Floor Statements

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House - Chamber for votes on Thursday, February 5, 2015.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 65, ``yea'' on roll call vote 66, and ``yea'' on roll call vote 67.

Finally, I would like to indicate that I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 68 in opposition to H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Wednesday, February 4, 2015.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 59, and ``nay'' on roll call vote 60.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 61, ``yea'' on roll call vote 62, and ``yea'' on roll call vote 63.

I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 64 in strong opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Wednesday, January 28, 2015 through Tuesday, February 3, 2015.

Had I been present on Wednesday, January 28, 2015, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 49, and ``nay'' on roll call vote 50 against final passage of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.

Had I been present on Monday, February 2, 2015, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 51, ``yea'' on roll call vote 52, and ``yea'' on roll call vote 53.

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 54, ``nay'' on roll call vote 55, and ``nay'' on roll call vote 56. I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 57, and finally I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 58 in strong opposition to H.R. 596, the 56th vote to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking my daughter's access to health care.

Wow, time flies when you are playing politics with people's lives. Just a year ago, as the Republican majority was rushing off to their retreat, they had a very different story. Here it is:

House immigration reform, 2013. Goodlatte-Cantor working to

give legal status to kids. House GOP leaders embrace

immigration fix that includes status for undocumented.

Republicans see the light on immigration reform.

And what are the headlines today? Behold the Republican immigration strategy: mass deportation.

One year ago--this is the difference in the headlines that your party's public policy on immigration has caused. But wait, let's see what you said in your principles:

It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence

and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as

children through no fault of their own, those who knew no

other place as home.

Citizenship, legal residence for the undocumented youth--that was your idea, one that we applauded and we accepted and we cheered on. And 1 year later, you want to take away from 600,000 DREAMers their right to live in this country and to live legally. You want to deport them all. What happened? What happened?

Well, then let me say this. I just think if that is what happened in 1 year, what are you going to come up with next year? What is your game plan for next year if this is the kind of position you have taken from one year to the next?

But let me just say this. The action you take today I know you believe will cause fear and confusion and consternation in the immigrant community throughout this Nation, thereby causing the failure of the President's executive order because no one will sign up.

But let me tell you something. The fruits of your action today will cause only anger and outrage and the mobilization of an immigrant community throughout this Nation that will be the death knell of the future of your party as a national institution. That is what you will reap today with this.

Tonight, I will be with Congressman Cicilline, and I will be there standing with the Catholic Diocese, with evangelicals, with men of faith in Providence, Rhode Island, and people will come forward. Where will the Republican Party be? Simply telling them that we cannot do anything.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Conyers.

I just want to go back one moment, so that we can be very clear about this because I think we need to understand the difference between the rhetoric of today and the rhetoric of 1 year ago.

This is 1 year ago:

One of the greatest founding principles of our country was

that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their

parents.

I didn't write this. No one on our side of the aisle wrote this. I wish I would have. I am sure we would have all been proud to have been coauthors or cosponsors of that statement.

What happened? What happened? What happened to that principle? You just gave it up, it doesn't mean anything to you anymore, you don't care about children, you think children should be held responsible for the actions of their parents? Because that is precisely what you are saying today, because 600,000 young people came forward and did exactly this.

Then, wait a minute, it gets better because you said--and we were so happy because we thought we were moving forward because we thought the Republican Party was finally turning a page. You said:

It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence

and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as

children.

What happened? I want one of you to deny that this isn't one of the principles you took into your conference last year. It is what you took. What happened 1 year later?

Well, you know, here is what happened, I think. You guys always say the same thing: Oh, it is that King from Iowa. He tricks us at the last second. He brings in one of these poisonous things, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Well, what excuse do you have today, when you did it with all the premeditation and thoughtfulness and viciousness to bring this amendment forward with the support of your complete Conference? This is not a surprise. You thought this out.

Where are you going to move the country forward to?

Let me just tell you about one number--yeah, there are 600,000--it is 270, that is the electoral college. It is the number it takes to elect the President of the United States. You are out of reach there.

Mr. Speaker, if you live in Rhode Island, Texas, New York, New Jersey, or Florida, I am looking forward to seeing you in the coming weeks, and my friends in North Carolina and South Carolina, too.

When I am not here or in my district in Chicago, I have half a dozen events lined up over the next few weeks, and I am going to be going from town to town, State to State, talking with people about the President's immigration executive actions and what it means for them, their families, and their communities.

In congregations and community centers and schools, and with local elected officials, I am going to be doing outreach to educate the community of immigrants and also to mobilize the multitude of allies at the State and local level who will help millions of our immigrant neighbors come forward and register with the government.

I will not be alone in this effort. Next week I will be with the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, David Cicilline, and with his mayor in Providence holding an event to get people the information they need so they can get ready to sign up with the government.

From Charlotte to Houston to Los Angeles, my colleagues here in the House are pulling together events to educate their own communities, and I hope to attend as many as I can.

Evangelical congregations across the Nation, the Catholic Church, and my own archdiocese in Chicago are stepping up to organize and host events and begin laying the groundwork for millions of people who work and live and raise families in the U.S. to come forward and pay to be temporarily spared from deportation.

Labor unions, corporations, small businesses that want to help families remain together, hey, they are preparing, too, and mayors, lots of mayors across the country. Apparently when Mayor Rahm Emanuel from the city of Chicago steps forward to say he will help facilitate the enrollment of families and individuals with the Federal Government, other mayors say, ``Me, too,'' and good for them.

We can all help by playing a role in implementing the immigration executive actions taken by the President that will help millions of people. Congress refuses to pass laws that channel people into legal immigration with visas, and Congress refuses to address millions of people who have lived and worked here for a decade or more, and they refuse to address any meaningful enforcement like E-Verify or at the borders and ports of entry because they would rather play politics and play to the talk radio audience.

But at the White House and on our side of the aisle, we are actually taking steps on immigration that will address the anxieties of the talk radio audience and not just inflame their frustration with the current mess. Remember, not doing anything, the Republican strategy, that is amnesty.

We are going to make sure that millions of American citizens can live with their family members and that we not place American citizen children in foster care by the thousands because we are deporting their parents.

We are going to make sure that more of the employment and tax base of the country is on the books, working legitimately for employers who have to follow the rules, and that employers will not get to pick between a legal job market and an illegal one that is not protected by labor laws, wage protection, safety regulations, and, yes, tax compliance.

We are getting accurate information out to people to tell them that what the President announced is not immigration reform, it is not a permanent but a small step in the right direction within the confines of current law.

As I said during the last Congress--and I am repeating it again today--I will work with anyone in either party who has a legitimate idea on how to make our immigration system more secure, more legal, more orderly. Most of my fellow lawmakers in this body support legal immigration, and to make progress we need to break with the group opposing legal immigration.

We need a modern visa system that takes America beyond the current system crafted in the 1980s and 1990s. We

need a modern enforcement with an electronic verification system that replaces a paper-based system of documentation. We need modern border security that works hand in hand with modern visa and enforcement systems so that we channel traffic through ports of entry where commodities, cargo, and people are inspected efficiently.

More militarization, more deportation, and narrower legal immigration channels have not given us greater control over the immigration process and have led us to a number of problems.

If you are serious about border security, legalization enforcement, legal immigration, then my door is always open. Tell me what you need to move forward. Do you need more fences? More high tech visas? More immigration judges? Tell me what it will take to get this Congress out of the current rut.

In the meantime, I and a lot of my colleagues are going to be out there around the country protecting American families from destruction and protecting millions from deportation.

Mr. Speaker, as The New York Times said in an editorial last week, there is an immigration crisis looming next year, but it has nothing to do with the border. Rather, it is the huge effort that will be needed to fulfill the President's executive actions and get millions--millions--of American families out of harm's way by protecting them from deportation and destruction.

Sure, we are celebrating the series of executive actions taken by the President, but we are also rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. So I want to talk just a little bit about what we are doing in the city of Chicago and what I am hoping my colleagues here in Congress and my colleagues across the country in community-based organizations, the legal community, and immigrant and Latino neighborhoods in every State will do to help with getting people ready to sign up when the window to submit applications opens in 180 days and the government's review of cases begins.

This coming Saturday, the 13th, at 9:30 in the morning I will be at Rebano Church on the north side of Chicago, and more than 500 families have already preregistered for an orientation. We will go over what the President's announcement means for individual immigrants and their families. Then those who have preregistered will have an opportunity for a one-on-one preliminary evaluation of their eligibility from people we are calling family defenders.

We are already scheduling follow-up events this month and into the new year, and we will be ready to accommodate the huge demand for accurate and trustworthy information.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been my consistent and outstanding partner in the effort, and we are both committed to making Chicago the model for the rest of the country; and for the advocates, the legal community, the business community, the public sector, we are all working together to make that a reality.

That is right. New York. Listen up, L.A. Get ready, Miami, Houston, and Dallas. We are going to work to protect as many families as we possibly can in the city of Chicago, and we are challenging you to keep up.

But it is not just the major immigrant gateway cities where we need to organize to protect American families. As the President showed us yesterday, cities in the South like Nashville are leading the way to integrate and assimilate immigrant populations. The spirit of inclusion is of utmost importance as we help families come forward, register with the government, submit their paperwork and fingerprints, and get ready and into the system.

I have told my House colleagues that I plan to be on the road a lot at the start of next year, traveling anywhere they need me to travel to help them conduct outreach and educate immigrant communities where they live. But it is not just the blue districts where we must support our immigrant communities and make sure they register. It will be necessary in red districts, too; States like South Carolina, Arizona, and Alabama, States that tried unsuccessfully to push their immigrant community farther underground. I will accept invitation from those States, too, to get the word out and educate the community in whatever way I can.

I can't tell you how many people have come up to me and said: Congressman, I don't know if this will help my family, my dad, my mom, my neighbor, or my parishioner, but I hope they will not still have to live in fear of deportation.

There are millions who will not be able to come forward and sign up because their cases cannot be reviewed under the President's guidelines. I tell them that what the President has announced is bold, it is broad, and it is extremely generous and helpful to the United States and our immigrants who have no other way to get in the system and on the books; but it cannot go as far and it does not replace the need for congressional action and legislation.

But let us all remember that, by the end of this week, the clock is going to have run out on the best chance the House has had in decades to address immigration in a bipartisan and measured manner. The Senate did half the work by giving us more than a year to craft a bipartisan answer to their proposal, and we tried in many, many different ways to help this House rise to the occasion, to get out of the partisan ditch we have dug for ourselves and to put the country on a path to a safe, legal, orderly immigration system that protects the country and its people by welcoming its strivers and innovators from around the world.

In the end, the House was asleep at the switch and let the country down. But even as I work with people across the country to protect as many American families as possible, I pledge to my colleagues in both parties in the most sincere way possible, please work with us to solve the immigration issue so that we can move forward as a nation.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues about a mom I met on Tuesday. Maria Pena is from Colombia. She has three kids, started a small business, and has lived here for 14 years, and her Congressman is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.

Maria's youngest is a U.S. citizen. Her employees are citizens. Maria wants to work and live legally in the U.S. but has no way to do so. She told me, ``Luis, I am too scared to leave the house unless I have to, so we drive to school, we drive to church, and we drive to the grocery store, and that is it.'' Maria knows anything else is too risky because any contact with the police could mean she gets deported and her family is split up.

So, today, I give thanks that Maria and her family in just a few months will sign up for that same peace of mind my family has because she will be eligible for deferred action for parents of U.S. citizens, and I will think of Maria and her children no matter how many times the Republican majority makes me vote on bills to attack the President's actions that he is taking because they will prevent American

citizen children from losing their parents.