puerto Rican people to the House of Representatives: Free Puerto Rico. Free Puerto Rico so that she can solve the problem of her crushing debt without being handcuffed by Congress. Free Puerto Rico so that her hospitals can stay open for sick moms and dads and her schools stay open for children. Nobody should fear that their house will burn down because the firemen have not been paid. So far the response to Puerto Rico's debt crisis from Washington--the only place that Puerto Rico is forced to rely on--has been very little, and greedy bondholders and hedge fund managers only care about Puerto Rico as a wager, a way to make money whether Puerto Rico sinks or swims. Right now, Puerto Rico needs serious, sustained attention from Washington to find a path forward such that Puerto Rico is neither absolved of her obligations nor mortally wounded by them. Mr. Speaker, here is what it comes down to: when the U.S. Supreme Court said that Puerto Rico belongs to but is not a part of the United States, the responsibility to care for her and her people came along with that judgment. Congress must act responsibly for the fact that we expect Puerto Rico to pay its obligation, but we force her to play by a particular set of rules. Puerto Rico cannot declare bankruptcy because Congress passed a law saying that she could not. Puerto Rico is under the choke hold of the Jones Act, a law passed right here in this room, without any consultation with the Puerto Rican people, that says, by law, Puerto Rico cannot shop around for the best deal on shipping. No. They must buy the most expensive, which means double the import costs and an estimated $500 million extra on Puerto Rico's food bill alone. When it comes to producing for themselves, a large chunk of the best agricultural land--the land that sustains and feeds a nation--is taken away from them for U.S. military bases. Thirteen percent of the land is gone. Puerto Rico is a tropical island, but a lot of its fruit and vegetables and almost all of its food is imported. We must allow Puerto Rico to create an agricultural economy, allowing Puerto Ricans to feed themselves. The economy produces goods the people do not consume, and the people consume goods that they do not produce. Even when the U.S. is caught redhanded stealing water from Puerto Rico's freshwater supply--not paying a dime for it--what happens? The U.S. Government is not held responsible or made to pay. When the military bombs and pollutes Vieques and Culebra, does the U.S. Government feel any obligation to restore it? Not really. So, Mr. Speaker, when Congress talks about Puerto Rico's debt, I say we look at the totality of the debt--the part owed to Puerto Rico, not just the part Puerto Rico owes to Wall Street. Every soldier she has sent to war, every time the U.S. has stepped in to override her courts and her government, these debts add up but are not accounted for. Now, what is the solution that everyone in Washington is lining up behind? A Federal control board. Imagine that. An island that cannot determine its own destiny. It has to play an economic game with a stacked deck and all the rules rigged against her. What is the solution in Washington? Take away what little autonomy they have left. If Congress were smart, we would find a way to get out of the way. Free Puerto Rico's people to unleash their inherent, hardworking character, spirit, and dedication. Free Puerto Ricans to work and toil and build and create. Free Puerto Rico so that she can build a sustainable economy that keeps her people at home in the land of their birth and their heritage. We cannot get sidetracked by seeing Puerto Rico's economic health exclusively through the lens of food stamps, Medicaid, government programs, and further dependency on Washington. We must make the conversation about jobs for Puerto Ricans, jobs that build the economy, the tax base, and the self-sufficiency of the island. Mr. Speaker, Puerto Rico's problems were a long time in the making, but I have utter confidence in Puerto Ricans' ability to solve them if we in the Congress begin to listen to them, work with them, and recognize them as equal partners. We must free Puerto Rico so that the Puerto Rican people can free themselves.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Republicans in the House are holding a hearing that will blame the Obama administration because thousands of children and young adults are fleeing three countries in Central America and are seeking safety in the United States and in other countries. The premise, as far as the Republicans on the committee are concerned, is that President Obama has not deported anyone or enforced any immigration laws. As far as they are concerned, the President's executive actions--which we should remember are for a different set of immigrants altogether and which Republicans have delayed until the Supreme Court decides on a lawsuit this summer--are a clarion call to everyone in these three particular countries to attempt to come to the U.S. It is not the rampant murders, the extortion, the forced conscription into street gangs, or the utter collapse of civil society and civil order that is driving people to risk their lives to seek safety here. No. It is ``that'' President whom Republicans love to hate. He is to blame. I hope that at least a little time at the Judiciary hearing on Thursday will be devoted to the problems our government has faced over the past couple of years in handling young and unaccompanied asylum seekers from Central America. We know that some women were kept in lockups for too long, that the term ``humane family detention'' is an oxymoron, that children were released to guardians who did not have the children's best interests in mind, and that some were forced into human trafficking situations, and we should have been more vigilant. Those are the issues I hope we can focus on. We should be asking: How can we remain a society that protects the innocent, that cares for children who have put themselves in our care, and that does so in accordance with the laws of this Nation and the laws of basic decency? Unfortunately, at this point, we know what Judiciary Committee hearings are not about. They are not serious attempts to craft legislation that creates an immigration system that works for the American people. Hearings in this Congress are not about how the Congress can create legal and controlled immigration alternatives so that people do not try to come illegally or spend thousands of dollars on smugglers and traffickers. We will probably not discuss how a generation of temporary protected status for certain immigrants has not created a long-term, sustainable situation in immigrant communities or sending countries so that immigration is safe, legal, orderly, and voluntary. We will spend a lot of time discussing whether President Obama is to blame but very little time actually discussing why people come in the dead of night, holding onto a freight train, and running a gauntlet with smugglers and not what can be done to have immigration where people come in the light of day with visas, passports, and plane tickets. We simply will not discuss how we get from this broken reality to a feasible and sustainable future of immigration. Rather, the Judiciary Committee will continue to feed the hucksterism and red meat politics that Americans hate, and they hate it with good reason. In the years since 2007, when President George Bush started ramping up raids and deportations, right through the 2 million deportations of President Obama's, I can honestly say I have not seen such fear and anxiety in immigrant communities, where mothers and fathers are keeping their children out of school because of the fear of being arrested by immigration authorities. The home raids announced by the Obama administration around Christmas have struck a nerve. They have sparked rumors and panic and have multiplied as city after city has experienced raids or the rumors of raids. Children are taken as they go to school--yes, as they go to school. The government has stopped them and has arrested them. The fear and anxiety has nothing to do with Donald Trump or with the fantasy that he has of deporting millions of immigrants or of barring people from this country because of their religion. The fear and anxiety is born of decades of congressional inaction and of leaders in Washington who hope that the problem will just go away; but we will not be discussing that at the hearing tomorrow. As for the path forward that will allow the country to move beyond the legislative roadblock imposed by the opponents of legal immigration, we will, again, not discuss how we make progress but, rather, yes, how we blame Obama. For all of the Americans who want a legal and accountable immigration system and for all of the families who fear a knock on their doors, this Congress, again, seems to have nothing and to do nothing other than to let the demagogues and fear rule the day. Mr. Speaker, that is a shame.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for roll call vote 50 on Tuesday, February 2, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, February 1, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 46.