Beto O’Rourke

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. I want to thank Representatives Lamborn, Barrow, and Jenkins for their bipartisan work on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we obviously need a comprehensive solution to the sequester. Ideally, that's what we would be doing. I don't want to proceed in a piecemeal manner, but absent a comprehensive solution, I think we have an obligation to act to ease the pain of the sequester when and where we can. At Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, 11,000 Department of Defense civilian employees are furloughed for 11 days, which is a 20 percent pay cut for the remainder of this year. These workers are essential. Many of them work at Beaumont Army Medical Center, where they care for our wounded warriors returning from war. Those wounded soldiers are now facing longer wait times and reduced care because of these furloughs, and it is already becoming harder to retain the best employees. We have to do better both by our servicemembers and those civilian employees, who are so critical to our military. I urge all of my colleagues to help prevent more furloughs and to support this amendment.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to warn my colleagues about the Corker-Hoeven amendment within the Senate's immigration bill. To my colleagues who are concerned with the fiscal health of our country, I call your attention to this provision, which will commit $50 billion to double the size of the Border Patrol, add 700 miles of walls and fencing between the U.S. and Mexico at a time when we have record- low northbound apprehensions and net migration from Mexico is zero. To my colleagues who cherish our civil liberties and our constitutional rights, can you live with a $50 billion militarized buildup within the United States where more than 6 million of your fellow citizens live? And to my colleagues who care about human rights and the sanctity of human life, more than 5,000 people have died crossing the border into the United States over the last 15 years. Let's not perpetuate this problem; let's solve it. We need comprehensive reform, but we need comprehensive reform that's rational, that's humane, and that's fiscally responsible.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a place that is very near and dear to my heart, a place that is the source of great beauty, the source of millions of jobs for this country, an economic driver, not just for the region that I represent, not just the State in which my district resides, but for this entire country and, for that matter, this hemisphere. I am here today to speak about the U.S.-Mexico border, and I have the privilege and honor of serving with other Members who represent significant sections of the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border. We are joined today by Susan Davis from California; Pete Gallego from Texas; and Filemon Vela, who is also from Texas. But before I yield to them, I want to talk a little bit about my special section of the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas. El Paso is home to more than 800,000 people who, along with the citizens of Ciudad Juarez, form one of the largest binational communities anywhere in the world. El Paso has for decades served as the Ellis Island for Mexico and much of Latin America. Literally millions of immigrants who are now U.S. citizens, who are productive members of our communities, have passed through the ports of entry in the district that I have the honor of representing. Beyond that and beyond the human dimension of what the border produces, the beauty, the wonder, the creativity, the culture that develops from there, the border also is an important part of who we are as a country and our past. It is one of the most essential places anywhere in the United States today, as seen by the debate that is taking place in the Senate; and it is the future of this country, whether you look at it demographically, whether you look at it economically, whether you look at it culturally or by any other measure, the border is absolutely critical to the United States. I want to talk about a couple of aspects that help to define this critical place that the border holds for this country. I thought I would start with trade. There are more than 6 million jobs here in the United States that are dependent on the trade that crosses our ports of entry at our southern land ports between the United States and Mexico. More than 100,000 of those jobs are in the district that I represent in El Paso, Texas. The State of Texas itself has 400,000 jobs that depend on this trade. More than $300 billion a year flows between our two countries. Mexico is the second largest export market for the United States. We are the largest export market for Mexico. And a critical aspect of the trade that comes into the United States from Mexico that is very important to remember is that unlike any other trading partner that we have, more than 40 percent of the value of the trade that comes north from Mexico originated in the United States. So we are literally producing together even those things that are imported into the United States from Mexico. Again, Mexico is a source of jobs. It's the source of so many things that are positive to our economy, our culture, and to our communities; and all that comes to a head at the U.S.-Mexico border. Now, if you're listening to the debate that is taking place right now about comprehensive immigration reform and some of the provisions that have passed out of the Senate and some of the commentary that you read in the newspapers or the talking heads that you see on TV, you might not know that. You might instead see the U.S.-Mexico border as a source of anxiety, as a threat to this country's security and its future, as something to be feared, to be locked down, to be secured, and to be forgotten. We're here to tell you today that the facts and the truth and the reality could not be further from the current debate that you're hearing on the public airwaves today. In fact, the community that I represent, El Paso, Texas, is the safest city in the United States bar none. It was the safest city last year in the United States, and the year before that. In fact, for the last 10 years, El Paso, Texas, has been among the five safest cities anywhere in the United States. But El Paso is not alone for its security along the U.S.-Mexico border. San Diego is the second safest city in the United States. Laredo recently ranked as one of the top safest cities of any city in the United States. In fact, if you're on the U.S. side of the U.S.- Mexico border, chances are you're safer there than you could be anywhere else in the country. And these benefits do not just accrue to El Paso, to Texas, and to the border lands. There are jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs in States throughout the country, billions of dollars of economic growth related to our trade with Mexico, not just in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California, but Montana, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Again, it is important to emphasize that even that trade coming north from Mexico in many cases originated in these other States that are not border States. So one of the messages that we hope carries from today is regardless whether you are in El Paso, Texas, and understand the border inherently, or if you're in Detroit, Michigan, you have a vested interest in a healthy border. A healthy border equals a healthy U.S. economy. That equals more jobs, more economic growth, and more positive factors for the U.S. going forward. So with that introduction of what it is that we hope to cover today, I now want to yield to Pete Gallego, who by land mass represents almost a quarter of the State of Texas, someone who has served in the State legislature, someone who lives and understands the border and can speak to the positive dynamics that we see there.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I want to thank Representative Gallego for his very eloquent support of moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform and doing so in a rational, fact-based manner. And I think he would agree with me that we are very pleased to see progress being made in the Senate. Whether it was originally with the Group of 8 or the 60 or more Senators who have since joined them in key supportive votes to move this forward, I'm happy that we're making progress. What concerns me are some of the provisions that specifically relate to the U.S.-Mexico border: You're talking about 600 miles of border fencing and walls that currently exist being expanded to more than 1,400 miles of the 2,000- mile border. You're talking about a Border Patrol force that today is more than 20,000, which is more than double what it was in 2001, being doubled yet again to more than 40,000, and all this for the cost of upwards of $50 billion a year. And as Representative Gallego pointed out, this is at a time of tight budgets, of sequester, of record deficits and debt. We simply can't afford to move forward like this. But I will grant the proponents of these measures this: there's a certain crude logic to that. If you have a problem with immigration, if you have a problem with flows northward from Mexico and Latin America, then putting a wall in place, doubling the Border Patrol that's patrolling that line, there's a crude logic to it. And it's a solution, albeit a 19th century solution, as our Senator said, to a problem, but it is a problem that, by all accounts, does not exist. Net migration from Mexico last year was zero. We had record southbound deportations, record low northbound apprehensions. We're spending $18 billion a year on border security, twice what we were spending in 2006. As I mentioned before, we've more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol, and the border is as secure as it has ever been. El Paso, the safest city; San Diego, the second safest. The U.S. side of the U.S.- Mexico border is the safest place to be anywhere in the United States today. We had no less authority than the Secretary of Homeland Security say the border is as safe as it has ever been. The head of the Border Patrol said the border is as safe as it's ever been. By any rational measure, that is not where the problem exists. This next slide, I think, in an image and in a picture, shows you where the problem exists today. This slide here represents the Paso del Norte port of entry coming back into El Paso from Ciudad Juarez. There are 6 million crossings each year between El Paso and Juarez, and many of those coming north are U.S. citizens, Mexican citizens, and tourists visiting our region, who face these kinds of lines that can last upwards of 4 hours to enter the U.S. And for those of you who have not been to El Paso, you may not know that we, with Ciudad Juarez, are literally joined at the hip. Our street grids flow into each other. Our families live on both sides of the border. We may wake up in El Paso, do business in Juarez, and come back at the end of the day--or vice versa. We are truly a binational community. And when you choke commerce that supports tens of thousands jobs in my community, jobs throughout this State and this country, you're doing a disservice not just to us--because I don't expect the rest of Congress to care about the border, necessarily--not just to the State of Texas, but you are doing harm to the national economy. So if we need to spend more money, if we need to put tighter focus on the border, this is where we need it. And those Border Patrol agents that we have are doing a remarkable job, and we stand fully behind them and want to make sure that we support them in their current objectives and that we can afford to pay them what they're owed, which by the way, under the sequester, we're not doing today. Instead of taxing resources where we already have it covered, let's move those resources to our ports of entry and make sure that we have Customs and Border protection officers who can speed the flow of legitimate travel, trade, and commerce through our ports of entry. That will create jobs not just for my district and improve the quality of life not just in El Paso and along the border, but it will be a net benefit to this country. It will be an investment that pays back many, many times over. And now to hear from somebody who also understands the U.S.-Mexico border quite well and who lives there, who has his family there, has grown up there, and has done a remarkable job representing the interests of the U.S. border, I'd like to yield to Filemon Vela from Brownsville, Texas.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I want to thank my colleague from the Rio Grande Valley. Here he is meeting the anxiety, the paranoia, and the legislation based on emotion instead of facts with the cold, hard truth of our economic interdependence with Mexico. We ignore this at our peril and to the peril of millions of jobs in this country, hundreds of billions of dollars of economic opportunity and growth. We welcome the focus and the attention at the U.S.-Mexico border, but we want those who are watching to see the truth. The truth is we are a positive, dynamic source of jobs and economic opportunity for this hemisphere for both Mexico and, most importantly for us in this body, here in the United States. It is my feeling that the wall that exists today--the 600 miles of the 2,000 miles that join the United States and Mexico--the 600 miles of fencing today will soon be looked at by a majority of Americans in this country as something to be ashamed of, as folly that followed the paranoia and the anxiety that we have towards Mexico and the U.S.- Mexico border today. When you think about the cost of this wall, the current wall cost us more than $2.4 billion to build and will cost us another $6.5 billion to maintain for just the next 20 years. Why would we then spend more than $16 million per mile for additional walls that will cost us billions of dollars to build over the next 5 or 10 years and then probably hundreds of millions, if not billions, to remove once we've realized our mistake, which I hope is not too far in the future. If there is fear and anxiety and frustration with Mexico, I'd like to know where that's coming from, because it's not coming from the facts and the figures that we see in El Paso and that we see when we look at Mexico. Mexico is a growing, dynamic, vibrant economy. It has millions of people moving into the middle class. It's modernizing. It's breaking up its monopolies. The country of Mexico has more free trade agreements with other countries than any other country on the planet. This is a country that wants to move ahead, that wants to do well for its citizens, that's investing back in itself and is providing opportunity so that people don't seek that opportunity in other countries like the United States. I think that helps explain why net migration from Mexico into the U.S. was at zero this past year. Again, Mexico is not a threat. The U.S.-Mexico border should not be a source of anxiety. Mexico is a big part of our future, it's been a big part of our past, and it's a positive source for those things that we want to see happen in this country. Someone who understands that quite well from representing her district along the U.S.-Mexico border in southern California--part of a State, by the way, that has seen more than a 30 percent drop in crime over the last 10 years despite, and maybe because of, the fact that it borders Mexico and has such large immigrant populations--I'm happy now to yield the floor to my colleague from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. O'ROURKE. Thank you Representative Davis. I appreciate hearing, again, more facts, more rational arguments, from my colleague from California about the border. I place that in contrast to, again, the anxiety and the fear that is surrounding much of the border policy that we're hearing from the Senate and in some circles here in the House. The reason that we are so sensitive to that here on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border is we bear the brunt of those policies. The disproportionate burden of the enforcement, of the cost to our economies, to our way of life, falls to those communities that reside on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border. But what is the source of that anxiety and fear? Where does it come from? If I had to characterize it bluntly, I would say that it comes from those who feel that Mexican nationals are coming to our country to steal our jobs, take our resources, consume our benefits, and put our country at an economic disadvantage. But again, if we take that and then actually look at the underlying facts, we see a far different picture. The Congressional Budget Office has recently scored the comprehensive immigration reform proposal from the Senate and has found that over the next 10 years it will net $197 billion in deficit reduction for the United States. That's a huge positive for this country, and that's by the numbers by a nonpartisan analysis of the facts. The next 10 years following that first decade, it jumps to almost $700 billion in deficit reduction. Those are net positives to this country. Even for those immigrants who are here today in an undocumented status, we find that they are net contributors to our economy and to our tax system rather than net beneficiaries in terms of drawing down those benefits and resources. So any way you look at it, any way you cut it, immigration to the United States is positive. Again, the factors that we see today in Mexico lead us to believe that the situation will only get better. Mexico is the 14th-largest economy in the world by GDP. It's expected to grow from this year to 2016 by almost 5 percent annually. The lowest unemployment rate in all of Latin America is in Mexico today, and we expect it to fall as low as 3.5 percent by 2016. If we have net-zero migration from Mexico today, I think there's a good case to be made that it will be a negative number by 2016. There is absolutely no sense in building 1,000 miles more of walls, of spending $50 billion in doubling the size of the border patrol, for a threat that does not exist, for a problem that does not exist. I think we've illustrated where those resources would be better spent--to create more jobs, more economic growth, and more positive development for the U.S. economy and for our country. Someone who I think has been quite articulate on this issue in the past, especially from his perspective on the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, is representative Raul Grijalva, and I now yield such time as he may consume so he can illustrate the positive dynamic of the U.S.- Mexico border.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank my colleague from Arizona for talking about the moral dimension of this issue and for putting a human face on a problem and also on the opportunity, the other side of that problem, that being the opportunity we see along the U.S.-Mexico border. To add a little bit to what he said, if you just look at the numbers in terms of northbound apprehensions along our southern border, 7 years ago the average agent apprehended 106 migrants for every agent patrolling the line. Last year, it was 17. In the El Paso sector, it was 3.5. The Corker-Hoeven proposal to add more than 800 miles of additional border fencing to the tune of billions of dollars in order to double the size of the Border Patrol to the tune of more than $40 billion is a solution in search of a problem. Not only that--not only is it a waste of taxpayer money--it is also going to cause harm and death along the border. Last year, 477 people, human beings, died in trying to cross the southern border. It's the second highest number on record despite historically low migration. So, as we build these walls and fortify our border, we push people who are coming here for economic reasons further out into more treacherous, harmful and deadly terrain--and they are dying. More than 5,000 people have died in this manner over the last 15 years. Today, someone is eight times more likely to die crossing than one was 10 years ago. Whether you look at this issue from a moral perspective, what we are doing in proposing the Corker-Hoeven amendment to comprehensive immigration reform is wrong. Whether you're looking at it from an economic perspective, where we have record job growth and creation related to our trade and commerce with Mexico, shutting that down and not applying resources to facilitating that trade is wrong. When you look at it in terms of good policy and being good stewards of taxpayer money at a time of sequester and at a time of deficits and record debt, this proposal is wrong. I do want to say that comprehensive immigration reform is a good thing, and we want to see it move forward, but let's not attach proposals like this one to it that will do far more harm than good and may imperil its chances of success in this House and for this country going forward. Before I close, I do want to yield to my colleague from the Rio Grande Valley, Filemon Vela, who wants to make sure that we are focusing on problems where they truly exist, not where they have been created for political purposes.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank my colleague from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hope that what we have discussed today has been able to illustrate the positive dynamic of the U.S.-Mexico border. What we have offered historically to this country, whether it is Ellis Island for much of Latin America or the economic growth that we've seen, not just along the border and in border States but for this entire country, 6 million jobs depend on the commerce and trade that cross our ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border today. I hope we have also been able to illustrate how harmful policies don't just hurt the U.S.-Mexico border but how they hurt the rest of this country in our ability to grow this economy and create more jobs. Lastly, I hope that we've been able to show a positive way forward where we can have comprehensive immigration reform, where we can respond to concerns about a secure border but do so in a way that does not sacrifice our economy, our way of life, and our Constitution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, the Federal Government is facing some of the most complex challenges in our Nation's history and dealing with serious budget constraints. In order to do more with less, it is critical that we have a first class Federal workforce. The government must make the proper investments in its employees and take the steps necessary to recruit, retain, and develop its talent. The media often focuses on what goes wrong in government, but today I want to take a moment to recognize the important work of the more than 800,000 Department of Defense of Defense (DoD) civil servants who provide essential services to help keep our country safe. DoD civilians are partners in our national defense and integral to the success of DoD military operations. I represent Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas and to echo the words of Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta when he visited the installation, ``let me be clear--Fort Bliss is the premier post in America.'' The critical role this post plays in our national defense is supported by more than 11,000 full-time civilian employees. We live in a world where the threats to our freedoms are diverse and we must ensure that our civilian workforce is up to the task of protecting the American people. To succeed in carrying out the complex tasks of the Department, Congress must enable all these employees to excel in their jobs. We must compensate them commensurate with their responsibilities; provide them with a quality of work life that fosters long-term growth; and work to ensure that labor-management relationships remain strong. This year Congress debated multiple amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 that aimed to weaken the civilian workforce at DoD. These amendments would greatly expand the A- 76 process and direct the Department to contract out any function not considered to be ``inherently governmental''--regardless of policy, risk, or cost to DoD. The Congress outlawed the use of the A-76 process during the Bush Administration after the finding by DoD Inspector General that it was biased against federal employees, and by the Government Accountability Office that the costs of associated with the process often exceeded estimated savings. Additionally, in testimony before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, DoD Comptroller Robert Hale acknowledged that contractors are twice as expensive as civilian employees stating that ``if you're going to have a job over a long period of time . . . it's probably cheaper to have a civilian government employee to do it.'' For these reasons, I voted against these amendments. As the Nation's largest employer, I believe that the federal government has a responsibility to lead by example to be a model employer. This is especially true for the Department of Defense. Since being elected to Congress, I have met and worked with many civilian employees at DoD and am inspired by their dedication. Our military and country are stronger because of them, and I will continue to support efforts that strengthen our federal workforce.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of the McGovern-Smith-Lee-Jones-Garamendi amendment to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. I have the distinct honor of representing Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, home to 33,000 Active Duty Army servicemembers and their families. Since the start of this war in Afghanistan, 41 soldiers from Fort Bliss have lost their lives in combat. In April of this year, five Fort Bliss soldiers lost their lives in a single IED attack. All five of them had already been awarded both a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Just this past month, three Fort Bliss soldiers were killed in a single attack. More than 100 have been injured in combat and awarded the Purple Heart. Countless soldiers are coming back to our community with unseen mental injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder. And already this year, three soldiers at Fort Bliss have committed suicide. This terrible loss of life should focus us on our solemn responsibility to know when to bring our soldiers home to their families. We are grateful to their service and their achievements. Because of them, Osama bin Laden has been killed. The Taliban has been weakened, and the Afghan people have been given the opportunity to develop a stable and democratic state, if they so choose. I believe now is the right time to responsibly end the longest war in our Nation's history. The amendment would help ensure that the President sticks to his timetable to end combat operations by the end of this year and bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan by the end of next year. This amendment will save lives, and it honors the sacrifice of our soldiers who have lost their lives by guaranteeing that Congress fulfills our constitutional responsibility to decide when to send our soldiers into harm's way and how long to keep them there. I urge all of my colleagues to support it, and bring our soldiers home.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair and the ranking member of this subcommittee for their work on this bill. It's certainly one that I'm very happy to support. Given the importance of trade at both our northern and southern land ports of entry, I am particularly pleased that the bill includes 1,600 new CBP officers to expedite trade at our ports. I planned to offer an amendment that would have helped to target these new officers to the busiest ports of entry. It would have required the Department of Homeland Security to submit a report detailing the average crossing times at the busiest land ports and what the staffing needs are to ensure that we can reduce those wait times to 20 minutes or less. I understand my amendment would be subject to a point of order, but I look forward to working with the chair and ranking member to address this issue as the process moves forward. Very quickly, wait times right now at our ports of entry are unpredictable and they are inconsistent. People can wait as few as 20 minutes or they can wait as long as 2 or 3 hours to enter the United States at a pedestrian bridge, as a commuter by vehicle. Or, most important, for our economy, trade can wait hours at a time to enter the United States. The economy that I represent in El Paso, Texas, has 100,000 jobs at stake that depend on this cross-border trade. There is over $90 billion in U.S.-Mexico trade that is crossing at those ports every single year. More than 6 million jobs in this country depend on that U.S.-Mexico trade that is crossing at our southern ports of entry alone. In the State of Texas, we have more than 400,000 jobs. In the State of North Carolina, we have over 100,000 jobs. That's why I think it's so important to understand the wait times and to be able to fix them and to move people and CBP officers where they are most needed. So, again, I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to address this issue going forward.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. O'ROURKE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, in 1962, President Kennedy established Peace Officers Memorial Day to honor the sacrifices made by officers who died in the line of duty. Last week, during this year's Peace Officers Memorial Day, I was privileged to meet Elisa and Miguel Garcia, who recently lost their first-born son, El Paso Police Officer Angel David Garcia. It was Officer Garcia's lifelong dream to serve our Nation in the city of El Paso, a dream he pursued with enthusiasm and dedication. Tragically, only 9 months after he joined the force, Officer Garcia was killed while on patrol this last December. Officer Garcia dedicated his life to making El Paso and our Nation a better and safer place. He was both a Marine reservist and a patrol officer with the El Paso Police Department, and he was a loving older brother to his sister, Allyson, and to his brother, Mickey. Angel Garcia's selfless service serves as an example to all of us. On behalf of all El Pasoans, I thank Officer Garcia and all those who serve our communities in law enforcement. Our community is proud to remember him as one of our finest.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. I would also like to thank the chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member for sponsoring this legislation and the chairman and ranking member of the full committee for bringing it forward. I'm pleased to be a cosponsor of the American Heroes COLA Act. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Arlington National Cemetery with other Members of Congress and had the opportunity to place a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This incredibly moving and grounding experience reminded me of the ultimate sacrifice given by so many of our veterans. For those who return from service wounded or develop disabilities as they age, veterans benefits are what allow them and their families to live in some level of comfort. These modest benefits are often the difference between paying the mortgage and putting food on the table or going without. The legislation before us offers veterans security and guarantees that cost-of-living adjustments will happen automatically and not depend on yearly congressional approval. In addition, H.R. 570 will substantially increase benefits for the most severely disabled veterans receiving special monthly compensation. The bill also protects veterans from benefits cuts should a chained CPI be adopted for Social Security. While I oppose adoption of the chained CPI for Social Security, I think it is important we act now to take the issue off the table for veterans benefits. I represent thousands of El Paso veterans who have served our country and rely on VA benefits to make ends meet. They deserve the security of knowing those benefits will be adjusted when their cost of living rises. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be introducing the Foster Children Opportunity Act today. This legislation will ensure that abused and neglected immigrant children have an opportunity to succeed in our country. It is supported by over 175 child welfare organizations. As we debate immigration reform, it is critical that we consider the needs of immigrant children involved in the child welfare system. This is a population that is especially vulnerable and frequently overlooked. Despite being eligible for special forms of immigration relief, foster children are slipping through the cracks and leaving care without a resolution of their immigration issues. As a result, they cannot work legally in the U.S. and face the threat of deportation back to a country they don't know, one where their abuser may still live. We owe these children better. My bill will make sure immigrant foster youth are assisted with resolving their immigration issues prior to leaving care and guarantees that they have access to programs, such as Medicaid that foster youth depend on to make a healthy transition into adulthood. May is National Foster Care Month. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Foster Children Opportunity Act.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Today I joined Jim Bridenstine in filing a bipartisan constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to decide whether and how to limit the terms of its Members. Our measure would not prescribe the number of terms a Member would serve; but by giving Congress the power to ultimately decide, I believe it will foster a productive conversation about how to make Congress more responsive to the needs of the American public. Many in our country feel that Congress is focused on reelection to the exclusion of solving our country's problems. They are rightly concerned about the enormous powers of incumbency and the corrupting influence of money as well as the uncompetitive, gerrymandered districts where the Representative chooses his constituency and not the other way around. We owe our constituents institutional reforms that address these concerns. Enacting comprehensive campaign finance reform, fixing the congressional redistricting process, and moving forward with sensible term limits can improve how Congress works. I urge all my colleagues to join in this reform agenda.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize five servicemembers who died last Saturday in Afghanistan. First Lieutenant Brandon Landrum; Staff Sergeant Francis Phillips; Specialist Kevin Cardoza; Specialist Brandon Prescott; and Specialist Thomas Murach were killed by an IED while on patrol in Kandahar province. All five had been awarded both a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, and all five were stationed at Fort Bliss in the district I represent. Since 2011, Fort Bliss has lost 83 soldiers in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This incredible loss of life has deeply impacted the families, friends, and fellow soldiers of the fallen, as well as the Fort Bliss and El Paso communities. Each casualty reminds us of the ongoing human toll of the Afghanistan war, now going into its 12th year, and increasingly out of sight for many Americans. The terrible loss of these five soldiers reminds us of our solemn responsibility to our servicemembers, not only to be cautious when sending them into harm's way, but also knowing when it is time to bring them home.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Benefits Claims Faster Filing Act. This no-cost legislation will shorten the time that veterans must wait for their claims to be decided. Nationally, the average wait time for a claim is nearly 300 days. In El Paso, Texas, the veterans I represent wait an average of 439 days. We must do better. My legislation will require the VA to report and post processing times and award rates for claims filed in a variety of ways, from the fastest way, which is a fully developed claim filed online, to the slowest way, which is filing an underdeveloped claim on a non- standardized piece of paper. Informing veterans that they will wait the least amount of time if they file fully developed claims online will create an incentive to do so. Fully developed claims are consistently turned around in 100 days or fewer. Imagine a veteran in your district saving months of waiting unnecessarily for a decision on their claim. We owe a lot to our veterans, and we can uphold our end of the bargain to them by ensuring that they receive the benefits they have earned and depend on in a timely manner. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Faster Filing Act.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary students, parents, and faculty of Cathedral High School in El Paso, Texas. Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting with many of Cathedral's best and brightest, along with their principal, Brother Nick Gonzalez, and Chief Justice Richard Barajas, who leads the Center for Advanced Studies. What Cathedral's students have achieved under their watch is truly incredible. This year, a record six graduating seniors have been designated as Gates Millennium Scholars and five others were finalists for this prestigious award that provides scholarships to outstanding minority students. Two others will be attending service academies. Overall, 98 percent of the graduating class of 115 has been accepted to college, and 32 seniors will be graduating with a degree from El Paso Community College in addition to their Cathedral diploma. Cathedral is representative of our vibrant binational community in El Paso. Over 85 percent of the student body is of Hispanic origin, with students from El Paso, Ciudad Juarez, and southern New Mexico. The school's rigorous curriculum emphasizes social justice and community service, so graduates are not just model students, they are also preparing to become model citizens. I am proud to represent Cathedral High School and expect great things from all the students I had the privilege of meeting yesterday.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my ``no'' vote on CISPA. There's no doubt that Congress must act to improve cybersecurity and combat ongoing cyber threats, but we should never legislate out of fear or sacrifice essential rights, such as privacy, in the name of security. Despite improvements, the bill contains unacceptable threats to privacy and lacks adequate safeguards and accountability. I am opposed to allowing private companies to share personal information with other companies and the government without making reasonable efforts to remove personally identifiable information. If Congress does not require companies to make these efforts, they will not do so. In addition, private entities will operate with immunity under this legislation, and the people I represent will have no recourse should their privacy be violated. The changes made to the bill did not address this underlying problem, and I could not vote for it. We can fix these shortcomings, and we should. Let's improve cybersecurity and protect the privacy rights of the people we are so honored to represent.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember William Brown McIlvaine, III, a naval flight officer from El Paso, Texas, who led an exemplary life. Lieutenant Junior Grade McIlvaine died last month during a training flight when his Prowler airplane crashed. In his 24 years, William accomplished remarkable things and touched many lives with his friendship and his kindness. He was commissioned from the U.S. Naval Academy with Merit in May 2010 with a degree in chemistry. His lifelong dream was to fly, and he earned his wings in May 2012 at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. William was also a gifted musician. He sang in a cappella groups and played the bagpipes. During his time at Annapolis, he led the Pipes and Drums, which toured the U.S. and played in parades, including the St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston. We remember William as someone who lived his dreams and died serving his Nation. On behalf of the El Paso community, I am proud to honor William's extraordinary life and his service.

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the ONE Campus chapter at the University of Texas at El Paso, UTEP. This spirited group of college students competed in the ONE Campus' Valentine's Day challenge, which encouraged students across the country to write to their elected representatives urging them to support international poverty-fighting programs. ONE Campus is under the ONE organization umbrella. With 300 million members around the world, this organization was founded to combat extreme poverty and preventable diseases. The UTEP chapter won the ``To Washington With Love'' challenge after collecting more than 120 handwritten letters and over 500 petition signatures and new member signups. Those messages were personally delivered to my office where my office and I got the message loud and clear about the importance of preserving these lifesaving programs. I could not be more proud of these students. Go Miners for winning the challenge and taking such an active role in the democratic process!

Mr. O'ROURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 25 and in support of the Van Hollen substitute. The majority has offered a budget that literally doubles down on the sequester. This would be a disaster for El Paso. It would mean twice as many Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) furloughs as they are already facing and longer lines at our bridges into the foreseeable future. Nearly 100,000 jobs in the El Paso region depend on the $80 billion in yearly cross border trade with Mexico. Longer lines at our ports of entry equals less trade and fewer jobs for El Pasoans. The majority budget includes a nearly $100 billion cut to Pell Grants for low-income students. At the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), 65% of students use Pell Grants to afford their education. It would mean deep and irresponsible cuts to programs my constituents rely on, including Medicare. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said the majority budget will result in 750,000 job losses this year. I cannot vote to put the future of so many El Pasoans at risk. We need a credible, long-term plan that does not compromise the economic recovery now taking place. Although far from perfect, the substitute budget offered by Mr. Van Hollen comes closest to this goal. It fully replaces the sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and revenues and stabilizes our finances by reducing the deficit by $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. If passed, this budget would prevent the 750,000 job losses associated with the sequester. Ending the sequester will also prevent furloughs for 20,000 El Pasoans, including our Border Patrol agents and civilian employees at Fort Bliss. The Van Hollen substitute also ensures we maintain a strong national defense while acknowledging that our military will be downsizing as the result of two wars ending. I support it as the most reasonable budget offered; however, the Van Hollen substitute fails to offer a solution to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for the long-term. We need a real budget that can get buy-in from both political parties. Instead of playing to the fears of the political extremes, why not work to find the middle and compromise? I came here to represent the interests of El Pasoans and govern responsibly. I hope that we can put the political posturing of this budget debate behind us and start finding real solutions.