Beto O’Rourke

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 111th anniversary of the Antiquities Act. Over more than a century, Presidents of both parties have preserved and opened to the public over 157 monuments, like the Grand Canyon by President Theodore Roosevelt, or Zion in Utah by President William Howard Taft, or the Pacific National Monument in Hawaii by President George W. Bush. It is also connected to our economy and jobs, with 7 million jobs in the United States connected to outdoor recreation in our national monuments. While this administration is reviewing certain monuments, we need to protect the ones that we already have, like Organ Mountains National Monument in New Mexico, or Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. We also need to think about expanding national monuments where we have heritage that we want to preserve, like Castner Range, that preserves 10,000 years of human history and civilization in El Paso, Texas, where the United States and Mexico meet. Mr. Speaker, let's work together to strengthen the Antiquities Act and not diminish its protections.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for yielding to me and for her leadership on this issue. I served with her for 2 years on the Homeland Security Committee of the House of Representatives and saw her ability to balance the national interests and capitalizing and maximizing the opportunity that immigrants provide and have always provided to the United States while ensuring that we protect the homeland and our sacred commitment to every person and family that we represent to make sure that they are safe. I think that the community that I have the honor of representing in Congress, El Paso, Texas, is a case in point. We are one of the safest cities in the United States today. If you use the FBI's crime statistics as crunched by CQ Press, they routinely rank El Paso, Texas, the safest city in not just the State of Texas, but in the United States. For the last 20 years, we have been the safest, second safest, or third safest in the country. That is not in spite of the fact that we are connected with Mexico--our sister city is Ciudad Juarez--and it is not in spite of the fact that 24 percent of the people that I represent were born in another country, most of them in Mexico. In fact, our security, our success, our strength is connected to the fact that we are a city of immigrants, that we are connected to the rest of the world through our shared border with Mexico, and that understanding that is critical to preserving the security and public safety which is such a critical part of our job. I will give you an example. Not too long ago, under this administration, a woman who was an undocumented immigrant from Mexico was in an El Paso County courtroom seeking a protective order because her boyfriend threatened her life. The judge in that courtroom granted that protective order, and as that woman was leaving the courtroom, she was apprehended by a plainclothes Border Patrol agent. That has never, to my knowledge, happened in our community in the El Paso County Courthouse. The consequences of that are not just that this one person was taken off the streets and placed into detention and custody. The consequence is that we have fewer people from the immigrant community in El Paso coming forward to serve as witnesses to crimes, to report crimes in the first place, to testify, to take part in the criminal justice system in a way that has kept our community safe. By definition, today, because of that one act, because of the climate of fear and intimidation and anxiety produced by this administration, El Paso, Texas, the State of Texas, this country is less safe. If we want to respond to the most urgent issue that each constituent of ours depends on us for, that is their safety, their security, that of the community and the country that we serve, then we need to make sure that we treat everyone within our communities that we represent with dignity and respect. We need to make sure that local law enforcement is not seen as a tool of Federal immigration law, but that they are there to preserve and to protect the peace and to serve the constituents and the people who live in those communities. I would also add that next week marks the fifth anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program implemented under President Obama. It was an important step that this country took to realize the gains that we and future generations will receive by ensuring that those young people who arrived on our shores and through our land ports of entry like El Paso, through no fault of their own, at the tender age of 5 or 6 years old and who are now in school or want to serve in our military or want to create jobs themselves are able to stay here and flourish so that we receive the benefit of their potential. I hope this Congress, every colleague from both sides of the aisle, will work with me and others to ensure that we have, if not comprehensive immigration reform, which I think should remain the goal, reform in those areas like for the DREAMers and the DACA beneficiaries that is most urgent and to the States that we represent and serve, like Texas, with 200,000 DACA beneficiaries out of 700,000 nationwide. It is the right thing to do for our security. It is the right thing to do for economic growth and job creation. It is the right thing to do in the best interests and traditions of this country. So I conclude by again thanking the gentlewoman from Hawaii for leading this discussion on this critically important issue, and I thank her for the privilege of being able to speak tonight.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise and join with my colleague, the Honorable Barbara Lee, to acknowledge and celebrate the ``Return to El Paso Roots'' event, which will take place May 26 through 29, 2017 in El Paso, Texas. This historically significant event salutes the African American families, friends, and students who attended the historic Douglass School, the first school for African Americans in El Paso. Andrew Morelock established the school in 1883 as a refuge and haven for the children of African American El Pasoans barred from attending schools with white children. First named Franklin School, it became Douglass School in tribute to the noted abolitionist and statesman, Frederick Douglass. The school sought to allow children to thrive in a fully supportive community committed to their success and academic achievement. Douglass School provided much more than a quality education; it also provided community and a sense of well being and belonging for its students. The school desegregated in 1955 following the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, and the site is now an historical site in El Paso. Douglass students excelled, and the school produced a notable array of successful graduates, including the family of my esteemed colleague, Congresswoman Lee. During the ``Return to El Paso Roots'' event, former students, families, friends, and El Paso residents will come together in celebration at the historic McCall Neighborhood Community Center. The late Leona Ford Washington, a retired Douglass schoolteacher, founded the Center in 1983. She dedicated her life to the needs and development of the El Paso African American community. It is pertinent to highlight the history of The McCall Neighborhood Center as it prepares to host many events for ``Return to El Paso Roots''. The McCall Neighborhood Center is the former home of Marshall and Olalee McCall. Mr. McCall was the first African American postal worker in El Paso, and his wife, Mrs. McCall, was a principal at Douglass School. Following Mrs. McCall's tenure as principal from 1937 through 1944, the home served as a daycare center as well as her music studio. The McCall Neighborhood Center is an important foundation in the El Paso community. In this celebration, we acknowledge and honor the tremendous contributions of the African American community to the success and development of El Paso, and the work they have done to make our community, the State of Texas, and our country a more just world. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join Congresswoman Lee and me in saluting the Douglass School students, families, and friends who will come to El Paso to commemorate and celebrate this remarkable community.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize E Company, 141st Infantry Regiment, which served with valor and distinction during World War II. In 1940, E Company, along with the entire 141st Infantry Regiment was federalized and assigned to the 36th Infantry Division. E Company was distinct in its heritage and was composed almost entirely of Mexican- American soldiers. A vast majority of E Company's soldiers hailed from El Paso. The 141st Infantry Regiment shipped off to North Africa in April 1943. The regiment was one of the units in the amphibious invasion of Italy at Salerno, and they suffered heavy casualties. As the 141st fought its way through Italy, the regiment, as well as E Company, fought with distinction. The 141st reinforced units at Anzio, helped tip the scales to rout the Germans, and entered Rome in June 1944. This culminated 137 days of combat during which the 141st Infantry Regiment suffered over 3,000 casualties. The Germans called the 141st ``wild men from Texas, skilled in fieldcraft and fighting.'' The regiment then participated in a third amphibious landing, its second combat assault against a fortified beachhead, and entered Southern France. The 141st continued to fight through Central Europe. E Company participated with the regiment in all its major campaigns and battles. The unit deactivated in December 1945 after the war. The regiment had suffered 1,126 killed, more than 5,000 wounded, and over 500 missing in action. Its soldiers were awarded an astonishing three Medals of Honor, 31 Distinguished Service Crosses, 492 Silver Stars, and 1,685 Bronze Stars. The valor and bravery of the soldiers of E Company, 141st Infantry Regiment must not be forgotten. As America prepares to reflect on the sacrifices made by our service members this Memorial Day, I ask that we take a moment to remember the soldiers of E Company. They represented the best of El Paso, Texas, and the nation as our brave service members valiantly fought the forces of tyranny. I am honored to represent the men and women of El Paso who carry on the legacy of E Company as they continue to stand against injustice and pursue the American dream.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee, and I join the ranking member of the full committee in honoring the work of Chairman Roe, his staff, and his ensuring that we do the right thing for every single one of the veterans in this country that we are here to serve. It would be easy just to criticize the Choice Program which has not worked fully as intended. Too many of the veterans that we represent are still getting bills when their provider in the community, the VA, and the third-party administrator can't resolve their differences. Too many veterans are having too hard of a time in getting an appointment in a timely fashion. And as we learned recently, the VA still is not fully measuring the true wait time for the more than 3 million appointments that have been made through the Choice Program right now. We don't have the kind of accountability that we must have. All the same, the Choice Program is bridging care for veterans who need it in millions of instances. To simply allow the sunset to take place without having the time necessary to work on some of the necessary fixes would be irresponsible. So thanks to the chairman and the ranking member, we are able to do that today. We also ensure that the VA becomes the primary payer, which is going to reduce some of the billing headaches that veterans have unnecessarily been subjected to. Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that the bill contains the Vet Connect Act, which I was able to author with Congressman Benishek, a bipartisan bill, last session, re-introduced this session. It is bicameral, as well, in the Senate. We have Senators Tester, Isakson, and Manchin, who authored this bill that ensures that veterans' private medical information follows them from the VA to their provider in the community and then back to the VA, ensuring that every appointment, every provider, and every doctor can make informed medical decisions on behalf of those veterans. Right now, at the current rate of inclusion of veterans' personal medical information, it would take 60 years to get all the data into the hands of the doctors who need to make that care. This brings the VA and the veterans under the VA's care into modern medical record keeping and sharing. It honors all of the HIPAA regulations; ensures privacy of veterans' medical records; but, most importantly, ensures that they are going to get better, more informed quality care, better outcomes, better treatment. It is what the veterans that we serve have earned and deserve. I am very proud to join my colleagues in this to work for its passage. I hope that the other Members of this body will join us in supporting this unanimously.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize the Silhouette Civic and Social Club, which holds a commendable record of service to the El Paso community. This Saturday, March 25, 2017 the club will recognize their 50th anniversary. Founded in 1967, the Silhouette Civic and Social Club has served the El Paso community through events, social activities, and scholarships. The Club's founders wanted to create an organization with a unity of sisterhood dedicated to enriching and supporting the El Paso community. Three of its founders, Doris Gary, Baby Ruth Boswell, and Edna Black, still actively participate in the organization's activities to this day. The Silhouette Civic and Social Club, affectionately referred to as the ``Ladies with the Big Hearts,'' has graciously supported churches, shelters, and crisis centers through regular donations. They have supported El Paso's McCall Neighborhood Center, which preserves and advances the History of the African-American Community in El Paso, as well as the Reynolds Home, a shelter for homeless mothers and children. They are most proud of providing college scholarships for deserving, honorable high school graduates. Their grass roots initiatives help young El Pasoans pursue the American Dream. I thank the Silhouette Civic and Social Club for their efforts to improve our community and have a positive impact on the world through their generosity. The ``Ladies with the Big Hearts'' represent the compassion, selflessness, and community that is indicative of our country's southwest border and the people of El Paso that I have the distinct privilege to represent.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recognizing the incredibly important work of my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) in ensuring that we bring more physicians and care providers into the VA so that more veterans can get access to quality, timely care, producing better outcomes for them. Of course, our veterans have served this country so honorably and have put their lives on the line, and now it is our turn to fulfill our obligation. Dr. Wenstrup's underlying legislation is going to ensure that we get a step closer to doing that. He will agree with me, I hope, that one of our challenges is recruiting the right talent into the VA out of residency programs across the country. Right now, the VA is operating with one hand tied behind its back because it limits itself to the last year of a medical residency before it begins talking to that resident to try to recruit them to serve at the VA. Meanwhile, most residents begin making career decisions a year or two earlier than that. And private sector clinics, hospitals, other public institutions are talking to those residents, trying to recruit them, and successfully bringing them to places other than the VA. This amendment will allow the VA to begin recruiting and offering conditional job offers with 2 years left in a residency. It will help us to address the fact that today there are 43,000 authorized funded positions that are open in the VA where we don't have the doctors, the psychiatrists, the primary care providers, the medical professionals we need to provide the care that veterans need. We need to begin recruiting earlier, more effectively, and more successfully. This amendment to the underlying legislation will allow us to do that. I hope that I will have the support of my friend from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), of the ranking member of the full committee, and of my colleagues here in the Chamber. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank my friend from Texas for joining me tonight on the floor of the House for his words, and for taking the chance in driving across much of the country with me to get here and making sure that we could fulfill our responsibilities; and not just the immediate responsibility of getting here in time to vote, which we were able to do, but our responsibility to find a way to work with each other across party lines and address the important issues before this country that are going to be critical for this country's future success and the well-being of those that we represent. Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is any accident that the Speaker pro tempore tonight is also from Texas. I think this is a good moment for our State. I think this is a good moment for this Congress. I think this is a chance to strengthen the institution, and I am grateful for the opportunity to serve here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by joining the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd) in thanking the teams that made this possible in our office, led by David Wysong, my chief of staff; John Meza, who manned the communications; Samantha Stiles, chief of logistics, also known as our scheduler; Cynthia Cano, our district director back in El Paso; and everyone who works with them. As my friend says, I also want to thank the tens of thousands of people who participated in this over the course of the last 36 hours. Some folks tuned in and they had to tune out because they had to go to work, take care of a kid, get some sleep, or they were just bored by what we were doing. But they understood the premise was that we were not able or, in the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Hurd) case, his flight was canceled into Washington, D.C., because of the weather--I feared that mine might as well be--and that we rented a car and that we had to be in Washington, D.C., after leaving San Antonio at 7:00 a.m., by 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday in order to be there and vote and represent the interest of our constituency. If we are to be honest with each other, it was touch and go for a little while. We ran into a two-hour pileup just south of Waco when we were still in Texas. My friend from Texas (Mr. Hurd) has a penchant for getting to know a town and wanting to spend some time in a coffee shop talking to the owner about the art of making coffee and the philosophy that accompanies that. It is a fascinating conversation to be sure, but it added precious minutes that I and many of our viewers felt we could not spare. Yet, working together, balancing my friend's natural curiosity and interests in the communities in which we were traveling, and my desperation to get to Washington, D.C., in time to cast our votes, we were able to arrive in 36 hours. Thirty-six hours total travel time we were able to arrive with almost 30 minutes to spare, which if you consider the context, the amount of hours, the 1,600-plus miles traveled, that is a remarkable feat. Look, I don't want to take too much from this, but I think we might be able to find some encouragement that two Members working their way across the largest State in the lower 48, and then through Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia, were able together to make decisions necessary to ensure that we were able to get to our destination in time, get our job done, and represent those people that we serve. That, for some reason, Mr. Speaker, was interesting to people. We had thousands watching us, newspapers following, broadcast stations carrying the feed from our car. Why? Because--and it shouldn't be this way--this is such an unusual event for a Republican and Democrat, not to file a bill together--that happens fairly often and I am grateful for that--but to sit down and enjoy each other's company, learn from each other, and take on the challenge of driving these 1,600 miles together. I did not know my friend from Texas as well as I do now, 36 hours later, and I didn't know how this was going to turn out. Were we going to be able to stand each other's company? Were we going to be able to take each other's driving? Were we going to be able to make the compromises necessary to decide where to eat, when to stop, when to sleep, and how to get there? Imperfectly, yet satisfactorily, we were able to do that, ultimately get here on time. We both thought as we finished votes this evening--because we got here in time to cast those votes and went back to our office to thank our staffs. As we were doing that, we thought that we owe it to each other, to our colleagues with whom we work, all 435 of us, to say that both of us want to do everything we can to build on this experience, to share it with you, to thank those from the constituencies that we represent and from across the United States who shared that journey with us, who ensured that we had our seatbelts on, that my eyes were on the road, that we were able to get some sleep in Nashville. I want to thank everyone who had a part in this, and I just want to thank this Chamber and those who sent me here for this very high honor of being able to serve. It was really an amazing experience, and I am going to use it to the best of my ability to serve my constituents to the best of my ability, and make common cause with as many of my colleagues that are here in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to my friend from Texas.

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, our journey began after picking up the car at the rental lot at 5:00 a.m. with a breakfast at Mi Tierra cafe in San Antonio where we were presented by the staff there with this pinata, which became our mascot along the way. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that you and our colleagues tonight have a chance to see this. Perhaps, on the more whimsical side, there was some discussion amongst my friend from Texas (Mr. Hurd) and those who joined us on the journey virtually through the Livestream about trying to encourage more Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle in a way that would allow them to take time with each other, to get to know each other, to listen to each other and, yes, to talk about serious policy issues, but also to find out a little bit about who they are, where they came from, what excites them about their service, their families, the communities that they represent. And that allows for what I hope will be a more close, productive, and effective working relationship on behalf of the people we serve. Despite the obvious talent, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, Members that I have had the pleasure to get to know over the last 4 years that I have been here who hail from all parts of the country, from all backgrounds, who are among the best and brightest in their communities, who are here to do the right thing, to deliver for their constituents and to put this country first. It is interesting that, despite that, we haven't been able to get many of the big things accomplished for this country. We can think about things like comprehensive immigration reform or comprehensive tax reform, for that matter, or educational and healthcare reforms that are going to impact every single family and every single one of the communities that we represent. I think part of the reason is that we need to reform the institution itself. And those reforms could take the form of comprehensive campaign finance reform or ending gerrymandering of districts and having a national congressional redistricting committee that is nonpartisan that draws those lines on rational, logical bases. Or we could have term limits for Members of Congress so that you can't serve in what turns out to be perpetuity for the political life of a community and have some faith in the talent and the leadership that is produced in that community that we all represent. Those are things that are going to be tough to do, let's admit it. Some of them require amendments to our Constitution. Where we could start, Mr. Speaker, is just spending some time with each other, taking a road trip, playing a game of basketball, going out on a run, having a cup of coffee, having lunch together. As my friend from Texas (Mr. Hurd) says that too often we are in our own corners. And on our side, maybe that is in meetings about how to message those good things that we want to do for the American public or outside of this Chamber and away from our official responsibilities raising the resources in order to get reelected or to get our colleagues from the same party reelected. Those are understandable and, yes, I think, necessary things to do, but sometimes we do them to the exclusion of what is even more important and necessary and, that is, getting to know each other, being able to work with each other, and solving the problems and capitalizing on the opportunities that face this country. For whatever it is worth, 36 hours later, I feel like I have the opportunity to do that with my friend from Texas. What I would like him to do, if he would, is to share with us and with you, Mr. Speaker, some of those issues that we talked about and some of the takeaways or the conclusions or the things that we shared and learned. I am going to tell you, at the outset, to set your expectations, we didn't solve all of these problems. And we didn't even come necessarily to common agreement on all of the big issues, but we definitely heard each other's perspective. In some cases, we definitely moved a little bit in the positions that we started with. And I will say that I learned a lot. I learned a lot about Mr. Hurd, his background, his perspective, getting to talk to his dad, his sister, and his brother who all called in while we were traveling across the country. But I learned about those things that shape his views on the issues that he and I both care about and why, in some cases, he sees a different means to getting to the same goal that I want to get to and that the people I represent want to get to. There were a number of issues that we tackled and discussed. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd) to share some of those issues we discussed with you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight. I just traveled with my good friend, close colleague, and fellow Texan--and your fellow Texan--Will Hurd, who started with me in San Antonio, Texas, yesterday at 7 a.m., San Antonio time, where we, because of the inclement weather on the East Coast and because of his canceled flight and the possibility that mine might also be canceled, decided to rent a car in San Antonio and drive it here to Washington, D.C., in time for votes this evening that started at 6:30 eastern standard time. That road trip in a Chevy Impala, rented in San Antonio, took us from San Antonio to Austin, to San Marcos, to Dallas, to Waco, to Texarkana, and then into Little Rock in Arkansas, over into Tennessee--cities including Memphis, Nashville, and Johnson City--and then through Virginia, 36 hours total, 31 of them either driving or at a pit stop fueling up on gas or grabbing a sandwich. Mr. Speaker, there were really two reasons to do this. One was to make sure that we could get to work and not allow the weather delays or flight cancellations to stop us from doing the jobs that we were elected to do on behalf of the people that we represent, but the other reason was for a Democrat and a Republican to get together, get to know each other, understand the issues before this Congress from each other's perspective, and see if we couldn't find some common ground. In addition, because each of us so deeply believes in transparency and accountability, we allowed the people that we represent to join us on that trip. We live-streamed the entire journey on Facebook Live, with thousands of people from all over this country submitting their questions, their comments, their suggestions, their advice, their guidance, including where to get the best doughnut at midnight in Memphis, Tennessee--which turns out to be Gibson's Donuts--where Mr. Hurd from Texas and I had a chance to meet some of the folks who make those doughnuts and some of the folks who eat them. It was one of the best parts of the trip. Mr. Speaker, I am just so grateful that there is an opportunity, despite the deep divisions between our two parties at times and despite the imperative to raise money, to campaign, to spend time away from each other, understandably, with our families or listening to our constituents back in our home districts. Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that we had a chance to spend some time together getting to know each other, getting to talk about the issues that are important to the people we represent and to this country at large. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Hurd), the gentleman who represents the 23rd Congressional District.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, during the roll call votes on Wednesday, March 1, 2017, I was absent due to my attendance and participation in a joint House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee to discuss the legislative priorities of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). Had I been present, on roll call number 115, I would have voted No. On roll call number 116, I would have voted No.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of deep concern about the safety and security of the community that I represent and of this country. El Paso, Texas, the city that I am so fortunate to serve and represent in Congress, happens to be the safest city not just in the State of Texas, but in the entire United States. There are a number of reasons for that: We have outstanding local law enforcement, whether it is the Sheriff's Department or El Paso City Police, State DPS troopers or Federal law enforcement, Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, and the agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A big part of the explanation for our safety is the fact that 24 percent of the people that I represent were born in another country. They have come to this country to do better, to get ahead, and to contribute to our success and to the American Dream. It is also because everyone in the community of El Paso feels comfortable and safe in reporting crime, in testifying and coming forward--especially in cases of domestic abuse--to local authorities. That is why I am so concerned after I received a call last night from the El Paso County judge, Veronica Escobar, to share with me an incident that happened last week in the El Paso County Courthouse, where a woman, undocumented Mexican national, had gone to the Center Against Sexual and Family Violence out of fear for her life after being abused, she alleged, by her boyfriend. The Center Against Sexual and Family Violence escorted her to the El Paso County Courthouse to receive a protection order. The judge granted that order. But in that courtroom where the judge granted the order were, according to the county attorney, the county judge, and the judge who presided over that trial, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement who escorted the domestic abuse survivor out of the courthouse and into detention and perhaps deportation to Mexico. We will not continue to be the safest city in America. We will not continue to contribute to the safety of the United States and to the State of Texas if people don't feel comfortable reporting domestic abuse, reporting crimes, serving as witnesses, and working with law enforcement. I urge this President, this administration, to send an unequivocal message to the Federal agents working in El Paso and every single one of our communities that it is imperative for the safety and security of this country and every person who is in this country that we respect all people of all communities regardless of their immigration status. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) We are the safest community in the United States because every person in our community feels safe. They feel safe because they can report crime to the authorities; they can report cases of domestic abuse to the authorities. And, through our work together, we are the safest city. We are going to lose this if we can't continue on this manner. If anyone has a question or problem about this, please contact my office at (915) 541-1400. Somos la comunidad mas segura de los Estados Unidos porque cualquier persona en nuestra comunidad se siente segura. Se siente segura porque puede reportar el crimen a las autoridades, pueden reportar los casos de abuso domestico a las autoridades. Y trabajando juntos, somos la ciudad mas segura. Vamos a perder esto si no podemos continuar en esta manera. Si alguien tiene pregunta o problema con esto, por favor llamenos a nuestra oficina (915) 541-1400. Mr. Speaker, if anyone in the community of El Paso is concerned, fears that they will not be able to come forward to report crime or domestic abuse, has a question and wants my help, I want to be there for them. They need to call me: (915) 541-1400. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be the safest city in America when every member of our community feels safe, can work with law enforcement, and when law enforcement respects every single member of our community.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor this evening primarily to talk about issues and opportunities at the VA and the successful confirmation of our new Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. David Shulkin, but I would be remiss in not thanking my colleague from Texas (Mr. Green) for his powerful words about the NAACP and the profoundly positive impact that they have had on this country and on our ability to make the most of the potential that we have in every single community in the United States. Mr. Green is well aware of the inordinate pride that I have in the community I represent of El Paso, Texas, and how the first chapter of the NAACP was started in El Paso, Texas, through the good work of Dr. Lawrence Nixon, who also has the distinction of having been the man who effectively desegregated voting in the State of Texas, ending the all- White primary which had prevailed following Reconstruction in our State, much to our lasting shame. But to our immense pride, he was the man and our community was the place where that successful fight began. As Mr. Green also knows, because I had the pleasure and honor of joining him in a Special Order not too long ago, El Paso also was the home of Thelma White, who, along with some other young, courageous El Pasoans, had gone to the all-African-American high school, Douglass High School, in El Paso. They attempted to enroll in Texas Western College, now known as the University of Texas at El Paso, but were denied entry simply based on the color of their skin. Thanks to the NAACP and one of their most promising attorneys, Thurgood Marshall, they were able to take this case to a Federal bench, in fact, the bench of R.E. Thompson, who also happens to be an El Pasoan, whose ruling not only ruled in their favor, but effectively desegregated higher education in the State of Texas at that time and forever more. So I just want to add my thanks and my support for an outstanding organization and the very positive impact that they have had on the State that I call home and the community that I am so lucky to serve and to represent. I thank the gentleman from Texas for staying just a little bit longer. Mr. Speaker, I am also here today to thank my colleagues in the Senate, who, 100-0, yesterday confirmed the President's nomination of Dr. David Shulkin to be the next Secretary of the VA at what I think is the most critical moment in the history of that critically important organization. We all know of the severe challenges that the VA and the veterans whom it purports to serve face today. We know of the challenges in service-connected disability claim wait times--in the appeals that are made to those claims when the judgment or the ruling is not in favor of the veteran in question or there is an error in that judgment or some additional information needs to be added--and wait times in appeals that last not days or weeks or months, but measured in years. We know about challenges in wait times for those veterans who are seeking to get an appointment with a primary care physician, a specialty care physician, or, I think most critically, at a time when 20 veterans a day in this country--and that is a conservative estimate, 20 veterans a day--are taking their own lives, severe wait times to see a mental health care provider. Those are among the most important challenges that we as a Congress and those of us who serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee face today. So, again, I am grateful for the Senate's work on this issue in confirming Dr. Shulkin. I have got to say, despite some deep disagreements, differences, and disappointments with the current administration, I am grateful to this President for the public good he has done in nominating Dr. Shulkin, a man who has served in previous roles as CEO of Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, chair of medicine at Drexel University College of Medicine, and beginning in the summer of 2015, the Under Secretary for the Veterans Health Administration, where he hit the ground running and began working on the challenges before us, providing solutions to them nationally and in our individual congressional districts on the ground working with the teams there both at the VA, in the public and private sector, and with the various Representatives who brought these issues to his attention. So I could not be more grateful for his service, and I want to speak about that a little bit more. I also want to acknowledge that we have some excellent leadership on both the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and here in the House, where Dr. Phil Roe of Tennessee is taking the helm as the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee--he, himself, a medical doctor; he, himself, a veteran; and he, himself, someone who chose to serve on the committee as just one member of that committee in the years leading up to his selection by his colleagues as a chairman. I know from talking with him that he has big plans, significant and defined goals, and he is willing to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure that we achieve them. I am really looking forward to the ability to work with him. He is joined by returning Members who have sought position on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Now, for those who don't know, for too long, the Veterans' Affairs Committee was seen as a backwater or a basement. It wasn't a place where an aspiring Member of Congress with ambitions went to do her or his work. This was a place they were relegated to when they couldn't make it on to a bigger or better committee. That was the old conventional wisdom. These days, I am proud to report, the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a place of distinction, where Members serve with pride, where we ask to join that committee, as I did after I was elected in 2012, so we can tackle some of the most difficult challenges before this Congress and, certainly, this country: how we ensure that we deliver the best care to the 20 million-plus veterans who have put their lives on the line and served this country in a way that no other American has, in a way that ensures that we have the America that so many of us take for granted, veterans whose service dates back to World War II and leads up to those who are just returning from Afghanistan, Iraq, and many places all over the world where we have U.S. servicemembers stationed in more than 140 countries today. Ensuring that we fulfill our obligations to them, whether it is post- 9/11 GI Bill educational and workforce benefits, whether it is access to quality and consistent health care or ensuring that we quickly, effectively, and successfully respond to claims made after there is a service-connected disability incurred in service, we need to get these things right. The future of our country depends on it, our honor depends on it, and the commitments that we have made and the obligations that we have incurred as a country to these veterans, all that depends on our successful completion of that work. So I am grateful for the Members who have chosen to serve on that committee; I am grateful for our chairman; and I am grateful for our ranking member, Mr. Tim Walz of Minnesota, who also happens to be the highest ranking enlisted servicemember to ever serve in the Congress as a command sergeant major, someone who has asked to be on that committee, who has written significant legislation, has ensured that the Clay Hunt SAV Act, for example, became law, which gives us a better opportunity to reduce veteran suicide, which I think is the most critical issue that we can address, that we reduce the number of veterans who are taking their own lives and provide more resources and more help. I will say this about Mr. Walz: He is someone who puts his country above party, the work that he has to do above his own self-advancement, and I think it is with that attitude, with that character, and with the bipartisan group of House Veterans' Affairs Committee members that we are going to see great work come out of this committee, great leadership come from Mr. Walz and his chairman. I am so glad that Mr. Walz has decided to spend part of his Valentine's Day evening with me on the floor of the House talking about the great work that lies ahead for us when we try to serve the veterans of this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota and the ranking member of the full committee of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for being here tonight and talking about not just our challenges, but some of the hope and opportunity that we have ahead with this new Secretary for the VA, this new leadership on the committee, and this renewed commitment from this Congress and this country to do the right thing by her veterans. I am so glad, Mr. Speaker, that he mentioned the necessity to ensure the long-time health and viability of the VA. There has been some talk about privatizing the VA and of just essentially asking our veterans to go find their own doctors and their own medical providers in the communities in which they live, no longer having the VA as the core of the delivery of care that they have depended on for so long. I think it is important that Secretary Shulkin, in his confirmation hearing, said that he would never be part of privatizing the VA, at least not on his watch, at least not during his tenure. While there are opportunities to capitalize on care in the community, as the ranking member said, only at the VA will we have doctors, nurses, providers, and frontline staff, many of whom are, by the way, themselves veterans who have uniquely cared for other veterans, know the signs to look for when we are trying to reduce veteran suicide, know specifically how to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma, traumatic amputations-- the kinds of conditions that don't typically occur in the civilian population and that we don't see at our general private-public hospitals, but are unique to the VA and unique to military medicine, where we uniquely will ensure that our veterans and military retirees get world-class care from those who are uniquely trained to deliver that to ensure the best outcomes. While we should never shy from the shortcomings or the challenges within the VA--and there are plenty of them--I think it is really important to reiterate how often we are successful in seeing veterans whose care depends upon a doctor or a provider at the VA who leaves that appointment grateful for the time that they were able to spend there, grateful for the care they received, and grateful for the fact that there is a VA. This last week, on Friday--it was a few days early--we took some Valentine's Day cards made by elementary school students at LBJ Elementary in El Paso to veterans at the VA. I was joined by Colonel Mike Amaral, the new permanent director of the El Paso VA, formerly chief of staff at William Beaumont Army Medical Center. We shook hands with veterans, shook hands with frontline staff, shook hands with nurses and providers at the VA, thanking them for their service, wishing them an early happy Valentine's Day. To each veteran either coming in or leaving the VA, I asked them what their experience was like in either making an appointment, if they were on their way in, or how their appointment went when they were on their way out. As the ranking member knows, the veterans who we represent are never shy about sharing the truth and the facts of their experience with the VA. We hear the good, we hear the bad, we hear the ugly. At the El Paso VA on Friday, for every veteran who had been seen by a doctor, the story was a positive one. For every veteran going in to see a doctor, the story was a positive one. It doesn't mean that every single veteran's story in El Paso is positive. Let's acknowledge that some appointments are dropped. Sometimes the phone isn't answered. Sometimes an appointment is made and the doctor is not there to see the veteran. All of those circumstances are unacceptable. I know Colonel Amaral feels the way I do. I know Secretary Shulkin feels the way I do. I know every single Member of Congress feels the way I do. But let's remember that the vast majority of veterans are able to be seen, are getting great health care at the VA, and, for the most part, when they are referred to care in the community when a doctor is unavailable at the VA, when a psychiatrist is not able to see that veteran for a behavioral health appointment and referred to a provider in the community, most of those right now are working well. Not perfectly, not all the time. There is work before us that we must do, and it is critically important, but I am making the point that the VA needs to maintain the core of delivery of care to our veterans. We can add to that core the providers in our communities, public hospitals, private hospitals, clinics, doctors, those who want to step up at not great profit to themselves. The rates that they are reimbursed are just at or less than Medicare, but they do it because they want to do their part to continue to serve this country, to serve veterans who stood up, put their lives on the line, and ensured that we have the United States that we are so grateful for today. So I think that is a positive situation on which we can build with the right team here in Congress, at our local VAs, and with our new Secretary. I will tell you a story about Secretary Shulkin. Shortly after he was named Under Secretary of Veterans Health Administration, I brought to his attention the suicide crisis that we have in El Paso among El Paso veterans, in Texas, and in the United States, where we now know that today, by VA's latest estimate, 20 veterans are taking their own lives. The old estimate was 22. It was based on incomplete data. All 50 States' basis for the new numbers shows us that we are at 20. That is too many. It is unacceptable. It has to become our number one priority. Unless it is, we won't reduce that number, we won't save more lives, we won't prevent more preventable deaths. I shared with Dr. Shulkin that, after hearing from veteran after veteran after veteran, while generally their care received in the VA was excellent--when they were there, they were treated like a king or a queen--too often, when they were seeking a behavioral health appointment, mental health care appointment, maybe related to post- traumatic disorder, maybe a Vietnam-era veteran who had successfully bottled his trauma, experiences for 40, 45, 50 years who was now coming to terms when he reached certain crossroads in his life with that trauma and needed to speak to someone, too often they were not able to get in to see somebody at the VA. So we conducted a scientific, objective, third-party survey of veterans in El Paso, and we found--with a margin of error less than 4 percent, so this is pretty conclusive--that more than a third of veterans in our community could not get in to see a mental health care provider when, at that time, the prescribed 2 weeks, not within 30 days, not within a year. Just not ever. We know for a fact that care delayed becomes care denied. It leads to terrible outcomes. At a minimum, unnecessary suffering for that veteran; at worst, preventable deaths. Veterans taking their own lives. So I brought this issue to Dr. Shulkin's attention. I told him this community had rallied around our veterans in El Paso, Texas, and that the VA providers there, the public hospital, University Medical Center; Del Sol Hospital; Providence Hospital; Mentis Neurological Rehabilitation Center, another private facility; all of these folks wanted to come together to see if they could fill the gap in care and coverage that the VA was unable to meet. But we needed some leadership from the VA. We needed them to take a chance on a model that had never been tried before. We wanted Dr. Shulkin and the VHA to get behind a pilot program in El Paso that would allow us to take some of these matters into our own hands, where, despite the best intentions and significantly increased funding from the VA in El Paso, we still weren't able to see veterans who desperately need care. Dr. Shulkin reviewed the proposal with us, made some suggested changes, and within 4 months of having been sworn in as Under Secretary of VHA, he was able to help us get this pilot program approved, underway, with a collaboration with Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in El Paso, after finding that the best performing VAs in the country are associated with academic teaching institutions. He made that partnership with Texas Tech possible. He made referring care out into the community where we didn't have the doctors in the VA possible. He ensured that at the VA we continue to concentrate on those areas of excellence--on service and combat-connected disabilities and conditions that we don't see in the general population that, more than anything else, makes the case for the VA: for strengthening the VA, for ensuring that it is not there just today, but forever. As long as we have a country, we should have a VA that performs at the high levels in those areas where veterans need it most--post- traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, traumatic amputation, military sexual trauma--those conditions that are unique to service and to combat. So I am really encouraged that we have him now as the Secretary of the full VA. I am really encouraged that we have the leadership like Mr. Walz and Dr. Roe in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the House. I am really encouraged by the leadership that we see on the Senate side, and I have got to tell you--and I am sure that Mr. Walz would agree with me--we have leadership out in every single community in this country, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from the Vietnam Veterans of America, from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, from the Disabled American Veterans, from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, from every single veterans service organization, too many to mention in the time that I have allotted today, who put the pressure, provide the solutions, make trips up to Washington, D.C., as they will this next week, to ensure that they are holding us accountable for the terrific responsibility that we have before us, and that we perform against that responsibility and that we perform against the goals that we have set-- very ambitious, but achievable goals--for this country and every single veteran who has served who lives in this country who we have a sacred obligation to today. I am encouraged that this committee, this Congress, this country works on a bipartisan--or let's just say a nonpartisan--basis to get that work done. We are introducing two bills tomorrow, for example, both with Republican cosponsors. The first bill is the Veteran Prescription Continuity Act with Representative Mike Coffman from Colorado and Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina. That bill, if made into law, will ensure that veterans who were dependent on the care provided in part through prescriptions prescribed while they were Active Duty servicemembers at a military treatment facility are still able to receive those prescriptions as veterans. A lot of folks don't know this, but we don't have a unified formulary between DOD and VA. Some veterans, some prescriptions get dropped along the way. Here is a no-brainer, quick bipartisan fix to that part of the problem. The other bill is the Mental Health Care Provider Retention Act, also introduced with Walter Jones from North Carolina. This ensures at a time of crisis when it comes to veteran suicide that if you are an Active Duty servicemember and you are receiving good treatment at a military treatment facility for post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, or other mental health issues, that if the VA cannot continue that care because we don't have enough psychiatrists or psychologists-- we are 45,000 clinical positions short in the VA today--if you are getting good care in the Department of Defense military treatment facility and there is not that care for you on the VA side as you transition out and separate in a given community like El Paso, that you will be able to continue to receive quality mental health care treatment at that military treatment facility. Again, this isn't going to solve every access problem. It is not going to, in itself, reduce or solve the suicide crisis we have amongst veterans, but it is a commonsense, bipartisan approach that makes things a little bit better, that ensures that we have more access for more veterans and begin to take more steps toward reducing veteran suicide. Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged today by the opportunities before us, by the leadership that is ready to take on that work, and with the opportunity I have to join these leaders to ensure that we fulfill every commitment that we have to every veteran in America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our country and the community that I have the honor of representing, El Paso, Texas, lost one of our best: Dr. Joseph E. Torres, who was 93 years old at the time of his death, still practicing dentistry in the community of El Paso, and somebody who left a terrific legacy for his family, for our community, for this country, and for all posterity. Dr. Torres served in the U.S. Army Air Corps from 1942 to 1945. He first served as an infantryman, and then later as a bombardier and a navigator for the B-17 aircraft. Dr. Torres flew 13 bombing missions over Germany, one of the most difficult missions to be assigned to anybody, over the course of World War II. He later joined and served as a lieutenant in the Army Air Corps Reserve from 1945 to 1947. He later joined the Air Force Dental Reserve, where he reached the rank of colonel. As I said, he was a practicing dentist in El Paso, Texas. After his time in unform, he continued to serve his community and he continued to serve his El Pasoans, his fellow Texans, and his fellow Americans. He never stopped being an advocate for servicemembers, veterans, and this country. So here today we mourn his loss. Preceding him in death from that Greatest Generation, not too long ago, in August 2016, was Maynard L. Beamesderfer, known as ``Beamy'' to his friends and his fans. He was one of the original 350 Pathfinders, who were the first combat paratroopers to jump into Normandy, France, before the D-day invasion in 1944. He was a member of the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment and 101st Airborne Division. Mr. Beamesderfer died at the age of 92. The third gentleman that I want to introduce to you and who I would like to talk about today and whose story I would like to share is someone I greatly admire and who I have had the privilege of meeting several times and being able to introduce my oldest son Ulysses to. That is Retired Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Chisolm, ``Bob,'' who is a founding member of the 82nd Airborne Division Association in El Paso. He is someone who is very much still with us, full of vigor, strength, energy, and an inspiration at a time that we so badly need him. He is also the rarest of Americans. He is a combat veteran of World War II, he is a combat veteran of Korea, and he is a combat veteran of Vietnam. In fact, he is one of only 325 combat veterans in the history of the United States military authorized to wear the Triple Combat Infantryman Badge for combat service in three separate wars. During World War II, he earned the Legion of Merit Award, which can only be obtained after receiving direct approval from the President of the United States. He was also recognized by the French Government more recently in 2012, at which time a French general awarded him the French Legion of Honor Award and the status of Knighthood. We are grateful for the service of these three amazing Americans, these three outstanding El Pasoans, these three great examples to each and every one of us of who are we when we are at our best and what we are willing to do to serve this country and the cause of freedom and the best interests of humanity. It is these three men and others who join them in the Greatest Generation, the men and women throughout this country who endured and suffered, survived, and began to thrive through the Great Depression. Following that, they proudly and gladly served their country in World War II in a world away, whether it was in North Africa, Italy, Europe, or the Asia Pacific. These were men and women who fought for not just this country, but who fought for and won a world order that has more or less sustained us for the last 75 years; a world order that was won, fought for, and sustained through enormous treasure, blood, and sacrifice of this country, sustained, fought for, and won by men like Bob Chisolm, ``Beamy'' Beamesderfer, and Dr. Torres. I bring them up today so, one, we can pay honor and tribute to them; and, two, so that we can remember what is at stake today, in 2017, seemingly a world away from when Dr. Torres first served in the Army Air Corps in 1942. It is a world where the United States is the sole superpower, where we guarantee the lanes of trade, the connections between countries, the viability of an entire continent in Europe. The benefits from the treasure and the blood and the sacrifice and our sustainment of these policies over the last 70 to 75 years has accrued primarily to the United States, but also to our allies and also, I would argue, to the rest of the world. We have largely seen in that time a time of peace, a time where we avoided major world wars, where we peacefully sustained and outlasted the Soviet Union and ushered in a new era of peace in Eastern Europe. When we think about the challenges that we face today, those countries who do not see a place in this world order that we won and have sustained--countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, each of whom, in their own way, pose a threat not just to the United States, not just to their neighbors in their respective regions, but to the world and the order that we have bought at such a dear cost. When we think about what is going on today, it is critically important that we move forward very carefully and mindful of what it took to bring this world order about and what could happen if this world order collapses. As General David Petraeus told us last week in a House Armed Services Committee meeting, this world order did not will itself into existence. It did not sustain itself. It did not win itself. All of that was done by Americans, for Americans, for our allies, for our interests, and our values around the world. It is important that we be mindful of that when all of that is at stake and when it is under threat unlike any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As we begin a new Congress with a new administration, we have several choices before us. We can shore up that world order and the alliances and relationships that underpin them. An example is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, our partnership with 28 European countries that has effectively kept the peace on that continent for more than 70 years. Or we can refer to that arrangement and that treaty as obsolete and we can ask the Europeans to take care of their own business without assistance or alliance from the United States. Perhaps that is in the best interest of this country. Perhaps that reduces the burden on the United States taxpayer. Perhaps that reduces the burden on the servicemembers now deployed in Europe, reassuring that continent. Perhaps it is also better for Russia as they continue to probe the weaknesses in the Western alliance; as they move into Ukraine and seize Crimea or are active in the eastern part of that country; as they interfere in elections throughout the Western world, most notably our own in 2016, but not limited solely to the United States, and where we fear they may be active again in interfering in other elections in the free world. Perhaps this is good for Russia to think of NATO as obsolete or to withdraw our commitment because our allies are not ponying up their fair share of the burden, and I think that is a real concern. Maybe that is good for us. Maybe that is good for Europe. It is certainly going to be good for Russia. The consequence for that, my colleagues, may very well be that, while we might save some in what we are spending in treasure and sacrifice and service in Europe today, we may be called back again, as we were in the World War I and afterwards in World War II to defend that continent from tyranny at extraordinary costs to our treasury, to the lives of those who serve, to the lives that are lost, to the lives that are changed forever. When we look at another part of the world in the South China Sea and to our allies there like Japan, the Philippines, increasingly, Vietnam, perhaps it is better that we allow China to decide what is best for that region and for those countries at the expense of those who, today, are our allies. Certainly, it would save the taxpayer the resources that we expend today to prop up and support our allies, to ensure their defense, and to ensure our interests. Perhaps it would be good for those countries in that region, including Taiwan. It would certainly be good for China, a growing competitor not just in the South China Sea, not just in Asia, but, increasingly, around the world. So we have a choice there to make as well: Do we retrench, withdraw, close ourselves off from the rest of the world and our commitments and our obligations? Again, the benefit of which has largely accrued to us, as it has to our allies and much of the rest of the world. Or do we fix what is not working now; sustain, perhaps even grow, that commitment; meet the threats; and address the fears that that part of the world has? It comes at some cost, and it is not a trivial one. But I would argue that we cannot foresee the future where the United States is not involved in the South China Sea, in east Asia, with our allies in that region. We don't know for sure what will happen, but we know that power abhors a vacuum. We know that where the United States is not, other world powers will be; and they certainly don't have the interests of our citizens, our values, and our way of life at heart. When it comes to the Middle East and the series of serious challenges that we face there from Iraq and Syria to north Africa in Libya, to our difficult relationship with Saudi Arabia, who is an ally and at the same time the source of so much that threatens that region and, ultimately, the United States, certainly, in the short term, it would be cheaper to withdraw our commitments and our support, our resources and our servicemembers, who are there at such great cost, again, to this country and to themselves and to their families, who bear the burden of the fight and sustain those injuries when they are incurred and mourn the losses of those servicemembers who never make it back. It is easy to argue, in the short term, that that could be good for the United States. But it is hard to argue, in the long term, that, without our leadership, without some level of involvement, including military involvement, but especially diplomatic and political engagement with the governments and the people and the interests in the Middle East, it is hard to argue that, without that, our interests, our goals, our values will be respected, accepted, honored, and seen through. What is much more likely is that we will find ourselves there again, responding to a great crisis at greater expense of life and treasure to this country. And that story repeats throughout the world. Whatever country, whatever region, whatever hemisphere, whatever continent, when the United States is not there, neither are our interests, neither are we able to benefit, and neither is the world able to depend on some level of peace, security, and stability. I urge this House, our new President, those whom we represent to think about what is at stake right now around the world, to understand how this international order was brought about, how it was fought for and won and sustained, and how tragic it would be, after 75 years, after the noble sacrifice of so many of the Greatest Generation and of the generations that followed who served in Korea, who served in Vietnam, who served in the first Gulf War, who are serving today in our wars that followed the attacks of 9/11, how terrible would it be for us to lose what we have fought so hard to gain in the span of one administration? It does not have to be that way. I think working together, across party lines, with this administration, with Congress, both Houses, with the American people, certainly supporting our servicemembers and honoring the sacrifices of our veterans, I think together we can meet this challenge, just as we have met serious challenges in the past. But we are going to need to correct our course, and we will need to do so immediately. No longer can we mock allies, try to humiliate our neighbor to the south, the country of Mexico. No longer can we call into question an alliance that has withstood the test of time and has ensured the peace of this country and the continent of Europe: the NATO alliance. No longer can we threaten to withdraw from international obligations, whether they are at the U.N., whether they are bilateral trade negotiations or multilateral trade agreements. No longer can we think that the United States can serve as a bunker against the rest of the world. It is too late for that. It was too late for that in World War II when the three brave gentlemen that I began my speech with decided to serve this country and to purchase the freedom and the world order that so many take for granted today. I think it is incumbent upon us to try to offer an alternative to the course that we are currently on, an alternative that I would say starts here at home and with those countries that border ours. It starts with acknowledging that Mexico, for example, is far more an opportunity than it is a threat to the United States, that today we do hundreds of billions of dollars of trade with Mexico, trade that is unique in its character such that, when we export to Mexico, certainly we win. Those are U.S. jobs, U.S. products being exported to the country of Mexico, bought by Mexican consumers. The proceeds flow back to the U.S. worker and to the owners of those businesses and companies. But when we import from Mexico, it is important to remember, 40 percent of the value of our imports from that country were generated here in the United States. Those same factory floor jobs in Michigan, in Indiana, in Ohio, in Tennessee, in Texas produce products that are exported to Mexico for final assembly and then brought back into the United States. Forty percent of the value of our imports from Mexico are U.S. content. When we look at China, it is 4 percent. When we export to Mexico, we win. When we import from Mexico, we win. We win jobs, 6 million American jobs that, today, are dependent on U.S.-Mexico trade. Nearly half a million of those are in the State of Texas alone, each one of them jeopardized by the course that this country has taken under this new administration, each one of those potentially lost if we cannot redevelop a positive relationship with the country of Mexico, certainly one in which our interests are most important to the United States, where the U.S. worker is preeminent, but where, nonetheless, we understand the larger picture and the longer game, that our future--the United States and Mexico--is a shared future, that the way we manufacture today is done together, both countries producing products that are made in North America along with Canada. That is what is going on here today, that we are linked in a way that cannot be unlinked without causing serious trauma, job loss, economic downturns, and insecurity for the United States. In the last 30 years, as we have grown closer to Mexico and had a stronger economic relationship with that country that results in the hundreds of billions of dollars of trade that cross our ports of entry every year, at the same time, we have grown a stronger, closer security relationship such that the most notorious criminal mastermind in the history of Mexico, Joaquin Guzman, El Chapo, was recently extradited to the United States despite considerations of Mexican sovereignty. Despite, perhaps, the loss of pride that is entailed in sending that country's criminal who is responsible for countless deaths, for drug production, drug transit, and the drugs that cross into the United States and are consumed in Mexico and other parts of the world, Mexico did that precisely because of the strong security relationship that has grown between these two countries. So should we pursue a path of humiliation for our southern neighbor? Should we build a 2,000-mile wall in a hopeless effort to seal that country off from ours? Should we propose imposing a 20 percent tax on all goods coming in from Mexico which, again, remember, will not just hurt the Mexican worker, but will hurt the U.S. worker as well? Should we do all that, not only will we hurt ourselves economically, we will deeply damage the security bonds that exist today between those two countries, security bonds that keep us safe, that keep us secure, that help explain why today, despite the headlines, despite the campaign rhetoric, the facts show that the U.S.-Mexico border has never been more secure. It has never been more safe. It has never posed less of an immediate risk or hazard to Americans. It has a lot to do with the brave men and women in the United States Border Patrol, those who also serve in police departments like ours in El Paso, in sheriff's departments like those under the command of Sheriff Richard Wiles in El Paso County. It has a lot to do with the immigrant populations who live in the communities along the U.S.-Mexico border who are such a part of our safety because they are striving to get ahead, to keep out of trouble, to learn, to study, to do better, to contribute to, participate in, and reap the benefits of the American Dream. But we are also safe because the country of Mexico has made a commitment to help keep us safe. When we are concerned about transnational criminal organizations coming from the three most dangerous countries in the world today--El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras--we have a partner in Mexico, who checks their advance at Mexico's southern border, who ensures, when we have the greatest humanitarian crisis this hemisphere has ever seen because of the brutality and violence that we see in those northern triangle countries in Central America, that Mexico is our partner in helping to provide shelter, sustenance, and aid to those frightened young children leaving the northern triangle. Some still make their way to the United States and present themselves, not trying to evade detection, but present themselves to Border Patrol agents and Customs officers at our ports of entry. No wall could ever keep them out. But as many as are coming from Central America today, we have record low levels of northbound migration and asylum-seeking attempts crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The number last year was somewhere around 400,000 northbound apprehensions. The number 16 years ago was 1.6 million northbound apprehensions. For all the reasons that I gave, and one of them an important one-- and we must keep that in mind--is Mexico: our relationship, our partnership, part of that world order that we have fought for, worked so hard for, sustained at such great cost. These are the dividends that world order is producing for the United States today in jobs, in economic growth, in the security and safety of our communities and the people we represent. El Paso, Texas, in fact, is the safest city in the United States today. It was the safest city last year, it was the safest city the year before that, and it has been among the safest cities in America for the last 15 years. It is not an outlier, and it is not an anomaly. The second safest city is San Diego, California, another large U.S. border city, conjoined with its sister city of Tijuana. So when we upend this world order, when we upend our relationships, when we bully, humiliate, and threaten the countries with whom we have been allied and partnered for so many years now, not only will they suffer, which I can only assume is the intent of the President, but so will we. We also do deep disservice and dishonor to those who have fought so hard, worked so long, and done so much to build up something today that we are the lucky heirs to. Furthermore, our leadership position in the world is not sustained on blood and treasure and diplomacy alone. It is the values that we live out each and every day in our homes, in our communities, and, yes, here in our government, in the United States Congress. Values that include taking in the world's refugees. After screening, ensuring the security and safety of the communities into which they will come, which we have always done--and no one is vetted or screened more thoroughly than a refugee from another country trying to enter the United States--most will not be able to make it, even under previous administrations. But after that screening has taken place, when they come to this country, those refugees, those asylum seekers, and those immigrants are the ones who have helped to build this success story, this exceptional country, this indispensable Nation, the United States. And when we turn off the lamp of liberty, when we no longer shine as a beacon to the refugees, the aspirational people around the world who are looking for a better life, who were called to our shores by our values and what we represent around the world, and what we have always fought for and proved in actions beyond our words, when that lamp goes out, when we begin religious tests for the kinds of immigrants who we will bring into this country, when we do things that are immediately politically popular but are not in the best traditions of this country, we lose that place of prominence around the world, not just to the countries and the decisionmakers within those countries--the kings and queens and presidents and prime ministers--we lose that place of prominence with the people around the world who have always looked to the United States for example and for leadership. And so I ask my colleagues to join me in ensuring that, as troubling as this course has been in the first few weeks of this administration, we remember that we still have time to correct it and that we have an obligation to offer an alternative, one that has served this country so well for so long and is a source of so much of our strength, our exceptionalism, and our greatness. I call on my colleagues to move beyond Presidential fiat, beyond executive order, beyond the whims of a new administration, and to set in law our values and our priorities. Ultimately, we must be able to reform our system of immigration laws. But short of that, we must at least be able to honor the ones who are already on the books. We have to do more to ensure that those who need us most in the world can find a home in this country, not solely for their benefit. That is the moral imperative. That is the argument that can persuade us in our hearts, but also because the value and the benefit will accrue to this country economically in our security, in our vibrancy, and in ensuring that the next generation is going to be the leaders, whether it comes to the businesses that are created, the books and the art that are created, the leadership that is needed, and the service that we demand in uniform throughout the world. Certainly that comes from native born U.S. citizens, but it also, as we know when we think about the history of this country, that comes from those who came to our shores. Or, like most of the Western Hemisphere, whether your family came from Mexico or El Salvador or Argentina, there is a good chance that your Ellis Island was El Paso, Texas, that your family first set foot on U.S. soil in the community that I have the honor to represent today. Whether it was in Segundo Barria, or the Chihuahuita neighborhood, or the Chamizal district, El Paso has been that first welcoming community to millions who have answered the promise, the potential, the opportunity, and the beacon of hope that we have provided for the world. It is no accident, and it is totally connected, that El Paso's safety is directly proportional to our connection to the rest of the world, to Mexico, to these people who so many of our political leaders want to sow fear and anxiety and misapprehension about. They want to vilify these people, call them rapists and thugs and criminals, when the facts bear out that they are the very reason that we are so secure and so safe. So imagine in the Ellis Island of the Western Hemisphere--El Paso, Texas--building a wall that would forever separate and divide us from the rest of the hemisphere, from the place where we meet the rest of the world. That, too, will compromise our leadership position in the world. That, too, will dishonor the noble sacrifice that we have seen from countless servicemembers from those who pursue U.S. policy around the world, and to those who are now serving in more than 140 countries around the globe. I think about another country and another wall at another time that proved American exceptionalism when the Soviets constructed the Berlin Wall to keep East Germans from being able to flee to the West, those East Germans who, in some way, were responding to the hope that I am talking about that we have so long represented around the world. It was the United States that overcame that wall. It was people like General James H. Polk who ensured that the people of East Berlin had hope, that the people of West Berlin had hope, that we made every effort to fulfill our commitments, not just to Americans on American soil, but to American values wherever they may be represented around the world. While other governments were building walls, the United States was doing the right thing. And it was a President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, who challenged the Soviet empire to tear down this wall. How far have we come that today, in 2017, in the living lifetime of those who served with President Reagan, who voted for President Reagan, who lived in the America that President Reagan was a President of, that we are contemplating building a wall that would keep people out, that would separate people who have a common future, a common history? And in places like El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, 3 million people who form the largest binational community in the world, two people who have a common identity, nothing to be afraid of, nothing to be anxious about, nothing to be scared of. We, the United States, are at our best when we are strong, when we are confident, when we are bold. We are at our worst when we are anxious, when we are afraid, when we are scared. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we not make policy out of fear, that we not stoke anxiety, that we not lose the best, strongest traditions of who we are as Americans, but, instead, follow those traditions. And when we do, we will be able to change the course that this country is now on. We will be able to help this President to do the right thing, the right thing for this country, in this country more importantly, but to do the right thing for this country when it means standing up for our values, our interests, our allies around the world. Mr. Speaker, for many in this country and for many around the world, these are some of the darkest days in recent memory. But I have hope because we have had far darker days in this country before. And the institutions, such as the one that we are in today, and the American people whose work we do at whose pleasure we serve, who we represent in this Chamber, are a remarkable, resilient people. And they will help to bring this body, this administration, this government, and this country to its senses. And when we get there, I am confident that we are going to do the right thing, I am confident that we are going to honor the best traditions of this country, we are going to honor the brave men and women who have served, who helped to build what we have today, which so many people take for granted. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that working together, Republican and Democrat, we are going to do what is best for the world and what is best for America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) for bringing her State's experience and perspective to bear on this issue and for being a champion for the best in our traditions and our values. I would like to build on the gentlewoman's remarks and talk about one of the consequences of building walls. I have already made the case that the border is as secure as it has ever been. Those who study and understand security issues have come to the conclusion that extra miles of wall don't deter migrants. The lower levels of migration that we have seen to this country have a lot more to do with the U.S. economy and its struggling performance in the immediate aftermath of the Great Recession and throughout that road to recovery and, relatively speaking, the performance in other countries, including Mexico, that has afforded Mexican nationals more opportunity to stay there. The border is as secure as it has ever been. We have recently doubled the size of the Border Patrol. We are using the latest and greatest technology to remain as vigilant as possible, which we should. It is also important to know the character and quality of the Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers who man the line, who are at our ports, and who have one of the most difficult, dangerous jobs that anyone has in the Federal Government. The conditions in which they work, the situations which they must anticipate, the constant vigilance that they must maintain, and the kind of threats that they have to be aware of--which include drug smuggling, which is critically important to stop; which include human smuggling, which we must deter and stop; and which includes, even though there has never been a terrorist or terrorist act connected to the U.S.-Mexican border, includes the possibility that sometime that might happen--those men and women are literally on the front line protecting this community. I would like to see some of the $14 billion to $20 billion proposed for the construction of a wall put behind our Border Patrol agents to improve their salaries, their working conditions, and the ability for them to do their job and to keep us safe. I would like to hire more Customs and Border Protection officers, the men and women in blue at our ports of entry who facilitate legitimate trade and travel at our ports of entry. They are the ones who help to keep this economy humming while keeping us safer. Madam Speaker, one of the consequences, though, of building walls, while it doesn't make us safer and while it uses a lot of resources that could be better put toward other more legitimate security challenges, it does do one thing that I want all of us to know about. It does ensure that migrants coming to this country will unnecessarily suffer, and many will die. In the same time where we have gone from 1.6 million apprehensions a year--that was the year 2000, 1.6 million apprehensions on our southern border--to last year, when there were just a little over 400,000, so a quarter of the level that we had 15, 16 years ago, in that same time that we have had record low levels of migration, we have maintained record high levels of migrant deaths. So those few migrants who do try to cross in between our ports of entry and do encounter physical barriers are going to more remote sections of the border. They are dying of thirst. They are dying of exposure. These are otherwise preventable deaths. So I ask you to think about it this way. Whether you are looking at the moral dimension of this--the otherwise preventable deaths, the effort to humiliate our closest partner in the country, of Mexico-- whether you look at the economic dimension of this, if you want to protect those 6 million jobs that depend on a strong U.S.-Mexico connection, whether you look at the security dimension and taking our eye off the ball when it comes to real threats, proven threats that we have in this country at our international airports, at our northern border with Canada or increasingly homegrown radicals in the United States radicalized over the internet, if you want to remove resources from those real threats, then go ahead and build a wall if it makes you feel good. But it is going to make us less safe, it is going to make us less economically secure, and it is going to be to our lasting shame. It will haunt us, and it will haunt us for generations for anyone who supports this or does not stand up and speak against it. I would like to leave you with two anecdotes that I think exemplify the beauty, the strength, and the safety of the border. The first is a story of an event that took place this weekend in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, where we are joined by the Rio Grande River channel. Right now, all that water is stored up at the Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico. Really, there is just a little trickle in the river channel not more than a couple of inches deep. Thanks to the Border Network for Human Rights and thanks to the Border Patrol who allowed this, they were able to organize 300 families from Mexico and El Paso who were allowed to meet--one family at a time--in the middle of that river channel, both sides clearly identified so there would not be any security or immigration issues. And those families got to spend a total of 3 minutes together, families who, in some cases, had not seen each other for decades. A young woman posted on Facebook that she drove down from Oklahoma City to see her dad who she had not seen in 10 years. You had folks meeting grandchildren they had never seen before, sons or daughters-in-law that they had never seen before, weeping, crying, laughing, hugging, holding, kissing for 3 minutes. That, to me, is absolutely beautiful. That, to me, is family values. That, to me, shows you the extent to which people will try to be together, to be with each other, to do the things that perhaps you and I, as U.S. citizens, take for granted. And that happened in El Paso, Texas, thanks to the Border Network for Human Rights, thanks also to the men and women in the Border Patrol. It didn't compromise our security. It didn't add any new immigrants to this country. It was just doing our best under the current conditions. The other anecdote that I would like to share with you, and which I will close on, involves another outstanding organization in the community that I have the honor to serve, Annunciation House, led by Ruben Garcia, who--when we faced unprecedented numbers of young children and young families, young moms in their teens and twenties, coming up from Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador, which have become the deadliest countries, not just in Central America, not just in the Western Hemisphere, but in the world, the deadliest countries in the world; kids being murdered and raped and sold into slavery. Those kids fleeing that horrific brutality and violence, coming up the length of Mexico, sometimes riding on top of a train known as la bestia, or the beast, to come and present themselves at our border, not evade detection, not try and escape, not try to do anything against the law; literally, as the law proscribes, presenting themselves at our points of entry to a Border Patrol agent, or a Customs and Border Protection officer, and asking for help and for shelter, depending on the best traditions inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, counting on the United States in their moment of need. Well, the Border Patrol were outstanding. The agents themselves, out of their own pockets often, were buying toys and gifts for these young children, taking care of them, having their hearts broken, doing their best to serve them. Agents who work for ICE and immigration were doing their best as well. As that flow of people, the number of people became too many temporarily for us to hold and to process, they got in touch with Ruben Garcia at Annunciation House, which is a charity operated in El Paso, Texas. And Ruben took those asylum seekers, those refugees, and housed them, clothed them, fed them, insured they had showers and medication and a visit with a doctor, the ability to talk to their families deeper in the interior of the United States and, most importantly, especially for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, had a full and complete understanding of their legal obligations under U.S. law, what they were allowed and not allowed to do, what their court expectations were, and that they must appear in court, and that their issue must be adjudicated, and that they may or may not be able to stay in this country. Annunciation House, Ruben Garcia, the volunteers who work for him, and hundreds of other El Pasoans who contributed did this at not a penny's cost to the Federal taxpayer or to our government. So $20 billion to build a wall or Annunciation House taking care of refugees, asylum seekers, little kids who need our help for free? That is the border. That is the best of us. That is the best of this country. That is what we need to think about. Those are the folks we need to listen to. Those are the facts we need to understand before we even contemplate building a wall, separating ourselves from Mexico, giving in to the nativist sentiment and instinct that was so proudly on display during this Presidential election. I think if we look at the facts, if we take the best from the border, we are going to get the best policy and the best outcome from the United States. And after all, isn't that why we were all sent here? Isn't that what we are supposed to do when our voters sent us here to do the work of the American people? Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank the gentleman from California for sharing his community's perspective and for reminding us that, when it comes to Mexico and our shared connection with Mexico--the U.S.-Mexico border-- we have much more to look forward to than we do to fear. In fact, in the State of California, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on U.S.-Mexico trade. In the State of Texas, it is just under a half a million. In fact, every single State in the Union, including Alaska, has tens--if not hundreds--of thousands of jobs that depend on the flow of U.S.-Mexico trade, which happens at our ports of entry and comes through at our border. There are 6 million jobs in this country, which represent hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries and economic growth and add-on effects, that are dependent on U.S.- Mexico trade. When we begin to prioritize our separation, in sealing Mexico off from the United States literally physically, we deprioritize those connections that make us stronger, that grow our economy, and that create more jobs in the United States. One thing that we should know, as long as we are talking about sharing facts and confronting some of these unfortunate, untrue myths about the border, is that, when we export to Mexico, of course, we win--we are building things in our factories; we are sending them to Mexico; the Mexican consumer buys them; those dollars are flowing back to the U.S. worker. It also happens that, when we import from Mexico, we win as 40 cents of every dollar of value that we import from Mexico originates in the United States. Literally, factory floor jobs in Ohio, in Iowa, in Michigan are producing things that go to Mexico and that are part of the final assembly that is reimported to the United States. We certainly make things in America today, but we make a lot of things in the United States and in Mexico concurrently. Our economies, our production platform--our future--is inextricably connected, and to try to break that apart is not simply going to hurt Mexico. It is going to hurt the United States. It is going to hurt the U.S. worker. It is going to hurt our economy. It is going to hurt our opportunity at growth. If we continue to cast Mexico as the enemy, if we threaten trade wars or to pull out of free trade agreements, if we construct a wall to try to humiliate that country at a time that it poses no security threat to the United States, the consequences are not going to be good. You may remember that I reminded you that migration from Mexico over the last 4 years is less than zero. More Mexicans are going south than are coming north to the United States. If you build a wall, withdraw from our trade agreements, try to de-link our economies, where you do not have a security or an economic problem today, you will in the future have one. You will give people in Mexico a reason to flee that country and to seek opportunity and jobs and connections and safety and shelter somewhere else, and that somewhere else, in many cases, is, in fact, going to be the United States. If we want to make this country safer, if we want to make this country more prosperous, if we want to protect the American worker, then the policies that this President has adopted in the first 10 days in office are precisely the wrong way to go about doing it. They will make us less secure; they will slow down this country's economy; they will jeopardize the 6 million jobs that depend on U.S.-Mexico trade. If the U.S.-Mexico border is as secure as it has ever been--look at any metric, and you will see that I am right--if we are having record low levels of northbound migration and apprehensions, if we are spending record amounts, if we are using new technologies, like drones, to patrol the border, if we have 20,000 Border Patrol agents, which is also a record high, why is there so much concern, why is there so much interest, why is there so much anxiety, why is there so much fear built up around the border? I will tell you, this is a long time in coming. And when we say that there are real issues with where these border measures are coming from, let me give you an example of some of those. One of our colleagues, when describing young Mexican immigrants coming to this country, said: Look at them. They have calves the size of cantaloupes. They are bringing drugs into this country. When you have a Presidential candidate dismiss Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals, despite the fact that immigrants commit crimes in this country at a much lower level than native-born U.S. citizens, when you have this kind of rhetoric, when you have this kind of mischaracterization, when you have this kind of vilification of an entire people and their connection to us at the U.S.-Mexico border, then you be the judge of where these priorities are coming from and what they are about and why they in no way reflect the real concerns, threats, and issues that we have in this country today. My colleagues, the fact of the matter is Mexico presents opportunity to the United States and it always has. Whether it is the $90 billion in U.S.-Mexico trade that passed through just the points of entry in El Paso, the city I have the honor of serving in Congress, and Ciudad Juarez, the city with which it is connected, whether it is the 6 million jobs that we already have in the United States economy, whether it is our security cooperation to ensure that we are disrupting transnational criminal organizations that are trying to move drugs and human chattel into this country, whether it is our work to address the real security issues in the northern triangle countries of Central America that border Mexico, we will lose a very valuable partner. We will lose those things that we want most: job growth, economic development, security for the people that we represent. When we begin to humiliate that country and its leadership--and President Pena Nieto has canceled a trip to visit the United States in just 1 week of this administration--nothing good will follow that. We cannot wall Mexico off from the United States. We cannot wish them to disappear. They will always be there, and they should always be there. And we should be grateful that they will always be there because they have always been a part of our history, our success, those things that are best about the United States; and, God willing, they will always be part of our future. I think it is going to take each and every one of us--every Republican, every Democrat, every person who doesn't feel affiliation to a party--to stand together behind and with the facts, with the truth, with this country's best interests in mind. I am confident that if we do that, if we will simply look at what is happening today, what has happened historically with that country, where our interests lie, we will make better policy. We will not be constructing walls between the two countries. We will, at some point--hopefully, sooner rather than later--tear down the 600 miles of fencing that already separates us. We will build more bridges that connect us, not just for trade, not just for economic growth, but for the reasons that the people I represent are so grateful for and proud of, the place that they call home, a city that, with Ciudad Juarez, forms the largest binational community in the world, where last year alone 32 million times people from El Paso and Juarez crossed into each other's cities. Our families are on both sides of the border. Our business partners are on both sides of the border. Students at the University of Texas at El Paso, who live in Ciudad Juarez and are Mexican nationals, are granted instate tuition because we want to attract the very best and the very brightest. And we are going to find them all over the world-- in the United States, certainly, but also in Mexico. I want to read to you a comment that a constituent of mine posted on our Facebook page this evening when I let my constituents know I would be on the floor talking about the border, asking them to share the truth and the reality, their perspective versus the myth that we hear so often here in Congress, on national TV, and from those who don't live on or understand the border. Lisa Esparza said: The border has been great because I grew up in Ciudad Juarez. I came to El Paso, paid for an education at a private school, learned English. I love the fact that I am binational, and I can think and speak in two languages. Lisa and millions of fronteriza and fronterizo border residents exemplify the best of this country, literally, of what makes America great. El Paso, for those of you who do not know, has, for more than a century, served as the Ellis Island of the Western Hemisphere. If you came up from Mexico or your family did--or El Salvador or Guatemala or Honduras or Costa Rica or Argentina--there is a good chance that you came through the ports of entry in El Paso, Texas; that your family may have, before they went on to a destination further in the United States, settled in Segundo Barrio or in Chihuahuita. This is a community where they learned our laws, our values, where they learned to speak English, where they went to school, where they not just participated and believed in the American Dream, but became net contributors to it. It is one of the reasons that El Paso, Texas, is the safest city in the United States. It is the safest city not in spite of the large number of immigrants who live in my community--and, by official counts, 24 percent of the people that I represent were born in another country. It is not in spite of those people who were born in another country that El Paso is so safe. It is, in large part, because of their presence. Families made extraordinarily difficult decisions to leave their home country--their home city, their families, the language they knew, the customs that they loved--to come to a new country. They make sure that they follow our laws. They make sure that their kids follow our laws. They make sure that their kids are doing the right thing by this country so that they can get ahead, have an opportunity and a crack at the American Dream. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, there is something profoundly great about that. It is what has helped make El Paso the safest city, a wonderful city in America, a great country. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), someone else who understands the value of our relationship with Mexico, the special character of border people, and the value of immigration and immigrants.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank the gentleman from New York for his comments-- again, bringing his experience to bear and, right from the beginning, introducing legislation, not just criticizing or complaining, but offering an alternative. It reminds us that, if we are to spend $20 billion on building something in this country--which is the upward cost of what President Trump's proposal would take from the American taxpayer--there are roads; there are bridges; there are tunnels. There are legitimate infrastructure needs on which we could spend that money that would put people to work, and it would be money much better spent. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), someone who represents a part of the border that really demonstrates what is beautiful about the United States-Mexico relationship in San Diego and Tijuana. He is a fierce advocate for our shared economic development and growth, for the jobs that are connected to that, and for everything that is beautiful about the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mr. O'ROURKE. Madam Speaker, with the President's recent announcement that through an executive action he would commit resources and national attention and focus on building a wall with our neighbor to the south-- Mexico--and given some of the rhetoric that we have heard over the last year in the Presidential campaigns about rapists and criminals coming from the country of Mexico, one might be confused, at best, or, at worst, believe that we have some kind of crisis on our border with Mexico, some kind of crisis in our relationship with our closest neighbor, a country that has done more to benefit the United States than any other country I can imagine, a country that is the number one trading partner of the State of Texas, the third largest trading partner of the United States, our partner on security, on economic development and growth, and on other important hemispheric issues. It is important today that we take this opportunity to ensure that our colleagues in the House have the facts. And it is with those facts that we can make better decisions, informed judgments, and a policy that is truly going to benefit not just the U.S.-Mexico border, not just border States like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, but the entire United States. Here are some facts that I would like to start with, and then I want to ensure that some of my colleagues who can bring their wisdom and experience and perspective to this are able to do so. The first fact that we should know is that we have record low levels of northbound migration from Mexico. In fact, more Mexican nationals today are going south into Mexico than are coming north into the United States. We have less than zero migration from Mexico. Total northbound apprehensions of any people from any country coming across our southern border are also at historic lows. And if there are any surges in people or populations coming across that border, it happens to be young children and families fleeing horrific, historic violence in the northern triangle of Central America. And those little kids, they are not trying to evade detection, they are not trying to climb fences, they are not trying to escape the Border Patrol. They are, in fact, turning themselves in, and presenting themselves to Border Patrol agents and to Customs and Border Protection officers at our ports of entry. We should also note that we are expending record amounts of U.S. taxpayer resources to secure the border--$19 billion a year this year, last year, and the years going forward--only to increase with these executive orders. We have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol in these last 15 years from just a little under 10,000 agents to over 20,000 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border and some on the U.S.- Canada border. There has never been a terrorist, a terrorist organization, a terrorist plot, or a terrorist act connected to our border with Mexico. There has been with our northern border with Canada. There has been connected to our international airports. There have been homegrown radical terrorists. There has never been a case of terrorism connected with our border with Mexico. But just in case, and we should remain vigilant, just in case, we have got those 20,000 Border Patrol agents, we have got thousands of Customs and Border Protection officers, we have 600 miles of fencing and physical obstructions already on our border with Mexico, we have aerostat blimps, we have drones flying overhead, we have a concentration of Federal law enforcement--DEA, FBI, among others-- including one of the largest military installations anywhere in the world--Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, with 32,000 Active Duty servicemembers. We have the security resources already that we need. I also think it is important to mention that El Paso, Texas, which is conjoined with Ciudad Juarez in Mexico and forms what I think is the largest true binational community in the world, certainly the largest on the U.S.-Mexico border, El Paso, Texas, is not just the safest city on the U.S.-Mexico border, it is not just the safest city in the State of Texas, it is the safest city in the United States. And it is not an outlier. If you look at other U.S. border cities, like San Diego, California, you will find that they are among the safest in the United States. In fact, there is a positive correlation with the number of migrants and immigrants, documented and otherwise, in a community and that community's relative safety. The U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border is far safer than the average American city deeper into the interior. These are some of the facts that we need to have at our command as we are developing policy, as we are judging the President's recent executive actions, and as we are thinking about how best to secure this country. Here is another fact that we need to keep in mind. If we are committing resources where they are not needed, where, for example, we don't have terrorism, where we don't have a problem with immigration, where we don't have an issue with security, then by definition we are taking those resources from where they could be best used, where we have known risks and threats, where we have real problems against which we must contend, where we are not keeping Americans as safe as they could be because we are directing resources where they don't need to be, this is something that we need to know, I think, as we make policy for this country, as we fulfill our most important solemn obligation, which is the safety and security of this country and every American within it. Madam Speaker, I am very fortunate today to be joined by some outstanding colleagues. One whom I would like to introduce from the great State of New York is a new colleague, he himself an immigrant to this country. He represents tens of thousands of immigrants in his Congressional District, has already, from day one, become a leader on this issue, introducing legislation that provides a more rational, humane, smarter approach to some of these issues that have been blown out of proportion, politicized, mythologized, and from that steering the country in the wrong direction. Here is somebody who wants to get us back on track. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. O'ROURKE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Madam Speaker, we have the lowest levels of northbound apprehension coming across our southern border in modern history. We have more Mexican nationals going south to Mexico today than coming north to the United States. We have less than zero migration from Mexico. In El Paso, Texas, the border community is the safest city in the United States. On top of that, there has been not a terrorist, terrorist plot, or terrorist organization that is connected to our border with Mexico. But just in case, we are being vigilant. We are spending $19 billion a year to secure that border. There are 20,000 brave members of the Border Patrol who patrol every inch of that 2,000-mile border. Madam Speaker, we do not need a wall on our southern border. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of resources, and it takes our eye off of the real threats to this country. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposing a wall from this new administration.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday at 1:30 p.m. in El Paso, Texas, hundreds of my fellow citizens will come out to San Jacinto Plaza to join us in celebrating, supporting, and defending those DREAMers who, across this country, are 700,000 strong, who were brought here at a young age are now contributing in, living in our communities, going to school, serving in the military, and helping to create jobs and grow our economy. I am also introducing tomorrow the DREAMer Information Protection Act to protect those DREAMers who voluntarily came forward out of the shadows to give their personal information, their names, telephone numbers, and addresses to the Federal Government. I want to protect them and make sure that same government doesn't turn around and use that information to deport them, as the incoming administration has promised to end the executive DACA action and potentially deport those DREAMers on who this country is depending, not just for our economic success but our growth and success as a country that has always gained from immigrants who contribute to the American way of life.