Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, Harlingen District Director Alfonso R. De Leon for his over 40 years of Federal service and in congratulating him on his upcoming retirement. Mr. De Leon began his career in 1970, when he joined the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, as a radio operator with the U.S. Border Patrol in Del Rio, Texas. In 1975, he transferred to Laredo, Texas, where he served with INS Inspections as Trainee, Journeyman, Training Officer, Special Case Officer, Supervisor, Assistant Port Director, Acting Port Director and, finally, Port Director. In September 1988, at the height of the influx of asylum-seekers brought on by political turmoil in Central America, Mr. De Leon was selected as the Assistant District Director for the Harlingen, Texas, District Office. In 1991, he was promoted to Deputy District Director. Mr. De Leon also played a leadership role during the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and in 2003 was named Interim District Director of USCIS. The following year he was promoted to USCIS District Director, a position he holds today. I have known Mr. De Leon since 1970. My friend and former colleague is truly an American success story, having worked his way up through the ranks of INS and DHS. He has always exemplified expertise, dedication, and professionalism in every position he has held throughout his career. As a result, Mr. De Leon has earned widespread respect from his colleagues and employees as well as numerous other local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. He has also been a leader in implementing innovative programs to enhance national security, eliminate the immigration caseload backlog, and improve customer service in the Harlingen District. Most importantly, Mr. De Leon is also a devoted family man. He and his wife, Mary Blanch, have three children and four grandchildren. I know that of his many accomplishments, Mr. De Leon is perhaps most proud of his fine family, and deservedly so. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing the House of Representatives' appreciation for Harlingen District Director Alfonso R. De Leon's service to our Nation and in wishing him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, I understand the critical need to have the best possible intelligence both to prevent terrorist attacks against our Nation and to protect our troops in the battlefield. But those who have tied passage of military commissions legislation to the collection of actionable intelligence are simply misleading the American people. I am deeply disappointed that military commissions legislation crafted by the White House and the Republican congressional leadership does not create a system that will pass constitutional muster. Like my colleagues, I demand that our Nation prosecute those who commit terrorist acts against us, but if Congress and the White House create a system of military tribunals that will be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, we will further delay justice for the victims of terrorism and for their families. The Bush administration has determined that we can legally hold all enemy combatants until the end of hostilities in the global war on terrorism, and as the National Intelligence Estimate released yesterday indicated, we won't be able to declare victory in the fight against terror and extremism anytime in the foreseeable future. So I ask, why are we in such a hurry to pass legislation that may do more harm than good? Why are we putting politics above victims of terrorist acts? Why are we endangering our troops? Protecting our Nation also includes protecting the men and women who are serving in uniform in battlefields around the world. I believe, along with other military and legal experts, that the Republican military commissions bill will be interpreted by the international community as redefining our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Our Nation must act from a position of strength, and we must think first of protecting our citizens before weighing how the world will view our actions. However, it is very unrealistic to simply ignore the impact that the changes included in H.R. 6166 could have on members of our military. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up, I cannot support H.R. 6166 as it is written. We can do much better for our troops, the victims of terrorism, and the American people.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Yes, I am.

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

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit states that the assets would go to the immigration matters that are in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. It has no reference at all about going to conference. I think those are very germane differences.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, before being elected to represent a border district in Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Border Patrol, including 13 years as sector chief in McAllen and El Paso, Texas. I have years of experience of patrolling the tough terrain of the U.S.-Mexico border region, supervising thousands of dedicated Border Patrol agents and working to do everything in our power to strengthen America's borders and to reduce illegal immigration. So I know from firsthand personal experience what works and what doesn't when it comes to border security and to immigration law enforcement. Given my background, Mr. Speaker, I attended many of the hearings on the border security and immigration that were called by the majority this summer, along with my Republican colleagues. It is obvious from the bill before us today, however, that though the Republicans held these hearings, they did not actually do very much listening. Rather than charging our already overburdened local law enforcement agencies with enforcing immigration law, which is, I might point out, a Federal responsibility, we need to give the Department of Homeland Security the resources that they need to do their job. With this motion to recommit, we help rectify the failure of the Republican leadership to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is 5 years overdue. Specifically, over the next 4 years, we would authorize a total of 8,000 new Border Patrol immigration agents, 1,000 additional immigration detention officers, 1,000 more U.S. marshals and 100,000 new detention beds. The idea that we have here, Mr. Speaker, is simple. If we are really serious about helping to stop illegal immigration, we have to give the Department of Homeland Security the personnel and the detention space that they so desperately need today. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that there are some Members of this House who either have no idea what Congress really needs to do to help keep Americans safe, or they are more interested in scoring cheap political points with the voters back home this election season than in actually protecting our country. It is now 5 years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Republican leadership is still wasting our precious time. We need real action now. We don't need more rhetoric. The American people are counting on us, and we cannot fail them yet again. Let's finally give the Department of Homeland Security the resources that they need to keep this great country of ours safe. I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the issue of border security here, as we talk about an issue that is so vitally important to the American people, I am disappointed that we can't seem to work together on this particular issue. I have been in Congress for 10 years. I have been advocating that we hire 1,000 to 1,500 Border Patrol agents a year along with the resources necessary to support them. Yet we get this proposal for a fence. This is the best we can do? This is the best you can do to assure the American people that we are going to focus on border security? It falls woefully short, and I say that with all due respect because I spent 26\1/2\ years on America's border. When I retired, I had been the chief for a little over 12 years in charge of McAllen sector and El Paso sector. I am the one who instituted Operation Hold the Line that shifted border enforcement away from apprehension and towards deterrence. I have, I think, the kind of experience that we ought to be able to count on on both sides of the aisle. I have tried to work with many Members on the other side of the aisle and have always, as I put forth my ideas on the issue of border security for the last 10 years, have always been told, well, it is not the right time. It's too expensive, it is not the right strategy to pursue at this time. I really felt after 9/11 we would have a new focus on border security. Today, 5 years later, the American people are focused like a laser on the fact that our borders are vulnerable. I would say to my distinguished colleague, Chairman Royce, I was at the hearing in Laredo with you, as I have been at numerous hearings the last 2 months, hearings where the message has come across loud and clear from members of Customs and Border Protection. What they need: They need manpower, they need technology and they need infrastructure. In Naco, Arizona, we have 1,200 to 1,300 Border Patrol agents housed out of a station that was designed for 25 people. That is infrastructure that we need. How can we expect them to be professionals if we don't treat them like professionals, if we don't invest in the infrastructure that is so desperately needed? We were there, looking at their sensor systems, and it was a bipartisan group from the interparliamentary group. We looked at not just the physical layout of the station, but the condition of their vehicles. They need vehicles. The vehicles, the technology that they were using, the cameras that they were monitoring, were over 15 years old. The sensors were 20 years old. That is why, consistently, the message has been at all these hearings the last couple of months that they need manpower, they need technology, and they need infrastructure support, new technology that is available that will serve as the force multiplier, Chairman, that you were referring to. We can do much better than this. A fence is ludicrous in the face of the needs of the Customs and Border Patrol people. When we talk about the issue of fencing, and we compare that with all the other needs, and, believe me, at all the hearings I was at the message was consistent. In fact, when the question was asked of the chiefs, what about fencing, well, fencing has limited use. As a former chief for over 12 years, I can tell you fencing would be down after those three priorities, because across that 2,000-mile border with Mexico that everybody is so concerned with, probably less than 10 percent, much less than 10 percent, in one of the hearings that we were talking about, we were concerned about a range in Yuma, Arizona. It seemed like it was an area that needed hundreds of miles of fencing. You know what? It came out to 37 miles of fencing that was needed. I say, put up a fence for those 37 miles. I supported the fencing with my friend and colleague, Duncan Hunter, in San Diego, because it makes sense. But it does not make sense to put a 2,000-mile fence along our southern border. It does not make sense, and it is not in the best interests of the taxpayers to foolishly commit to spending at least $7 billion just on the construction of this fencing. We can do much better. I am extremely disappointed that after all we hear about post-9/11, after all we hear about the concern that terrorists are apt to hit us here in the homeland again, that this is the best we can do. This is the equivalent of a doctor in the emergency room having a patient come in from a severe automobile accident with broken limbs and wounds over most parts of his body, and the physician saying, nurse, give me a Band-Aid. This is a Band-Aid approach that we can do much better with. Let us do a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses the three major priorities that the Border Patrol wants, manpower, technology, infrastructure. Let's not forget that there is a whole pipeline. If you hire more Border Patrol agents, you need to hire marshals, you need to hire detention officers. You need to hire judges. You need to hire prosecutors. All of that is essential. Let's do a comprehensive piece of legislation that the American people will finally say, this Congress gets the fact that we are in danger from terrorism. We can do better. This is a ludicrous proposal, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. REYES. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. REYES. The reference to 2,000 miles of fencing I heard repeatedly by Members of your party at the hearing.

Mr. REYES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference in how we approach this issue. Our plan says, we want to fund infrastructure, let the chief make the decisions. When the gentleman from Texas talks about there isn't any proposal in our bill for fencing, here is what infrastructure entails. It entails buildings, antivehicle barriers, observation towers, access roads and fencing. The difference is, we don't legislate from here and tell a chief patrol agent, this is how much fence you are going to get. We tell them, this is what is available, you tell us what you need. When the gentleman talks about what is needed, what the testimony was, heard along the border, I don't know how many hearings he attended, but I can tell you this, at the hearings that I attended, the chief patrol agents wanted three things, and I will reiterate them: manpower, technology and infrastructure. All of those things are included under ``infrastructure.'' I think the professionals that we charge in protecting the border deserve the courtesy of telling us what it is that they need, what kind of combination.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me reframe the difference between what we want to do on this side of the aisle and what is being proposed on that side of the aisle. First and foremost, we want to work together to address the issue of border security. We want to give the professionals the support that they have been asking for throughout these last 2 months of hearings. We want to make sure that we provide them the opportunity to tell us what kind of infrastructure, including fencing, they need. The buildings, the anti-vehicle barriers, the observation towers, the access roads, all of the kinds of things that they have told us are a priority in order for them to be able to control the border. The fundamental difference is we trust them to make those decisions. We do not tell them we need a fence starting from 5 miles east of the port of entry in Del Rio to 6 miles east of the port of entry of Eagle Pass. Let them make those kinds of decisions. They are the professionals. They are charged with that responsibility. Our job is to provide them the support and the resources. That is the fundamental difference. As I have said, we need to work together on this thing. Regrettably, this rule freezes us out and we are unable to participate in this.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Our motion to recommit includes physical infrastructure enhancements; fencing is part of that. There is fencing in there, there are access roads, there are buildings in there. All of that is included in there.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This debate today is about whether or not this Congress can afford to micromanage what the United States Customs and Border Protection does on our border. This bill calls for a fence from Calexico to Douglas, from Laredo to Brownsville, from Columbus to El Paso, from Del Rio to Eagle Pass, and a fence in the Tecate area as well. Our position in this motion to recommit is, instead of micromanaging, let us give the Customs and Border Protection the resources that they need. Let us give them real meaningful legislative support. Under our bill we give them additional Border Patrol agents. Under our bill we give them security enhancements, we give them surveillance enhancements, we give them practical infrastructure enhancements. In other words, what we do is, we provide them the support and ask them, what is it that you need; tell us how you are going to enhance the ability to better monitor the border. We think that makes sense. We can do much better than micromanage from here. We wouldn't micromanage and tell generals in Iraq or Afghanistan how to fight that war. Why should we do that when we are trying to defend our homeland? We can do much better. This bill, from my perspective, and from my 26\1/2\ years of experience with the Border Patrol, as I walked in, I listened to my colleague from California, Congressman Hunter. He was talking about a fence that was effective. There are limited areas where fencing is effective, but to put a fence from Columbus to El Paso, a stretch of 88 miles, is ridiculous. It is not only expensive, but the maintenance and the effectiveness is going to be expensive and questionable. Part of this process has to include common sense.

Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, there is none. There is no money provided in this bill. This is purely a political ploy. This again, unfortunately, proves that the leadership of this House is putting politics ahead of good policy. We can do better, we must do better, we must work together. Let's vote ``no'' on the bill itself, vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 4893. This legislation seeks to make drastic changes to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act without the option to offer amendments or have a full debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. Instead of offering legislation that would weaken tribal sovereignty, Congress should be working hard to ensure American Indians are protected from corrupt lobbyists and given the means to care for their members. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to take a stand for millions of American Indians throughout the country by voting against H.R. 4893.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the victims of 9/11 al Qaeda attacks, as well as the family members who mourn them, the first responders who helped their communities recover, and the brave men and women in the armed services who are risking their lives to make us safer. Honoring the memories of those who gave their lives on September 11 should not, however, be a once-a-year endeavor. This should not be an occasion for speeches and ceremonies. Talk is cheap, but our actions, what we do in the war on terror, that is what speaks volumes. Through our actions, we honor our dead. I would like to talk about a couple of ways in which we could better honor their memories, ways in which we can actually act. After September 11, we began a war of necessity, the war on terror. The whole world was with us. We made enormous strides quickly in Afghanistan in that war, but then we began another war, a war of choice, in Iraq. Now, because more than 130,000 of our troops are bogged down in Iraq, we have punted the ball in Afghanistan. Let me be clear. Today, we are in danger in Afghanistan, the original breeding ground for al Qaeda. The Taliban is gaining ground and inflicting casualties on coalition forces. If we need reinforcements, will we have them? The major victory in the war of necessity, the war on terror, that was so close now appears to be fading because we are bogged down in a war of choice in Iraq. The best way to honor our departed heroes and friends is by winning that war of necessity. The terrorists started the war on September 11, but if we set our priorities right we can finish it. The men and women who died on September 11 deserve victory in the war on terror, our war of necessity. They deserve more than empty rhetoric. They deserve more than talking points and slogans. They deserve more than chicken hawk mud slinging. They also deserve more than insulting those as unpatriotic or weak anyone who dares to say that we need to make some changes in the way we are fighting the war of necessity. And finally, they deserve more than siphoning off resources from the war of necessity by a war of choice. Yes, talk is cheap. If we want to remember those who died on September 11, let us give them a victory.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 347, honoring the National Association of Veterans Homes and the 119 State Veterans Homes represented by that association for their contributions to the health care of veterans and the health care system of the Nation. Ambrosio Guillen State Veterans Nursing Home opened its doors in my Congressional District of El Paso, TX on July 19, 2005, as the first veterans nursing home to be located in a major Texas metropolitan area. This 160-bed home has exhibited a great commitment to caring for those who have honorably served our country. I am proud to join in the bi-partisan support shown by the House of Representatives as we honor the National Association of Veterans Homes. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting all those who dedicate themselves to serving our veterans by voting in favor of H. Con. Res. 347.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 921, a resolution reaffirming this Chamber's steadfast support for the State of Israel and condemning Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, among other provisions. On June 16, 2000, Israel unilaterally withdrew its troops from areas in Southern Lebanon. It was a monumental stride in the long and difficult march toward Middle East peace, one that lent if only fleeting promise for a cessation of violence along the Lebonon-Israel border. The idea was simple: Israel would end an occupation long cited as a serious grievance by Israel's foes, and those foes, denied that grievance, would end attacks on Israel. Any further attacks on Israel from formerly occupied areas would invite a robust military response. That equation for peace, however, was quickly undone. After the withdrawal, Hezbollah and other belligerents boasted not of a promise of peace, but of defeating the Israeli military and forcing it into retreat. Rather than planning for peace and building a strong civil society in Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah created a sophisticated military infrastructure and denied control of the region to the democratically elected Lebanese Government. One week ago, Hezbollah, following a similar Hamas kidnaping in June, attacked an Israeli military outpost in undisputed Israeli territory, killing three soldiers and taking two hostages. Since then, Hezbollah has continued attacks on Israel by firing deadly rockets into Israeli urban centers like Haifa. Those rockets, whose warheads are often packed with ball bearings that turn into molten shrapnel upon explosion, are meant to kill and maim indiscriminately. No country in the world would tolerate such vicious attacks upon its homeland nor threats to its sovereignty without responding and acting to ensure its longer-term security. If we support the Israeli State's right to exist, then we cannot make Israel an exception among nations. Israel must possess the right to defend itself. Lastly, even as this war rages, I believe it is important to work steadfastly toward peace, because there can be no military solution to this conflict. As it combats Hezbollah, I urge Israel to take measures to limit casualties among the civilian population and to not irrevocably undermine Lebanon's young government, which was the product of the inspiring cedar revolution. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 125, expressing Congressional support for ``Hire-A-Veteran Week,'' and encouraging the President to issue a proclamation calling upon employers to increase employment of men and women who have served honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces. As a U.S. Army veteran and a member of the House Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees, I know of the challenges awaiting our servicemembers when transitioning from military service to the civilian workforce. While this resolution will not solve the problems of unemployment within the veterans community, it is a strong message that we as Members of Congress should send to anyone in a position to hire qualified veterans. Having military veterans in both my El Paso, TX and Washington, DC offices, I know of the exceptional training the Armed Forces provides our servicemembers, and wholeheartedly encourage any employer to consider hiring those veterans who have served our country. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting our nation's veterans by voting in favor of H. Con. Res. 125.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for yielding me time, and my good friend from Florida, the gentlewoman, for her support in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 860, a bill to provide for the conveyance of reversionary interests of the United States in certain lands in my district of El Paso County, Texas to the Clint Independent School District. The passage of H.R. 860 comes on the heels of an interesting footnote in our history. In 1940, Clint Independent School District received 20 acres of land that the United States Government had obtained from Mexico through the Convention of February 1, 1933. In the treaty, the two governments agreed to cooperate in the construction and maintenance of the Rio Grande Rectification Project, which ultimately straightened and reinforced 155 miles of river boundary flowing through the increasingly developed El Paso, Texas- Juarez, Chihuahua area. In addition to helping provide a more stable international boundary, the project also helped occasional flooding in that region. After giving the land to the school district, the Department of State retained reversionary interest in the parcel. In 1957 Federal statutes gave Clint Independent School District the ability to trade that piece of land for another, which it did, acquiring a separate parcel in which the United States had also retained reversionary interest. Today, Clint Independent School District still owns that one piece of land. Unfortunately, because the land in question lies outside of Clint's boundaries, district regulations prevent the school district from developing it. H.R. 860 will allow Clint to sell its land in order to buy property within its own district boundaries. All proceeds from such a sale must and will be used for public educational purposes. This legislation has been approved by the State Department and reported favorably by the House International Relations Committee. Of the nine school districts in El Paso County, Clint is the largest in square mileage, encompassing a diverse area in the fast-growing east El Paso County. The district itself is one of the most rapidly expanding in Texas, with an estimated student population of 9,000-plus, a figure that is expected to double within the next 5 years. All together, the district has 12 campuses, three high schools, two middle schools, one junior high school and six elementary schools. This bill will afford Clint the ability to help keep pace with its growth and help the district provide its students a high-quality educational experience. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde of Illinois and Mr. Lantos of California, as well as my friend from New York and my friend from Florida, for reporting this beneficial piece of legislation out of their committee. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank our leader, Ms. Pelosi, and minority whip, Mr. Hoyer for their support and assistance in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 860.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, we will celebrate the career of Luis E. Barker, Deputy Chief of the United States Border Patrol, as he retires after 35 years of service to our nation. Chief Barker began his career in law enforcement as a military policeman in 1971. After leaving the military in 1973, he spent five years as a police officer and detective in the Jersey City, New Jersey Police Department. In 1978, Chief Barker became a U.S. Border Patrol agent stationed in EI Paso, Texas, which is the community I am proud to represent in the House of Representatives. He has been promoted consistently during the course of his career, serving in supervisory positions at the Border Patrol Academy in Glynco, Georgia and Border Patrol Headquarters in Washington, D.C. He also served as Deputy Regional Chief of the Southern Regional Office in Dallas, Texas; Assistant Chief Patrol Agent and later Deputy Chief Patrol Agent of the Del Rio Sector; Chief Patrol Agent of the Laredo Sector in 1995; and Chief Patrol Agent of the EI Paso Sector in 1998. Most recently, in 2005, Chief Barker was appointed Deputy Chief of the United States Border Patrol. Throughout his career, Chief Barker has demonstrated the utmost professionalism and true dedication to the Border Patrol, his community, and our nation. He has dealt with tough border security and immigration issues, and his expertise helped make our nation more secure. As a former Border Patrol agent and Sector Chief myself, I am confident in saying that Chief Barker serves as an excellent example for all members of the Border Patrol and law enforcement officials everywhere. Chief Barker is also a devoted family man and community leader. He has a wife, the former Jacque Witt, a daughter, Allison, and a stepson, Michael, and I know that he made a great sacrifice leaving his home and family temporarily in EI Paso to accept the position of Deputy Chief in Washington. He did so at a critical time for the Border Patrol, and the Patrol is better for it, as is the state of our nation's homeland security. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Luis E. Barker for his many years of exemplary service to America and in wishing him all the best in his retirement.