Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am sure every Member of Congress thinks that his or her district is the most beautiful, the most unique of all, but the 23rd District in Texas is about 24 percent of the land area of Texas--it is a huge, huge area. I would like to highlight in 1 minute parts of the 23rd, take you around the 23rd in 1 minute. I think it is appropriate to start with the city of Alpine, my hometown.

Alpine is the county seat of Brewster County, which is the largest county in Texas. It is the home of Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross has more national rodeo championships than any other college or university in the Nation, and it is the birthplace of the National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association. If you have the opportunity, look up Brewster County. Look up Alpine.

I am thinking about Alpine a lot as I go home this weekend to address the Chamber of Commerce for my first time as a Member of Congress, and I am so looking forward to being home in the highest, tallest peaks of west Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't let the first week in Congress go by without taking a moment to congratulate Grandfalls-Royalty.

Grandfalls-Royalty is one of the smallest public schools in Texas, with a student head count of about 27 kids. They had 16 of those guys in uniform not so long ago to play in the State championship six-man football game. I am proud to say that Grandfalls-Royalty defeated Milford 73-28.

Grandfalls-Royalty made their first debut in a State playoff game. It was held in the home of the Dallas Cowboys, the $1.2 billion home of the Dallas Cowboys. Frankly, it was also called. For the 13th time this season, it was called by the 45-point mercy rule. That meant the game ended with still 6 minutes and 28 seconds to play in the fourth quarter. Quite an accomplishment for a small school, one in west Texas that I am very, very proud of.

Congratulations to Grandfalls-Royalty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this first day of our 2014 session to pay tribute to a husband, a father, a son, and a San Antonian.

Bobby Deckard was a San Antonio police officer who died on Friday, December 20. He had come in on his day off to substitute for a colleague. He was shot in the line of duty. He was only 31 years of age.

This past Saturday, San Antonio and its citizens came together to honor Bobby's life and bid him a final farewell. Thousands of people lined the streets, and thousands of police officers from throughout the country were present as police helicopters flew in formation above the burial service, in remembrance of someone who spent 7 years of his life helping the citizens of San Antonio.

During the ceremony, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus instructed police dispatchers to retire Bobby's badge number, 0582, and every officer throughout the city heard the retirement of that badge number.

In a November email, ironically, Bobby Deckard had aspired to join the honor guard, the honor guard that, in fact, escorted his flag- draped coffin. In an email to his supervisor, he wrote that was the highest position of honor inside the department. That tells us so much about him, so much about him even as we mourn his loss. He had a positive outlook and a great personality. His humor could win anybody over.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I ask that we all take a moment to remember Bobby Deckard, police officer from San Antonio, Texas, whose name will now be added to the National Law Enforcement Memorial, the only memorial in Washington that has never been completed.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Maloney's motion and to underscore the importance of the safety of dams.

I would like to talk for a moment about a small town in which I grew up in west Texas. I heard often the story of a fateful night in Sanderson, Texas, in June of 1965 after heavy rains caused a 15-foot wall of water to come rolling through Sanderson Canyon. The water came down with such force that it turned bridges and buildings into torpedoes. The two cemeteries lost burial markers, and caskets were washed out. Families lost homes. Many lost everything. There were 28 people in Sanderson, Texas, who died, and two were never recovered. Since that flood in 1965, 11 dams have been built, which in unison have acted as a flood control system for Sanderson Canyon.

We don't want any more Sanderson flood-type experiences. El Paso, Presidio, and Del Rio all have experiences with water rushing through canyons and, in coming through, causing damage. The only things that have saved life and property have been these dams that have been in existence now for some time.

As the ranking member mentioned earlier, those dams are incredibly important. They are incredibly important in saving property, and they are incredibly important in saving lives. Significantly, across the country, nearly half of these dams are more than 50 years old. It is incredibly important that they be maintained and maintained well.

In Del Rio, the Amistad Dam holds water from the Rio Grande, the Pecos River, and the Devils River. Imagine the importance of that dam. While that dam is maintained by a binational commission, there are many other dams in that region and in that area that serve not only to save water for agricultural purposes but for many other purposes as well. In fact, even in San Antonio, the world-famous River Walk is controlled by a series of small dams; and when it rains there, as it has recently, those dams have become incredibly, incredibly important.

In the Sanderson example that I gave earlier, households, up until recently, have been spending $700 a year on flood insurance annually even if there hasn't been a flood in 4\1/2\ decades. We can save a lot of people a lot of money if we just make sure that these dams are built well, that they are maintained well, and that they serve their functions not only now but in the foreseeable future.

So, with that, Madam Speaker, I again thank Mr. Maloney for bringing this issue to the attention of the membership of the Congress, and I rise in support of his motion to instruct.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

Madam Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

This past Veterans Day, I had the opportunity to recognize and to thank those who served in the military with a duty to defend our country. I and all of us, I think, who serve in this Chamber have a duty to these veterans to defend their needs here in the U.S. Congress, and that would include the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

I am very privileged to represent a portion of San Antonio, Texas, known as Military City, USA. This past weekend, at a Veterans Day ceremony at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, there was a different aspect of that celebration for veterans, because this past weekend, as we honored veterans on Veterans Day at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, there was also, at that same site, that same location, that same time, a naturalization ceremony, where 18 people, servicemembers, were naturalized:

Eddie Rivers, Theophilus Botchway, Lily Alexandra Caceres, Tashique Williams, Kwaku Bosoah, Kenneth Francis, Jr., Nabieula Samura, Maria Cervantes Ramos, Carena Garabet Akridge, Larry Ndungu, Elkanah Yator, Mario Alexis Mares, Omar Ruiz Perez, Guillermo Chavez Cardenas, Marlon Chris Gabriel, Petra Maria Thompson, Gabriel Adjetey, all of those were involved in the Veterans Day naturalization ceremony.

They came from Dominica, Ecuador, Germany, Ghana, Honduras, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago and Syria.

You see, each year about 8,000 noncitizens join the U.S. military. Their sacrifices throughout history have been many. Immigrants who served in the U.S. military are enlistees like Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, who was the first U.S. serviceman killed in combat in Iraq some 10 years ago. Mr. Gutierrez, who was a native of Guatemala, arrived in the U.S. without documents at the age of 14. He received his U.S. citizenship posthumously, after his supreme sacrifice.

Others, like Alfred Rascon, emerged from the war as high achievers. Mr. Rascon, who was an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was assigned to Fort Sam Houston for basic and for specialist medical training. He was awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam war. He became a U.S. citizen, and he later served as Director of the United States Selective Service System.

The list of stories of noncitizens who have served in the U.S. military is a very long list. Enlistments by immigrants are highest during times of war. At the end of the last decade, Madam Speaker, there were over 100,000 foreign-born individuals serving in various aspects in various capacities in our Armed Forces. That is why it is so important to recognize the contributions of immigration to our national security.

On social media, through Twitter and Facebook, I made it known that I was at this ceremony on Veterans Day in San Antonio, where not only were we honoring veterans, but there was a citizenship and naturalization ceremony at the same time. And there were many comments about, How is this possible?

Well, it is and it has been. In the years since 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have, in fact, relied on immigrants in our military.

Since 2002, over 89,000 military servicemembers have become U.S. citizens. Immigrants in the military and other agencies critical to our national security have served as translators, for example; and through their understanding of local communities and through their understanding of local customs, they have helped collect intelligence which better protects Americans, not only at home, but also abroad.

Unfortunately, today the House leadership said that they would not consider immigration reform this year, and, frankly, that is a real tragedy. They said they wouldn't even consider looking at the Senate bill as a starting point to negotiate.

H.R. 15, of which I am a cosponsor, has 190 other cosponsors and 25 or so Republicans who have vowed to support it, and thus, the votes are there to pass immigration reform.

In this time of excessive partisanship and excessive bickering, we have to find a way forward to do the right thing for our country, for our kids, and for our future. We have to figure out a way to succeed, even if we succeed sometimes in spite of ourselves.

Especially in today's political climate, so many of us here in the House, we repeatedly talk about our commitment to principles, our commitment to fighting for what we, as individual Members, believe in. But the reality is that, in a House with 435 people and with 100 Members of the Senate and an all-or-nothing attitude, many times it produces nothing, and that all-or-nothing attitude kills immigration reform. That all-or-nothing attitude produces nothing for children who have known no other home than the United States and are here through no fault of their own. It produces nothing of the estimated $775 billion in revenue and $125 billion in payroll from immigrant-owned businesses, and it produces nothing of the $175 billion in deficit reduction in the first 10 years after immigration reform is enacted or another $700 billion in deficit reduction in the 10 years after that.

Immigrants are so important to our country in so many ways. We say it all the time. We say it all the time. Ours is a Nation of immigrants. Immigration reform is critical to our economy, to our families, and, yes, even to our national security.

Thank you so much. I appreciate very much, Congressman Green, your leadership on this issue. It is incredibly important.

As I listened to Congressman Murphy and others talk on this issue, and you realize that one out of every three

women will feel the impact of domestic violence in her lifetime, you have to realize that, even among the people in this room, we know people who have been impacted by domestic violence.

All of us have a mom. Many of us have sisters. Domestic violence can impact anyone. Even though it is not openly spoken about many times, even though it is not openly addressed in our society, and even though many feel that it is something that could never happen to them, the truth is, it could happen to anybody, and it could happen to people other than women. Fourteen percent of the victims of domestic violence are men.

In 2012, in Texas alone, 114 people were killed. In the district that I represent, from El Paso to San Antonio, there were eight cases of domestic violence.

Everyone here, many of you have met my son, who has become the center of my universe. I will tell you that children are incredibly important. They are certainly important to me and to the Members of this Chamber, the Members of this body.

The truth is that kids are also impacted by violence because, many times, the child is also assaulted. In fact, according to a Task Force report, in several instances, the young children at the scene of the crime were also attacked, and, in fact, they were stabbed or strangled or shot or kidnapped, or some violence was committed on the children.

These numbers are heartbreaking. There are far too many people impacted. The sad part is that most of the time there are many signs of trouble. You can see it. There is a time in the life of every problem where it is big enough to see but still small enough to solve.

Researchers and service providers have already identified some common characteristics that help predict the risk factor as a precursor to intimate partner murders. Stalking, for example.

Stalking ranks as a top indicator of risk. Nationally, 76 percent of those cases involve at least one episode of stalking within a year prior to the murder. One in six women report having experienced stalking which made them feel very fearful or believe that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.

Intimate partner violence manifests itself from dehumanizing attitudes and beliefs, and it results in cruelty, brutality, degradation of the victims' physical, mental and spiritual well-being.

Ninety-nine percent of all woman who have died as a result of domestic violence never stayed in a shelter. Ninety-five percent had no contact with a certified domestic violence center within 5 years of their death.

There is help out there. We just need to get people to the help, and the only way that we can do that is if more people are aware of the resources that are available to victims of domestic violence.

As I said, all of us, statistically, we are going to know someone who has been impacted by domestic violence, and it is very important that we all work together to make sure that they all have the help that they need.

On any given day in the U.S., over 60,000 women and kids--60,000, think about that--60,000 women and kids are residing in domestic violence shelters. The shelters provide a critical, critical, critical service. It is up to us, our States, our communities and our fellow citizens to make a difference, to make sure that we step up to the plate and keep these resources available, keep the help where we need the help, so that we can stop those hearts from breaking, we can mend those lives, and we can help those kids.

I had the great privilege, as Mr. Green alluded to, of serving in the Texas Legislature for a long time, including service as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, and I carried a lot of legislation for victims of domestic violence.

I am very proud of those activities. I am very proud of that opportunity to be of service, and I hope that all 435 Members of this body and the 100 Members on the other side of this building will, all together, in a very bipartisan fashion, stand up and say, Let's put an end to domestic violence.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for yielding.

We were visited today by a group called Bibles, Badges and Business. One of the Bible passages which was quoted to me today is in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in which he talks about, I was hungry, and you gave me to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in.

That is the genesis, I think, for a lot of people who want, from a Christian ethics' perspective, to support immigration reform.

You also have the people who support immigration reform, frankly, because of the idea that they are parents. Frankly, I think any parent understands that, once you hold that kid in your arms for the first time, I mean, you will do anything you have to do to make sure your little boy or your little girl eats.

Then there are the economic arguments that we have been talking about. For me, the economic arguments also are so important because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, has cited a study that shows that immigrant-owned businesses would generate more than $775 billion in revenue with $125 billion in payroll and $100 billion in income. That is pretty impressive.

Do you know what percentage of the American workforce they could employ if they were unleashed? They could employ 1 out of every 10 workers, which is just a phenomenal statistic.

The other thought that I find really interesting is, of course, that immigrants are also consumers, and when they consume, they further drive the job growth. Now, many Members of Congress and, certainly, many people from Texas are familiar with George W. Bush.

Do you know there is now a George W. Bush Institute? Were you aware of that?

The George W. Bush Institute has, frankly, been a very strong proponent of immigration reform, and it has produced a 65-page document titled ``Growth and Immigration'' which states that immigrants serve as catalysts for growth. In fact, the report from the George W. Bush Institute says that communicating the positive economic contributions of immigrants is the first step in helping Americans recognize the hidden advantages of immigration. The institute is confident that bipartisan solutions exist and that, when properly informed, Americans agree more on this topic than they realize. That is pretty impressive coming from the George W. Bush Institute.

Further, the Congressional Budget Office shows that immigration reform wouldn't negatively impact U.S. workers and that it would reduce the Federal budget deficit by $175 billion.

So I think it is important that we get the facts out and that we make a difference because comprehensive immigration reform is so important to everybody from across the border. I have never seen so many groups unified to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 527 on the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I am not recorded because I was absent due to attendance at the funeral of Deputy Sheriff Billy ``Bubba'' Kennedy from Upton County who was killed in the line of duty after 14 years as a committed peace officer. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 528 on H.J. Res. 77, the Food and Drug Safety Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to attendance at the funeral of Deputy Sheriff Billy ``Bubba'' Kennedy from Upton County who was killed in the line of duty after 14 years as a committed peace officer. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the late Billy ``Bubba'' Kennedy, a deputy sheriff who was killed last night out in west Texas. A committed peace officer of 14 years, he was killed in the line of duty at only 38 years old.

A graduate of Iraan High School, Deputy Kennedy worked for 7 years at the Pecos County Sheriff's Department, where I met him. He also worked for 4 years at the Brown County Sheriff's Department before joining the Upton County Sheriff's Department in November of 2012. He is remembered by his friends, his colleagues, and his family. Deputy Kennedy's name will be added to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial next year. That is the only memorial in Washington, D.C., that will never be finished.

He leaves behind his beloved wife, Jodi; two sons, Lane and Blake, who are 10 and 15 years old; and his parents, Billy Frank and Della Kennedy.

I'm honored to have had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to recognize Bubba Kennedy, the deputy sheriff that I knew and respected. His devotion to his community and his family has truly impacted the lives of many and will continue to do so, even after his passing. In Rankin, Texas, which is such a small community in west Texas, where everybody knows everybody, his death, his loss is truly, truly deeply felt.

Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan told a story many years ago about a little boy who encountered a pile of manure and was very excited because he thought there might be a pony in there somewhere. And the truth is that a lot of people across the country are looking for a pony.

So many people understand across the board that this isn't really about veterans or parks or the Washington, D.C., budget. It's a fight over ObamaCare and whether ObamaCare gets funded or not, a subject that has had some 40-something votes in the U.S. House of Representatives.

And I will also tell you that today, I've spent my day talking to people on the phone. I spoke to a veteran employed with the Federal Government in San Antonio who is a single dad and is worried about how he will pay his bills. A retired sergeant in Fort Stockton with the same story. Two people who were very interesting, one who told me straight up that he was a Tea Party member in San Antonio, Texas. He said, If you have a fight about ObamaCare, that should be separate and apart from keeping the doors of government open. And a woman in Ozona, Texas, who told me the same thing.

But perhaps the best statement that I have had came from an airman who serves in the 23rd District who wrote me this:

While I and many others appreciate the gratitude expressed

in times like these, we have also become weary of the same.

Whenever the actions of our national leaders have a

negative impact on us, as government employees--which

seems to have become the norm over the last years--we hear

the same rhetoric. We don't want to hear how grateful and

appreciative our leaders are. We want them to show their

gratitude through deeds. Passing a fiscally sound budget.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, Members, we all know the rule that this motion doesn't kill the bill or send it back to committee. It just adds an amendment before proceeding to final passage.

There's a lot of confusion even here as the debate goes back and forth about whether or not veterans or kids are or are not included. There is a lot of apprehension around and across the country about the sequester and the budget and the government shutdown and how that impacts many, many different services.

Because SNAP is a hybrid program, part automatic and part not, the benefits that it provides are in jeopardy. So regardless of whether or not SNAP and the cuts here today affect kids or veterans, this is a safety net.

This motion to recommit simply says that there will be no delay in benefits for kids, for the elderly, for the disabled, or for pregnant women in case of a government shutdown or a default.

Much has been made of this huge philosophical divide in this Chamber, but the truth is that there is a lot of consensus, too, a lot of commonality. All of us--all of us--want efficient government. We all love our kids. We're all taught to respect our elders, and we are all grateful for the services of our veterans.

And yet, in typical Congressional fashion, this bill decimates an efficient program that's not even broken. It has only a 3 percent error rate, a very low error rate. Ninety-seven percent of SNAP beneficiaries get SNAP because they need it. Ninety-one percent of SNAP benefits go to households below the poverty level. That's $11,000 for an individual or $19,000 for a family of three people.

I want to particularly focus that 82 percent of the households receiving SNAP have kids or elderly. 210,000 kids will lose their school lunch, and for many, it's the only good and reliable meal that they have. As a parent of a young son, I bet I know some of those kids. And you know what? I bet you know some of those kids, too.

The nonprofit group Feed Our Vets says that there are many vets who already don't have enough to eat, and yet 170,000 veterans have their SNAP benefits impacted under this legislation.

We can have that fundamental philosophical divide about the budget or about the debt or about many things, but we should all agree that we should take care of our kids. And we can all agree that we owe an obligation to our veterans.

Already, in November, without any action by this Congress, SNAP will automatically lose its ARRA funding. The average beneficiary gets $133 a month. That's about $1.40, a little under, per meal. Try eating for $1.40 a meal or $133 per month.

San Antonio's food bank already serves 58,000 people per week. Imagine how many they'll serve if this bill goes into effect.

And speaking of San Antonio, there's a young lady there, a working mother of three kids. Her name is Delaney. She works full-time at a doctor's office. That's 40 hours a week. She raises three young boys, one the age of my own son.

Delaney said to me, I'm trying my best. I'm working hard. She'd like to

get a second job, but there'd be nobody at home to take care of the kids.

SNAP isn't a luxury for her, by any means--it's a necessity. The family relies on that, especially towards the end of the month when their budget is tight, to help them put food on the table.

If we can make the program more efficient, let's look at that; but this bill cuts $40 billion without public testimony, without public hearings, without investigation, without input. Somebody just decided that $40 billion needed to be cut. It is not a well-reasoned or a reasonable approach. Our veterans deserve more than that. Our kids deserve better than that.

Regardless of what happens on the debt ceiling or the government shutdown, let's not make our kids and our veterans casualties of a prolonged conversation. Let's be sure that there is no delay in SNAP benefits for kids, for veterans, for the elderly, for the disabled, or for pregnant women in the event of a government shutdown or default.

I'd ask all of you, because this is simply a safety net, to please vote ``yes'' on this motion, because all it says is, in the event of a government shutdown, these people--the veterans, the kids, the elderly, and the disabled--will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, today marks the 48th anniversary of the Medicare program, which has had a tremendous impact on the American public and on the quality of life of our seniors and our kids.

On July 30 of 1965, a fellow Texan, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed Medicare into law--a program that at the time was considered incredibly controversial. At that time, about half of our Nation's seniors didn't have health coverage. Today, in Texas, more than 3 million seniors, including our parents and our grandparents, rely on this program for crucial medical care.

The law has allowed our seniors to live with the peace of mind that health coverage will be available to them in their golden years. It is now just as vital to the long-term health and security of Americans as it was in 1965. We need to continue to demonstrate our commitment to those who have built

this country by strengthening Medicare for future generations. I am very glad that we have done things like starting to close the Medicare doughnut hole so that seniors are starting to save money on their prescriptions. In the first 6 months of 2013, more than a million seniors with Medicare have received at least one free preventative service--and our seniors have earned this through a lifetime of work.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply strikes three words, ``not to exceed,'' with respect to the budget of an office that I consider to be pretty important, and that is the Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.

As you look through the bill, every single part of the Office of the Secretary has a separate line item, and in looking at the bill, I noticed, for example, that for emergency response and security we have budgeted a little over $10 million. On the other hand, we have budgeted about twice as much for the lawyers for the Office of General Counsel. The lawyers somehow get twice as much as emergency response and security. Frankly, as I look at the list and how the money is divided, we spend $24 million roughly, which is nearly more than two times as much for the Assistant Secretary for Policy--all of that being more important than security.

For me, as a Member of Congress who represents some 59,000 square miles, including five ports of entry and 800 miles of the Texas border with Mexico, an area, frankly, where we have seen emergencies and emergency response before, frankly, where the Congress is consistently and rightfully concerned about security, it seems to me that we would give the Department of Transportation some additional flexibility.

This doesn't raise per se the amount of money that's available to them. What it does is give them additional flexibility so that in the event they don't spend the line items from the other items like the Office of Public Affairs or the Office of General Counsel, it gives them the flexibility to spend more money for intelligence, security, and emergency response.

I think if you ask every single individual Member of Congress what is more important, the lawyers or the Department of Transportation Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response; what is more important, the lawyers at the Department of Transportation or the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, all of these kinds of things, especially for a Member from the border, I think security is more important.

Again, it doesn't cost more money. It doesn't appropriate any more money, per se. What it does is gives the agency the ability to move money around and the flexibility to provide additional money, should it become necessary. Frankly, one never knows what kind of emergency is going to come up. One never knows what is going to happen, whether it's going to be a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. It always pays to have the emergency response folks have the level of flexibility that they need in order to understand that regardless of what happens, they have the opportunity to do their jobs and to do their jobs well.

Additional budget flexibility in times of limited dollars and limited budgets, I think, is very key. So what this amendment would propose to do is simply strike those three words, ``not to exceed,'' so that there would potentially be an opportunity for the Department of Transportation to spend more money on emergency response and security than the little over $10 million that's allotted to them for the whole year.

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

Thank you. I, too, want to thank my colleague, Congressman Cardenas of California, as well as the other members of our freshman class, for this important time to talk about an issue that is critical to the border.

Madam Speaker, the 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which I have the privilege of representing, runs some 800 miles along the Texas- Mexico border. It encompasses 29 counties, which are bigger than 29 States, and 10 of the counties that I represent are along the Texas- Mexico border.

It includes five ports of entry: Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Presidio, Fabens, and Zaragoza-Ysleta in El Paso. No other congressional district in the country shares a larger border with Mexico.

The impact of the immigration debate, it's a tremendous impact not only on the 23rd District, but truly in all of Texas.

There are many reasons to pass comprehensive immigration reform, but one of the best reasons is simple, straightforward economics. Let's take a look at the numbers.

According to a 2006 report by the comptroller of public accounts in Texas, ``the absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal year 2005 would have been a loss to the gross State product of $17.7 billion.''

Recently, I asked our current comptroller to update that study so that all of the Members of Congress from Texas would have updated information during a very important policy debate. Sadly, she denied my request. But a more recent study from the Immigration Policy Center noted that, if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Texas, the State would lose $69.3 billion in economic activity, $30.8 billion in gross State product, and approximately 403,000 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time.

Economically, here's what comprehensive immigration reform means for Texas:

It means that deficits decrease, while GDP, productivity, investment, and employment all increase;

If the unauthorized immigrants in Texas were allowed to earn a path towards legalization, total wages in Texas would go up by about $9.7 billion, tax revenue in Texas would increase by $4.1 billion, and nearly 200,000 jobs would be created;

For every unauthorized person required to be legalized in Texas, more than $1,000 would be added to the gross State product in 2014, and that number would increase to more than $4,400 by the year 2020.

Let's talk about the CBO score, because according to the nonpartisan CBO report to which the comptroller of Texas referred my office, that study notes that our country will save almost a trillion dollars over the next two decades with comprehensive immigration reform, more than 10 million people will now pay billions of dollars in income and payroll taxes during the first decade alone, and we reduce the Federal deficit by $197 billion at the same time that we add $200 billion to the Social Security trust fund.

In Texas, all of the key players are standing behind immigration reform. The chambers of commerce, the Texas Farm Bureau, the labor communities, the faith communities, and, frankly, public opinion. They're all singing from the very same hymnbook.

Usually you hear the phrase that we should ``run government more like a business.'' A business doesn't make decisions on the basis of emotion. A business makes decisions on the basis of economics.

Economically, comprehensive immigration reform makes perfect sense. Our Nation becomes stronger as more people pledge allegiance to our flag and commit fully to this Nation and our economy.

The time is now. The right thing to do, if you care about the Texas economy and you want it to grow and grow and grow, you want to support comprehensive immigration reform.

With that, I thank my colleagues.

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