[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10437-10443]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1550
                           U.S.-MEXICO BORDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  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

[[Page 10438]]

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. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, 
Congressman O'Rourke, my fellow west Texan, with whom I share the 
privilege of representing El Paso County, for yielding me this time to 
talk about some issues that are critical to the border.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't want to use any incendiary 
rhetoric. I don't want to use any flashy words because, frankly, I 
think that the people of this country elected their Members of Congress 
not to cheerlead or use harsh rhetoric or add fuel to fires, but to 
solve problems. So I would like to talk about some of the challenges 
that in real terms this Congress has the opportunity to make a 
difference on.
  The 23rd Congressional District, which I have the privilege of 
representing, runs some 800 miles along the Texas-Mexico border. It 
includes five ports of entry: Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Presidio, Fabens, 
and El Paso. No other congressional district shares a larger border 
with Mexico. The district is both rural and urban; and, frankly, it 
looks like what the rest of Texas will soon look like because it is 
evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Because this district 
has the largest border with Mexico, the policy discussion about border 
security, about immigration reform, these conversations greatly impact 
the 23rd Congressional District. Frankly, they impact the entire State 
of Texas. The passage or failure of immigration reform will profoundly 
affect us all.
  In Texas, there are approximately 1.7 million unauthorized immigrants 
comprising 6.7 percent of the State's population. According to a 2006 
report from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, who was a 
Republican office holder at the time, she indicated in her report the 
absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas 
in fiscal year 2005 would have been a loss to our gross State product 
of $17.7 billion. Well, as public servants, as I indicated early on, 
the weight of our words is rather heavy. I have asked the current 
controller to provide an updated study to shed some light on the true 
impact, the current impact, that our State has as a result of these 
undocumented immigrants.

                              {time}  1600

  The study would ensure that all 38 Members of Congress from Texas, 
and everyone else, can have adequate information during what is a very 
important policy debate.
  A more recent study from the Immigration Policy Center noted that if 
all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Texas, the State would 
lose $69.3 billion in economic activity. The State would also lose 
$30.8 billion in gross State product, and approximately 403,174 jobs, 
even accounting for adequate market adjustment time.
  Well, after more than two decades, I'm very encouraged that 
comprehensive immigration reform is clearing hurdles in the Senate. I'm 
hoping that our colleagues in the House will take it up as well as soon 
as possible.
  Make no mistake. The legislation that's in the Senate, it's not what 
I would have drafted. Those of us on the border know that what we need 
are more Customs and border protection agents at our ports of entry.
  Many jobs in Texas, much of our economy, in fact, is inextricably 
linked to international trade. In fact, more than 50 million Americans 
work for companies that engage in international trade. That comes to us 
from the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
  Trade with Mexico represents one of our biggest economic drivers and 
pumps billions of dollars into our economy every day. Every day, think 
of this, $1 billion in cross-border commerce happens between the U.S. 
and Mexico. That equates to some $45 million in commerce per hour.
  Staffing increases at our ports would decrease wait times at our 
ports of entry, would increase security, and would lead to more 
effective screening and entry for those who are traveling, as well as 
for imports that are coming into the United States. It is those long 
lines at our ports of entry that hinder economic development and harm 
our economy.
  Yes, it is true; no one will argue that our Nation's doorways must be 
secure and that our trade and our commerce along the border on which 
many small and large businesses depend must be allowed to move 
efficiently. And I'm hopeful that as debate on the immigration issue 
continues, as we continue our conversations, that we can increase the 
staffing at CBP, a policy move that does, in all truth, make sense for 
Texas.
  But as far as the fence is concerned, the border fence, in a time of 
tight budgets, I have to say that I'm very perplexed as to why Congress 
would spend so much money on an ineffective project. You'd be hard-
pressed to find too many Texans, particularly those who live and work 
or have been raised along the border, who support the notion of a 
fence.
  Let me give you a couple of examples and a couple of quotes:

       The idea that you're going to build a wall from Brownsville 
     to El Paso is just--it's ridiculous on its face.

  That quote comes from the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, just last 
year.
  How about this quote?

       The border fence is a 19th century solution to a 21st 
     century problem.

  That quote comes to us from Senator John Cornyn of Texas in 2006.
  As I've said, I'm opposed to the notion of a border fence and would 
rather that we shore up our ports to speed up commerce. A fence isn't 
something that those of us who represent the border support, but we 
understand that it is important to bring families out of the shadows.
  Economically, here is what comprehensive immigration reform means to 
those of us along the border and elsewhere:
  To each and every one of us, it means that our deficits will 
decrease, while GDP, productivity, investment, and employment will 
increase. Our country will save over $1 trillion, or about $1 trillion 
over the next two decades. More than 10 million people will pay $459 
billion just in income and payroll taxes during the first 10 years. And 
over that decade, we will reduce the Federal deficit by $197 billion 
and will add more than $200 billion into the Social Security trust 
fund. The decade after that, comprehensive immigration reform will 
reduce the Federal deficit by $700 billion.
  In Texas, all the key players are standing steadfast for immigration 
reform. It's supported by the chambers of commerce. It's supported by 
the Texas Farm Bureau. It's supported by labor, and it's supported by 
public opinion in our State because it makes economic sense.
  My paternal grandfather worked cattle and founded a small family 
restaurant that launched our family into the middle class; my maternal 
grandfather built fences across the hardscrabble landscape of far west 
Texas; and today, I have the privilege of representing the 23rd 
District in Congress.
  In this Nation, our values teach us that families stick together and 
that hard work, not circumstances, should shape our future. It really 
is a country of opportunity. Our Nation becomes

[[Page 10439]]

stronger as more people pledge allegiance to our flag and commit 
themselves fully to our Nation and to our economy.
  I'm hopeful that we can move quickly on this, this very important 
policy matter that greatly impacts not only the 23rd District, but the 
entire State of Texas and, frankly, our country as a whole. Immigration 
reform is right. The time is right, and Texans are counting on us.
  It is significant, if you've ever been in the Texas capitol. Years 
ago, our forefathers and foremothers who built that beautiful pink 
granite building faced the front door in a certain direction. Our front 
door of the State capitol doesn't face north, towards Washington. Our 
front door faces south, towards Mexico. The front door to our Nation, 
as Governor Richards used to refer to it, is a very important doorway 
for trade, for commerce. It's historically significant, not only for 
Texas, but for the rest of our country.
  Again, immigration reform is right for Texas, it's right for America, 
and it's something that this Congress should make sure happens as soon 
as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm very grateful to Congressman O'Rourke for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. 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.

                              {time}  1610

  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. VELA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. O'Rourke for putting together this 
Special Order.
  Today, I rise in opposition to provisions which condition a pathway 
to citizenship on the construction of additional border fence. 
Historically, our country has criticized the construction of barriers 
of all kinds. For instance, in 1987, President Reagan stood at the 
Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall and said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear 
down this wall. Two years later, the wall was demolished, ushering in a 
new era of economic harmony.
  As someone who lives on the border in Brownsville, Texas, I can state 
with certainty the argument that construction of additional border 
fence will stem the flow of undocumented immigration and increase 
border security is flawed, for many reasons.
  First, erecting some more border fence drives a wedge between border 
communities which are culturally united. Many who live on the U.S. side 
of the southern border have family and friends who live on the Mexican 
side and vice versa. The current border fence has come to symbolize 
divisiveness and serves as a daily reminder of a flawed immigration 
system. For this reason, the residents on both sides of the border 
oppose the border fence.
  Second, the construction of additional border fence will damage 
already fragile wildlife and natural resources. Bobcats, coyotes, owls, 
lizards, snakes, and raccoons all rely on habitat on both sides of the 
border. Additional fencing will adversely impact these and other animal 
habitat.
  Third, erecting additional border fence will cost billions of 
dollars. This money could be more efficiently spent on less intrusive, 
high-tech border surveillance and economic aid to border communities in 
the U.S. and Mexico. The focus of these provisions is misguided, as it 
promotes a quick fix to a problem that is rooted in violence and lack 
of opportunity. Since 2006, approximately 71,500 people have been 
killed as a result of cartel violence in Mexico.
  While Mexico's overall economy has performed exceedingly well in the 
recent past, economic conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border remain 
consistently stagnant. The real solution for

[[Page 10440]]

reducing the flow of undocumented immigrants into this country from 
Mexico is to promote economic development on both sides of the border, 
thereby providing more economic opportunities for an ever-increasing 
population. Fostering a vibrant border economy will mean that young men 
and women will have an option other than organized crime to provide for 
their families.
  While this amendment ignores the fundamental cause of illegal 
immigration into the United States, it also does not account for the 
deep trade ties between the United States and Mexico. As my colleague 
from Texas mentioned, last year alone the United States greatly 
benefited from the estimated $500 billion in trade with Mexico, 
supporting 6 million jobs across the United States. Trade with Mexico 
even impacted the economy of Alaska and our island State of Hawaii. 
Importantly, trade with Mexico is critical to the economies of States 
on the border and those far removed from the Mexican border. And I will 
give a few examples.
  In the State of New Hampshire, for instance, the total trade volume 
between the State of New Hampshire and the country of Mexico is $1.5 
billion. Computers and other electronic products amount to $680 
million, or 72 percent, of New Hampshire's total exports to Mexico. And 
28,531 jobs in the State of New Hampshire depend on trade with Mexico.
  In the State of New York, the total volume of trade between the 
country of Mexico and the State of New York is $5.67 billion. New York 
exports $2.6 billion of goods to Mexico, and 381,238 jobs in New York 
rely on trade with Mexico. Mexico ranks among New York's 10 
international markets, with 384,000 travelers per year. Jewelry is one 
of the largest exports from New York to Mexico, with $500 million in 
value.
  The State of Pennsylvania, the total volume of trade between the 
State of Pennsylvania and the country of Mexico is $5.59 billion, and 
246,409 jobs in Pennsylvania rely on trade with Mexico. Primary metal 
manufacturers are Pennsylvania's top sector in exports to Mexico, 
representing $560 million and 21 percent of the State's total exports 
to Mexico. In addition, $547 million in primary chemicals are exported 
to Mexico.
  In the South, the State of Tennessee, the total trade volume between 
the State of Tennessee and the country of Mexico is $7.62 billion. 
Tennessee exports $3.81 billion to Mexico. Twenty-three percent of all 
cotton exported to Mexico from the U.S. comes from Tennessee, making 
the State the second largest exporter of cotton to Mexico, with $256 
million in revenue. Also, $855 million worth of transportation 
equipment is exported to Mexico from the State of Tennessee, and 
122,085 jobs in Tennessee depend on trade with Mexico.
  The State of Alabama, the total volume of trade between the State of 
Alabama and the country of Mexico is $2.7 billion. Alabama exports 
$1.72 billion worth of goods to Mexico. Transportation equipment is the 
State's largest export industry to Mexico, generating $466 million and 
representing 27 percent of the State's exports to Mexico; and 86,212 
jobs in the State of Alabama depend on trade with Mexico.
  The State of Kansas, the total trade volume between the State of 
Kansas and the country of Mexico is $2.38 billion. The State of Kansas 
exports $1.63 billion in products to Mexico. Crop production is Kansas' 
strongest industry in terms of exports to Mexico, accounting for $588 
million in export revenue annually and 37 percent of total exports to 
Mexico. Eleven percent of aerospace products exported from Kansas go to 
Mexico. Mexico is the largest importer of corn and the third largest 
importer of beef from the State of Kansas. And 59,341 jobs in Kansas 
depend on trade with Mexico.

                              {time}  1620

  Clearly, all States benefit greatly from trade with Mexico. Erecting 
more border fence would chill the robust economic relationship that our 
country and our States enjoy with that country. Rather than 
constructing new hurdles to trade with Mexico, we should be tearing 
down trade barriers in order to promote and strengthen our relationship 
with our neighbor country.
  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).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here 
with my colleagues today. I certainly want to thank Mr. O'Rourke and 
Mr. Vela and Mr. Gallego for presenting what we all believe is so 
critical and so important.
  It's not just about border communities and border cities that 
acknowledge and benefit from our relationship with the border, and 
particularly with the Mexican border; it really is the entire States 
that we're representing and far beyond that. Because my colleague 
represented how much trade is done in other States throughout our 
country--we know it's important to national security--we also know it's 
important to our economic interest, because that trade fuels our 
economy, it stimulates our competitiveness, and it also reflects our 
cultural values. Those things are critically important, and we need to 
bring those into the discussion as well.
  You know, we often talk here in Congress about the need to give 
businesses

[[Page 10441]]

the certainty that they need, but honestly, look at what's been 
happening today. The budget standoffs and sequestration are doing just 
the opposite of what our businesses really need. In fact, Congress' 
inability to pass legislation is jeopardizing our greatest opportunity 
right now, which is economic growth, and that is our commerce along our 
borders.
  Six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico. Shall I say that 
again? Six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico. Last year, 
imports from Mexico accounted for more than half of our two nations' 
total trade, which is about $278 billion. Sometimes we can differ 
slightly on those numbers, but that's about what it is. That trade 
relies on modern infrastructure, it relies on roads, and it relies on 
ports of entry that can accommodate the enormous volume of goods coming 
through every single day.
  But what's the reality today? Well, the reality is that our ports of 
entry are in various states of disarray because of underfunding for 
improvement and modernization projects. Our ports do not have the 
capacity to meet this demand, meaning that often people have to wait up 
to at least 2\1/2\ hours during the day of commerce and trucks up to 6.
  You know, there's an app out there that tells users how long of a 
wait to expect. In San Diego, in the district, wait times on Sundays at 
the San Ysidro Port of Entry can reach 3 to 4 hours, and now and then 
it can even exceed that.
  The other day, I was up early getting ready to board a plane to come 
into Washington from San Diego; and even at about 5:30 in the morning, 
at the ports of entry, the wait was about 1 hour and 45 minutes. And 
you know what? They were celebrating the fact that it was only that 
long.
  You have to come down to the border to see this. I think for folks 
who don't live on a border like we have in San Ysidro in San Diego, you 
can't even imagine how many cars are assembling there. It's pretty 
spectacular. And you know what? It shouldn't be this way, and it 
doesn't have to be this way. No modern economy can operate under those 
conditions. No modern economy devotes just $50 million to fund 
infrastructure projects for ports of entry for our entire Nation. Think 
about that: $50 million for all of our ports of entry.
  What we should be doing is viewing our ports of entry and our borders 
as assets to our Nation. But instead, chronic underfunding has led to 
wait times that cost our country every day in total productivity loss 
and tax revenue. It's tremendous. Wait times translate to $7.2 billion 
in output loss and cost us upwards of 62,000 jobs--62,000 jobs--people 
who could be working if we could make our ports of entry more 
efficient.
  Well, we do have some good news. Congress has already authorized 
infrastructure improvements at the Nation's ports of entry, including 
critical phases at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego. We know 
that's the busiest land crossing in the world. So that's the good news 
that Congress has authorized that.
  What's the bad news? The bad news is that Congress has refused to 
provide the funding necessary to break ground on those two additional 
phases. And you know what? That's just not consistent for what we talk 
about as needing a border security bill for this Nation. The fact that 
that is so underfunded and chaotic, by any means, suggests that we 
don't really think that we need to do the right thing when it comes to 
border security.
  So let's place the need where it belongs. It belongs on 
infrastructure, and it belongs in trying to figure out what is it 
that's going to make a difference for this country. Well, certainly 
funding that border security will help on the border for ports of 
entry.
  If there is one thing that this body should be able to do, that we 
should be able to come together on, it should be a smart investment 
that businesses want and workers need. I can assure you, that's what 
they want and businesses need.
  So I urge my colleagues to get to work on a budget that supports our 
Nation's ports and our engines of economic growth and place the need 
for border security where it belongs. We know that it will help create 
the economic engines that we need for our future.
  Thank you so much to my colleagues. I appreciate your bringing us 
together for this.

                              {time}  1630

  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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas, 
Congressman O'Rourke, for organizing this discussion, a discussion that 
needs to happen. A discussion that talks about the border in a full 
context is drowned out by the shrillness, the overreaction, and a 
rhetoric that sometimes borders or crosses into hatred and fear.
  I represent District 3 in southern Arizona, 300 miles of border 
between the U.S. and Mexico that I happen to have the privilege to 
represent. Border communities, such as Nogales, San Luis, and Sasabe 
are all part of this district that I represent. I grew up in those 
borderlands, borderlands that share a common history, heritage, and 
share a

[[Page 10442]]

common dependency on the economic development and the jobs and the 
social welfare of those borderlands. That dependency is with our 
neighbors across the border in Mexico.
  I want to talk a little bit about looking at this context in very 
human terms, in geographical terms, and in historic terms. The 
discussion on immigration reform, when it comes to the issue of 
security, has been about how much more can we do in order to satisfy, 
in order to accommodate, and in order to draw more support for a 
comprehensive immigration reform package. I understand the logic, but 
I--certainly with the Corker amendment--don't understand at all the 
overkill and the excess.
  To double the number of border patrol agents without a strategic 
plan, without accountability for the 18, $19 billion that has been 
spent on this border up to this point, I think is throwing money, 
potentially good money, after bad.
  Second of all, to look at technology as the answer, we should also be 
looking at addressing our ports of entry, addressing the very, very 
real need of understaffing among Customs agents that are essential both 
to security and the flow of goods and services, trade, and economic 
development.
  My colleagues have indicated how many jobs depend on this trade. This 
is the second-leading trading partner in the world for the United 
States, Mexico is. We cannot have a border whose sole purpose is to 
shut down the availability of goods and services and to cripple and 
constrain the very trade that we need for economic development in this 
country. Many jobs depend on it, and certainly the health and well-
being of the region depends on it.
  The excess of security, based on the amendment to the legislation in 
the Senate, the overkill, as I called it--I think one has to harken 
back to discussions that have been before this floor in the past, and 
that has to do with how much is enough. I will take a very, very safe 
bet that regardless of how much, how many, and how much money is spent 
on security along that border--how high the fence is, how long the 
fence is--that there will still be those who get up on this floor and 
on the other Chamber's floor and demand more without a plan, without 
accountability, and without an audit for what's been done at this 
point.
  Let me discuss the current state of security on the border--the 
largest numbers of deportations, the largest number of detentions, 
20,000 Border Patrol agents on the border, largest number of 
apprehensions, and the reduction in unauthorized entries into this 
country, significant reduction. The plan in place to deter is, like it 
or not, working. And for us to layer that with additional money, 
additional personnel, is, I think, to me pure political symbolism and 
doesn't really address the issue of security.
  If you want to address the issue of security, you must deal with the 
ports of entry primary, you must fully staff Customs, and you must have 
the very necessary blend on the border of security, trade, economic 
development, and necessary and important exchange with Mexico.

                              {time}  1640

  Two issues: the humanitarian issue in Arizona.
  Arizona has been ground zero on the question of immigration and 
immigrants beginning with State Law 1070, which was thrown out by the 
Supreme Court, beginning with various legislative efforts at the State 
level to make immigrants a target in that State, many of those 
legislative efforts having been successfully defeated in the courts.
  The flow of drugs should be the point of concentration, the organized 
crime on both sides of the border, the gunrunning there, drugs coming 
this way, people-smuggling and the abuses associated with that. If 
there is going to be a security initiative as part of this new 
comprehensive immigration reform, let's be focused, let's be real, and 
let's address the real problem and the humanitarian crisis.
  Over 6,000 souls have perished in the desert in southern Arizona, in 
my district, and on the O'Oodham reservation--people desperate, people 
being left there by coyotes. It's a humanitarian crisis. If the money 
we are talking about for enforcement does not include rescue, 
humanitarian relief, then it's money that's not addressing the problem.
  I guarantee you that, over a 10-year period, if 6,000 people were to 
perish in any other part of this world, we would be calling it a human 
rights and a humanitarian crisis. It doesn't get the attention it 
should, but the tragedy continues. With this increased security, people 
will look for further and further, more desolate areas in which to 
attempt or to be dropped off by smugglers. Again, the deaths will 
increase. I suggest that that has to be part of it.
  Oversight in the context of security needs to be part of it. Human 
rights abuses along the border due to the increased militarization has 
to be part of it. A uniform policy for the use of lethal force has to 
be part of it. The GAO report on those very procedures I just mentioned 
has to be completed, and those recommendations need to be implemented 
before we continue to talk about giving more money without taking care 
of the civil rights, due process, and humanitarian crisis that we have 
on the border.
  We have an opportunity in this Congress to finally reform this broken 
system of immigration. We have an opportunity to do it in a just, 
humane, fair, and secure way. As we go forward with the debate in this 
House, let us hope that the discussion is over facts, that it's 
rational, that we talk about the human quotient involved in this 
discussion and not the pandering, fear-mongering and divisions that 
have marked this debate in this House, to which the leadership of this 
House instructs its Members. Let this be a debate about the future of 
this country, not the divisions of this country.
  I want to take time again to thank Congressman O'Rourke, a freshman 
who has taken leadership on this issue and on that of the borderlands, 
and I am very grateful for his organizing this.
  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

[[Page 10443]]

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. VELA. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke. I just have one final point to 
make.
  In neither Chamber nor, for that matter, in neither party, do we hear 
talk these days of two things that I think are very crucial to the 
debate, and that is the violence in Mexico. Both countries have an 
obligation to ensure that we eliminate that violence. Second is the 
economic development along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Mexican economy 
is doing exceedingly well in central Mexico; but along our U.S.-Mexico 
border, we still have a lot to go.
  Until we address those two things--the violence and the economic 
conditions along the border--we are going to have a very difficult time 
solving this entire problem.
  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.

                          ____________________