Pete Gallego

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, Members, we all know the rule that this motion doesn't kill the bill or send it back to committee. It just adds an amendment before proceeding to final passage. There's a lot of confusion even here as the debate goes back and forth about whether or not veterans or kids are or are not included. There is a lot of apprehension around and across the country about the sequester and the budget and the government shutdown and how that impacts many, many different services. Because SNAP is a hybrid program, part automatic and part not, the benefits that it provides are in jeopardy. So regardless of whether or not SNAP and the cuts here today affect kids or veterans, this is a safety net. This motion to recommit simply says that there will be no delay in benefits for kids, for the elderly, for the disabled, or for pregnant women in case of a government shutdown or a default. Much has been made of this huge philosophical divide in this Chamber, but the truth is that there is a lot of consensus, too, a lot of commonality. All of us--all of us--want efficient government. We all love our kids. We're all taught to respect our elders, and we are all grateful for the services of our veterans. And yet, in typical Congressional fashion, this bill decimates an efficient program that's not even broken. It has only a 3 percent error rate, a very low error rate. Ninety-seven percent of SNAP beneficiaries get SNAP because they need it. Ninety-one percent of SNAP benefits go to households below the poverty level. That's $11,000 for an individual or $19,000 for a family of three people. I want to particularly focus that 82 percent of the households receiving SNAP have kids or elderly. 210,000 kids will lose their school lunch, and for many, it's the only good and reliable meal that they have. As a parent of a young son, I bet I know some of those kids. And you know what? I bet you know some of those kids, too. The nonprofit group Feed Our Vets says that there are many vets who already don't have enough to eat, and yet 170,000 veterans have their SNAP benefits impacted under this legislation. We can have that fundamental philosophical divide about the budget or about the debt or about many things, but we should all agree that we should take care of our kids. And we can all agree that we owe an obligation to our veterans. Already, in November, without any action by this Congress, SNAP will automatically lose its ARRA funding. The average beneficiary gets $133 a month. That's about $1.40, a little under, per meal. Try eating for $1.40 a meal or $133 per month. San Antonio's food bank already serves 58,000 people per week. Imagine how many they'll serve if this bill goes into effect. And speaking of San Antonio, there's a young lady there, a working mother of three kids. Her name is Delaney. She works full-time at a doctor's office. That's 40 hours a week. She raises three young boys, one the age of my own son. Delaney said to me, I'm trying my best. I'm working hard. She'd like to get a second job, but there'd be nobody at home to take care of the kids. SNAP isn't a luxury for her, by any means--it's a necessity. The family relies on that, especially towards the end of the month when their budget is tight, to help them put food on the table. If we can make the program more efficient, let's look at that; but this bill cuts $40 billion without public testimony, without public hearings, without investigation, without input. Somebody just decided that $40 billion needed to be cut. It is not a well-reasoned or a reasonable approach. Our veterans deserve more than that. Our kids deserve better than that. Regardless of what happens on the debt ceiling or the government shutdown, let's not make our kids and our veterans casualties of a prolonged conversation. Let's be sure that there is no delay in SNAP benefits for kids, for veterans, for the elderly, for the disabled, or for pregnant women in the event of a government shutdown or default. I'd ask all of you, because this is simply a safety net, to please vote ``yes'' on this motion, because all it says is, in the event of a government shutdown, these people--the veterans, the kids, the elderly, and the disabled--will be protected. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, today marks the 48th anniversary of the Medicare program, which has had a tremendous impact on the American public and on the quality of life of our seniors and our kids. On July 30 of 1965, a fellow Texan, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed Medicare into law--a program that at the time was considered incredibly controversial. At that time, about half of our Nation's seniors didn't have health coverage. Today, in Texas, more than 3 million seniors, including our parents and our grandparents, rely on this program for crucial medical care. The law has allowed our seniors to live with the peace of mind that health coverage will be available to them in their golden years. It is now just as vital to the long-term health and security of Americans as it was in 1965. We need to continue to demonstrate our commitment to those who have built this country by strengthening Medicare for future generations. I am very glad that we have done things like starting to close the Medicare doughnut hole so that seniors are starting to save money on their prescriptions. In the first 6 months of 2013, more than a million seniors with Medicare have received at least one free preventative service--and our seniors have earned this through a lifetime of work.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply strikes three words, ``not to exceed,'' with respect to the budget of an office that I consider to be pretty important, and that is the Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. As you look through the bill, every single part of the Office of the Secretary has a separate line item, and in looking at the bill, I noticed, for example, that for emergency response and security we have budgeted a little over $10 million. On the other hand, we have budgeted about twice as much for the lawyers for the Office of General Counsel. The lawyers somehow get twice as much as emergency response and security. Frankly, as I look at the list and how the money is divided, we spend $24 million roughly, which is nearly more than two times as much for the Assistant Secretary for Policy--all of that being more important than security. For me, as a Member of Congress who represents some 59,000 square miles, including five ports of entry and 800 miles of the Texas border with Mexico, an area, frankly, where we have seen emergencies and emergency response before, frankly, where the Congress is consistently and rightfully concerned about security, it seems to me that we would give the Department of Transportation some additional flexibility. This doesn't raise per se the amount of money that's available to them. What it does is give them additional flexibility so that in the event they don't spend the line items from the other items like the Office of Public Affairs or the Office of General Counsel, it gives them the flexibility to spend more money for intelligence, security, and emergency response. I think if you ask every single individual Member of Congress what is more important, the lawyers or the Department of Transportation Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response; what is more important, the lawyers at the Department of Transportation or the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, all of these kinds of things, especially for a Member from the border, I think security is more important. Again, it doesn't cost more money. It doesn't appropriate any more money, per se. What it does is gives the agency the ability to move money around and the flexibility to provide additional money, should it become necessary. Frankly, one never knows what kind of emergency is going to come up. One never knows what is going to happen, whether it's going to be a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. It always pays to have the emergency response folks have the level of flexibility that they need in order to understand that regardless of what happens, they have the opportunity to do their jobs and to do their jobs well. Additional budget flexibility in times of limited dollars and limited budgets, I think, is very key. So what this amendment would propose to do is simply strike those three words, ``not to exceed,'' so that there would potentially be an opportunity for the Department of Transportation to spend more money on emergency response and security than the little over $10 million that's allotted to them for the whole year. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. I, too, want to thank my colleague, Congressman Cardenas of California, as well as the other members of our freshman class, for this important time to talk about an issue that is critical to the border. Madam Speaker, the 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which I have the privilege of representing, runs some 800 miles along the Texas- Mexico border. It encompasses 29 counties, which are bigger than 29 States, and 10 of the counties that I represent are along the Texas- Mexico border. It includes five ports of entry: Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Presidio, Fabens, and Zaragoza-Ysleta in El Paso. No other congressional district in the country shares a larger border with Mexico. The impact of the immigration debate, it's a tremendous impact not only on the 23rd District, but truly in all of Texas. There are many reasons to pass comprehensive immigration reform, but one of the best reasons is simple, straightforward economics. Let's take a look at the numbers. According to a 2006 report by the comptroller of public accounts in Texas, ``the absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal year 2005 would have been a loss to the gross State product of $17.7 billion.'' Recently, I asked our current comptroller to update that study so that all of the Members of Congress from Texas would have updated information during a very important policy debate. Sadly, she denied my request. But a more recent study from the Immigration Policy Center noted that, if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Texas, the State would lose $69.3 billion in economic activity, $30.8 billion in gross State product, and approximately 403,000 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Economically, here's what comprehensive immigration reform means for Texas: It means that deficits decrease, while GDP, productivity, investment, and employment all increase; If the unauthorized immigrants in Texas were allowed to earn a path towards legalization, total wages in Texas would go up by about $9.7 billion, tax revenue in Texas would increase by $4.1 billion, and nearly 200,000 jobs would be created; For every unauthorized person required to be legalized in Texas, more than $1,000 would be added to the gross State product in 2014, and that number would increase to more than $4,400 by the year 2020. Let's talk about the CBO score, because according to the nonpartisan CBO report to which the comptroller of Texas referred my office, that study notes that our country will save almost a trillion dollars over the next two decades with comprehensive immigration reform, more than 10 million people will now pay billions of dollars in income and payroll taxes during the first decade alone, and we reduce the Federal deficit by $197 billion at the same time that we add $200 billion to the Social Security trust fund. In Texas, all of the key players are standing behind immigration reform. The chambers of commerce, the Texas Farm Bureau, the labor communities, the faith communities, and, frankly, public opinion. They're all singing from the very same hymnbook. Usually you hear the phrase that we should ``run government more like a business.'' A business doesn't make decisions on the basis of emotion. A business makes decisions on the basis of economics. Economically, comprehensive immigration reform makes perfect sense. Our Nation becomes stronger as more people pledge allegiance to our flag and commit fully to this Nation and our economy. The time is now. The right thing to do, if you care about the Texas economy and you want it to grow and grow and grow, you want to support comprehensive immigration reform. With that, I thank my colleagues.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 346, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I spent 20-some years learning the process, working my way through the process of the Texas Legislature; and I can tell you that this process is worse. And it's worse in the sense that so much time and effort went forward by Mr. Lucas and the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, to craft a very carefully done bipartisan product. It came to the floor, and people who had no intention of voting for the bill in the first place were suddenly allowed to amend it. And what we have today is a product that has jettisoned the nutrition part of that bill. And so when we do that, we jettison the women and the children and the elderly and the families who depend on that part of the bill. Ninety-eight percent of the households who take SNAP in the district that I represent are elderly or kids, and they're jettisoned entirely in this process. This process isn't supposed to work this way. It's supposed to be bipartisan. It's supposed to be a product that is carefully crafted by the committee chair and the ranking member working together. It's unfortunate that it has come to this, and I simply cannot support a bill that jettisons our kids and jettisons our elderly.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the effects of sequestration on the Department of Defense employees and their families. Starting this week, 650,000-or-so Department of Defense employees across the country will go a day a week without pay for 11 weeks. I am appalled that the previous Congress would authorize such a measure. Here is what these furloughs mean for Texas families and our State as a whole: Approximately 45,000 Department of Defense civilian employees in Texas will be furloughed. The cuts will specifically hurt families in the 23rd Congressional District who work at Joint Base San Antonio, Fort Bliss in El Paso, and Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio. Today, in fact, the El Paso Times reported that furloughs will affect 11,000 civilian employees at Fort Bliss and at Beaumont Army Medical Center. One day a week for 11 weeks, that results in $3,300 in lost wages per employee; and it means that, on average, most of these workers will effectively receive a 20 percent salary cut each pay period for the rest of the fiscal year. Do the math, and that's nearly $149 million lost in Texas. Mr. Speaker, with every passing day, thousands of jobs are at risk. We have to put politics aside and work through the issue of sequestration.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman O'Rourke, my fellow west Texan, with whom I share the privilege of representing El Paso County, for yielding me this time to talk about some issues that are critical to the border. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't want to use any incendiary rhetoric. I don't want to use any flashy words because, frankly, I think that the people of this country elected their Members of Congress not to cheerlead or use harsh rhetoric or add fuel to fires, but to solve problems. So I would like to talk about some of the challenges that in real terms this Congress has the opportunity to make a difference on. The 23rd Congressional District, which I have the privilege of representing, runs some 800 miles along the Texas-Mexico border. It includes five ports of entry: Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Presidio, Fabens, and El Paso. No other congressional district shares a larger border with Mexico. The district is both rural and urban; and, frankly, it looks like what the rest of Texas will soon look like because it is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Because this district has the largest border with Mexico, the policy discussion about border security, about immigration reform, these conversations greatly impact the 23rd Congressional District. Frankly, they impact the entire State of Texas. The passage or failure of immigration reform will profoundly affect us all. In Texas, there are approximately 1.7 million unauthorized immigrants comprising 6.7 percent of the State's population. According to a 2006 report from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, who was a Republican office holder at the time, she indicated in her report the absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal year 2005 would have been a loss to our gross State product of $17.7 billion. Well, as public servants, as I indicated early on, the weight of our words is rather heavy. I have asked the current controller to provide an updated study to shed some light on the true impact, the current impact, that our State has as a result of these undocumented immigrants. The study would ensure that all 38 Members of Congress from Texas, and everyone else, can have adequate information during what is a very important policy debate. A more recent study from the Immigration Policy Center noted that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Texas, the State would lose $69.3 billion in economic activity. The State would also lose $30.8 billion in gross State product, and approximately 403,174 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Well, after more than two decades, I'm very encouraged that comprehensive immigration reform is clearing hurdles in the Senate. I'm hoping that our colleagues in the House will take it up as well as soon as possible. Make no mistake. The legislation that's in the Senate, it's not what I would have drafted. Those of us on the border know that what we need are more Customs and border protection agents at our ports of entry. Many jobs in Texas, much of our economy, in fact, is inextricably linked to international trade. In fact, more than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in international trade. That comes to us from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Trade with Mexico represents one of our biggest economic drivers and pumps billions of dollars into our economy every day. Every day, think of this, $1 billion in cross-border commerce happens between the U.S. and Mexico. That equates to some $45 million in commerce per hour. Staffing increases at our ports would decrease wait times at our ports of entry, would increase security, and would lead to more effective screening and entry for those who are traveling, as well as for imports that are coming into the United States. It is those long lines at our ports of entry that hinder economic development and harm our economy. Yes, it is true; no one will argue that our Nation's doorways must be secure and that our trade and our commerce along the border on which many small and large businesses depend must be allowed to move efficiently. And I'm hopeful that as debate on the immigration issue continues, as we continue our conversations, that we can increase the staffing at CBP, a policy move that does, in all truth, make sense for Texas. But as far as the fence is concerned, the border fence, in a time of tight budgets, I have to say that I'm very perplexed as to why Congress would spend so much money on an ineffective project. You'd be hard- pressed to find too many Texans, particularly those who live and work or have been raised along the border, who support the notion of a fence. Let me give you a couple of examples and a couple of quotes: The idea that you're going to build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso is just--it's ridiculous on its face. That quote comes from the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, just last year. How about this quote? The border fence is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. That quote comes to us from Senator John Cornyn of Texas in 2006. As I've said, I'm opposed to the notion of a border fence and would rather that we shore up our ports to speed up commerce. A fence isn't something that those of us who represent the border support, but we understand that it is important to bring families out of the shadows. Economically, here is what comprehensive immigration reform means to those of us along the border and elsewhere: To each and every one of us, it means that our deficits will decrease, while GDP, productivity, investment, and employment will increase. Our country will save over $1 trillion, or about $1 trillion over the next two decades. More than 10 million people will pay $459 billion just in income and payroll taxes during the first 10 years. And over that decade, we will reduce the Federal deficit by $197 billion and will add more than $200 billion into the Social Security trust fund. The decade after that, comprehensive immigration reform will reduce the Federal deficit by $700 billion. In Texas, all the key players are standing steadfast for immigration reform. It's supported by the chambers of commerce. It's supported by the Texas Farm Bureau. It's supported by labor, and it's supported by public opinion in our State because it makes economic sense. My paternal grandfather worked cattle and founded a small family restaurant that launched our family into the middle class; my maternal grandfather built fences across the hardscrabble landscape of far west Texas; and today, I have the privilege of representing the 23rd District in Congress. In this Nation, our values teach us that families stick together and that hard work, not circumstances, should shape our future. It really is a country of opportunity. Our Nation becomes stronger as more people pledge allegiance to our flag and commit themselves fully to our Nation and to our economy. I'm hopeful that we can move quickly on this, this very important policy matter that greatly impacts not only the 23rd District, but the entire State of Texas and, frankly, our country as a whole. Immigration reform is right. The time is right, and Texans are counting on us. It is significant, if you've ever been in the Texas capitol. Years ago, our forefathers and foremothers who built that beautiful pink granite building faced the front door in a certain direction. Our front door of the State capitol doesn't face north, towards Washington. Our front door faces south, towards Mexico. The front door to our Nation, as Governor Richards used to refer to it, is a very important doorway for trade, for commerce. It's historically significant, not only for Texas, but for the rest of our country. Again, immigration reform is right for Texas, it's right for America, and it's something that this Congress should make sure happens as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I'm very grateful to Congressman O'Rourke for yielding me this time.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. I rise reluctantly to express my disappointment in today's proceedings. I am one of those Democrats who voted for a bipartisan product coming out of committee; but unfortunately, today, the bill that we saw come out of committee became an extremely partisan product towards the end. One of the challenges for me was that I am a firm believer in the SNAP program. It's an anti-hunger safety net that serves vulnerable children and seniors across our country. The average benefit is $4.50 a day. That's a lifeline. That's not a luxury. In 2010, SNAP helped more than 3.6 million people in Texas afford food. It's critical to children and seniors. In the 23rd Congressional District, there are 36,000 households receiving SNAP. The vast majority is of households with working class families and working class families with young kids. Today was a disappointment. I was perfectly prepared to work for a product that we could get to conference--I had my card to vote green-- but it seemed, in watching the debate here and the finger-pointing immediately--the blame of who did what to whom--was just so frustrating. The truth is that we've got to get somewhere in the middle. When you continually offer these amendments that move us further and further off the middle and that move us further and further and further to the right, it makes it increasingly difficult to support what should be a bipartisan product.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I too would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member as I rise today in support of the en bloc amendments. These amendments include two amendments which I have authored to support the men and women who serve in our armed services, and to support their families. The first amendment ensures that the Department of Defense can continue to fast-track and to expedite the hiring of critical health care workers who treat our wounded warriors and provide care to military families. Members of our armed services make incredible sacrifices, and taking care of them, and taking care of their loved ones, is one of the most sacred promises that our country can make. This amendment helps folks who receive medical attention at places like Brooke Army Medical Center and Fort Bliss William Beaumont Army Medical Center. The amendment would designate critical health care workers as part of a special ``shortage category'' and thus make them eligible for salaries that are competitive with the higher salaries that are offered by the VA for similar positions. We need to ensure the highest standard of treatment for the men and the women who have given so much to our country. There is no increase in costs associated. The Department of Defense has already budgeted for this proposal. The second amendment helps ensure that the Secretary of Defense can take measures, as he sees fit, to determine the effectiveness of our efforts to reduce suicide by members of our armed services. The military suicide rate hit a record high last year with 349 people who took their own lives across the four branches. That averages out to 1 every 25 hours. We must take any and all measures to help reduce the suicide rates among those who serve our country. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member and all of the members of the committee for their hard work on a very vital piece of legislation, including these provisions to treat wounded warriors and to reduce suicide rates. Mr. Chairman, I encourage passage of the en bloc amendments.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Chair, I would like to thank my long-time friend, even from the Texas Legislature, Representative Culberson, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, as well as Representative Bishop, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, for their work on these important issues. I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2216, the appropriations bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The amendment is for the brave men and women who have served our country--our veterans. It's simple. It's common sense. It highlights job training for veterans, helping them to find employment. Within the general operating expenses for the Veterans Benefits Administration account, this would support funding for veterans to become employable and maintain their jobs to meet the workforce needs of the 21st century. Over the next 4 years, 1 million veterans are expected to transition into the workforce from the armed services. This makes this specific account vital to the lifeblood of decreasing our unemployment rate for veterans once they return home. 1.6 million veterans call Texas home, and 64,000 of these men and women reside in the 23rd Congressional District. These men and women have obtained tremendous skill sets while serving our country, and yet many have difficulty finding employment after they've completed their service. Nearly 700,000 veterans are unemployed. The jobless rate among our veterans is at 6.2 percent. Among veterans who served after 9/11, that rate increases to 7.5 percent. These men and women have served this country, and they have put their lives on the line. It is our turn to serve them. Let's make certain that Congress focuses on training our veterans to meet the workforce needs of the 21st century. We should make the transition from military service to the workforce as seamless as possible. Lastly, this amendment doesn't present any budgetary issues, and the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the amendment doesn't score. Additionally, it doesn't have a net change in funding levels. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for veterans' employment and to support my commonsense amendment. I look forward to working with all of you to get veterans back to work.

Mr. GALLEGO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. I'd like to thank Chairman Hastings and the ranking member for their work on this vital piece of legislation. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 2013. This bill would expand the boundaries of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, including the Espada Mission in the 23rd District. Originally, the Espada Mission was the front door. It was the mission in San Antonio that grew the food that raised the cattle that fed the rest of the missions. It's the only mission that still retains its original property. This is a great opportunity for the redevelopment on the south side of San Antonio. Texas' missions are inextricably part of our culture, our heritage, and our history. Like the families of their founders, the missions can trace their history back to decades before the United States ever claimed its independence. All four of the missions, as Congressman Doggett has said, are within several miles of each other. Individually, they're marvels of architecture and history. Together, they're an incomparable treasure, allowing each of us the opportunity to come face-to-face with our Nation's proud past. Enacting this legislation is critical to the completion of the world-famous San Antonio Mission Trail, which is a national example of public and private cooperation. The community needs the resources and the expertise of the National Park Service. Yet the National Park Service could not operate without the investment of time and money by the local community. As the Congressman who represents the Espada Mission--and as a personal fan of the missions and their history--I believe the National Park Service, the city of San Antonio, and the county of Bexar, will benefit historically and economically with the passage of this act. It's very rare that we can protect key areas, preserve history, and create jobs all at the same time. Expanding the mission boundaries will do all of that--and much more. I encourage my colleagues to support and pass this bill.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the late Sergeant Guillermo ``Willie'' De Leon. Staff Sergeant de Leon was the son of a Terlingua miner--born on June 25, 1919 in the 23rd congressional district in Big Bend and raised in Uvalde. He gained his strong work ethic at an early age--learning the stonemason and bricklayers trade during the great depression. Mr. De Leon was inducted in the U.S. Army in 1940--serving in the 36th Infantry Division in North Africa and Italy. He made the rank of staff sergeant at an early age, becoming one of the first Mexican- American noncommissioned officers and one of the first to command Anglo troops. Staff Sergeant De Leon led a squad of 12 men in the first wave of the amphibious landing at Salerno Italy in 1943--wading through tracer bullets and his fallen comrades. He was also a member of the 141st Infantry Regiment the all Mexican-American unit that led the attack at the crossing of the Rapido River. Staff Sergeant De Leon was one of only 26 men who survived the attack. Staff Sergeant De Leon's valor earned him several recognitions. He was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart with one cluster, the American Defense Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with four battle stars, and the World War II Victory Medal. After his service, he returned to Uvalde to be with his family. He was a true hero. It is fitting that the civic center of Uvalde be named in honor of this brave American soldier--and rededicated on May 27, 2013. He is one of the community's most decorated veterans. The Staff Sergeant Willie De Leon Civic Center will pay tribute to the life of Guillermo De Leon.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak against H.R. 1406, misnamed the Working Families Flexibility Act. Feeding a family, paying our bills, and making sure that our kids have what they need, for most of us, those are the core things that we worry about each month, and they all involve money. However, H.R. 1406, which would be more appropriately named the Working Families Get Less Act, does nothing for those working families who are struggling to make ends meet. The bill fails to recognize that people usually work overtime because they need the money. The legislation essentially ends overtime pay by allowing an employer to give time off instead. Supporters say it gives working mothers more flexibility because they would have the option of spending their time at home--that's the flexibility. But no matter how you slice it, you cannot feed a family with time off. Every hour of work matters to a family's bottom line. It's a factor in food and clothing and keeping a roof over your head. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill that takes the money out of the pockets of working women and families in Texas and across the country.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the City of Socorro which is celebrating its 165th anniversary. The City is the central point in the beautiful Mission Valley Trail--with a rich history. The City of Socorro became a part of the State of Texas in 1848 after the U.S.-Mexico war. After the 1680 Pueblo revolt in northern New Mexico in 1680, the Spanish were driven from the North and moved into the area with their Native American allies. Later, they built the Nuestra Senora de la Limpia Concepcion del Socorro Mission. Although the Great Rio Grande Flood swept away the first permanent structure in 1744, resilient settlers built a second church. When that was swept away by the Rio Grande in 1829, settlers did not give up. The Socorro mission we know today was opened in 1843. Approximately 1,100 settlers built up around the mission. The growing City of Socorro faced a down-turn after the railroads laid their track to El Paso, bypassing Socorro. The resolute citizens, however, were determined to stay in the area for decades. The population boomed during the 1960s and 1970s and has continued to grow with the same determination and perseverance. Residents have always banded together against adversaries. The town today is rich in community, history, and culture. Making the 165th anniversary celebration even more momentous is the fact that it will take place at the new Bulldog Championship Park-- named after the 2009 Socorro High School baseball team that won the 5A state baseball championship title. I congratulate the city and all its residents on the momentous occasion of a 165th anniversary.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today encouraged that comprehensive immigration reform is moving now that a framework has been released by our colleagues in the Senate. The 23rd Congressional District, which I represent, runs some 800 miles along the Texas-Mexico border and includes five ports of entry. No other congressional district shares a larger border with Mexico. After more than two decades, I'm encouraged that our friends in the Senate are taking steps and we finally have this framework. I look forward to working in a bipartisan and bicameral way to get it done this way. Our values teach us that our families should stick together and that hard work, not circumstance, should shape our future. I believe that our Nation becomes stronger as more people pledge allegiance to our flag and commit themselves fully to our Nation and to our economy. Last week I asked the Senate Gang of Eight to give special consideration to members of the armed services who risk their lives every day for our country and our families--it's particularly important to folks and families at Joint Base Lackland in San Antonio, Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, and Fort Bliss in El Paso--and requested that comprehensive immigration reform eliminate the 3- and 10-year bar on spouses for spouses, prevent the termination of petitions of spouses and children of fallen heroes, and streamline the naturalization process for those deployed overseas. I look forward to working with my colleagues to getting it done this year.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Kline and the ranking member, Mr. Miller, for their work on the Education and Workforce Committee, as well as for consideration of my amendment today. My amendment is very simple and common sense. It accelerates job training skills for veterans. Specifically, the amendment would promote advanced manufacturing within State and local plans for veterans. Assisting veterans and employers in translating their military skills into advanced manufacturing does two things: First, it addresses 600,000 advanced manufacturing jobs that remain open in our Nation. More than 82 percent of manufacturers report that they cannot find people to fill their skilled jobs. Second, over the next 4 years, 1 million veterans--1 million veterans--are expected to exit the Armed Forces and transition into our workforce. This amendment creates cohesion between filling our advanced manufacturing jobs, such as technology, aerospace, pharmaceutical, and other cutting-edge products with capable, talented veterans. There are close to 900,000 veterans who are unemployed in our Nation. Often these veterans obtain advanced manufacturing skills while they're serving our country. Unfortunately, they have a hard time obtaining employment once they leave their service. Although unemployment for veterans has fallen from 12.1 percent to 9.9 percent in the last year, it still outpaces the Nation's overall rate. Today, there are more than 1.6 million veterans who live in my home State of Texas. In the reaches of the southwest congressional district that I represent, some 64,000 veterans reside there. So this amendment is for America's heroes who return from their service to afford them training in advanced manufacturing jobs, a sector that has added 500,000 jobs in the past 26 months. Lastly, this amendment doesn't present any budgetary issues. It doesn't impact direct spending, so there are no CutGo violations. It doesn't impact discretionary authorization, so it doesn't run afoul of any of the House protocols. I would ask your support of a very commonsense amendment. Let's all work together to get our veterans back to work. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. I rise today to speak out against this manufactured monster that we know as sequestration--across-the-board cuts that hurt our economy and jeopardize our families. In small-town west Texas, when there is a fire, everyone works together to put the fire out, and no one focuses on how the fire started or who started the fire until after the fire is out. Here and now in Washington, many folks are more focused on who is to blame for the sequester than in trying to do anything about it or, worse, they use inflammatory rhetoric to add fuel to the fire. Meanwhile, here is what Texas is facing: 159,000 jobs lost; more than 16,000 Air Force personnel furloughed, hurting Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio; 11,000 civilian employees at Fort Bliss, who could be furloughed in El Paso--and the biggest single threat to border security, that would be sequestration. I represent the district with the largest border--Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Presidio, Fabens. Here, Border Patrol overtime is canceled, and workers are being furloughed. If you thought the lines of the border were long before, just wait. Mr. Speaker, not having a vote this week is a decision by some in Congress for decreased border security, job loss and furloughs; and it devastates local communities and the State of Texas.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 43, I was meeting with constituents from District 23 and arrived in the Chamber just as the vote was closed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''