[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2215-H2216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutieerrez) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GUTIEERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the man pictured alongside me will go a 
long way towards determining who lives in the White House for the next 
few years. No, he is not a pollster or a campaign spin doctor. No, this 
is a Federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of Texas, the Honorable Judge Andrew Hanen.
  The lawsuit by 26 Republican Governors and attorneys general seeking 
to block the executive actions taken by the Obama administration on 
immigration was filed in his court. He has not ruled yet on the 
constitutionality of the case.
  He ordered a preliminary injunction, however, saying he thought the 
States have standing to bring the suit--or at least that the State of 
Texas did. That was enough for him to stop the implementation of the 
program nationwide.
  Not surprisingly, just last week, the judge refused the government's 
request to lift his injunction and allow the plan to move forward.
  Here is the reality: Congress mandates that about 400,000 people will 
be deported this year out of a total of 11 million.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security developed a plan to choose between 
hardened criminals and those immigrants who have lived here for at 
least 5 years, have U.S. citizen children, and can pass a criminal 
background check at their own expense.
  The plan also requires immigrants to renew their temporary status 
periodically to prove again that they have not committed crimes or 
fraudulently sought out services or benefits.
  It is that plan for the parents of U.S. citizens in American 
families, people who have been working and staying out of trouble for 
years, that the Texas judge here believes will cause irreparable damage 
to the State of Texas and, therefore, must be stopped nationally.
  Just as they had hoped, the judge ruled that Texas might some day in 
the future suffer irreparable harm because of driver's licenses. In 
other words, people who qualify for driver's licenses and who take the 
test and pay their fees for driver's licenses--if they live in Texas 
and apply for those driver's licenses in Texas--will be doing the State 
irreparable harm.
  I have a driver's license. It is right here. I had no idea I was 
causing irreparable damage to the State of Illinois just by applying 
for it and paying for the driver's license and learning the rules of 
the road and buying car insurance; but who am I to disagree with a 
Federal judge?
  On Friday, the Department of Justice will argue before the fifth 
circuit court in New Orleans that the President's executive actions 
should move forward. It is well known that the fifth circuit is among 
the most conservative.
  Look what happened a couple of weeks ago in that very same circuit 
court. They ruled on a lawsuit related to the State of Mississippi 
which, like Texas, felt it might some day in the future be dealt damage 
by the deferred action program announced by the President for DREAMers 
back in 2012.
  The panel of judges from the fifth circuit looked at the program, the 
evidence, and the cost of the State of Mississippi, and the fifth 
circuit judges said Mississippi is not harmed and, thus, does not have 
legal standing for the lawsuit.
  That bodes well for the country and the President's executive 
actions. In the meantime, Judge Hanen still hasn't ruled on the case. 
Maybe he is running out the clock, trying to make the immigrants in 
cities like Chicago and Houston lose hope or stop preparing to sign up 
or maybe magically self-deport and give up on watching their children, 
their U.S. citizen children, grow up in America.
  It might turn into a drawn-out series of rules and appeals that wind 
up in the Supreme Court, which could take us well into 2016.
  2016 is an election year, where Latino U.S. citizens--not immigrants 
we are discussing, but their neighbors, cousins, spouses, and coworkers 
who are citizens of the United States--are not likely to vote for a 
party that is making sure that their neighbors, cousins, spouses, and 
coworkers are still a top priority for deportation.

[[Page H2216]]

  I have a feeling the citizens will support the candidates and the 
parties that support their communities. I also have a feeling that the 
decision to drag this fight out in the courts will be one the 
Republican Party regrets from a political point of view; just like the 
decision not to allow a vote on immigration reform over the past 2 
years will be seen as one of the biggest and most consequential 
political mistakes of all time.
  How long does a vote take? Fifteen minutes--it might sound too much 
like a Geico commercial, but just 15 minutes could have saved the 
Republicans a great deal of heartache.
  The failure to take those 15 minutes for a vote might mean that there 
are no Republican Presidents for a long time who would nominate judges 
like this one.

                          ____________________