Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment before us would increase funding for the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative, which is designed to reimburse prosecutors for the cost of prosecuting Federal drug crimes. As we all know, many federally initiated drug cases are referred to local courts for prosecution. These drug crimes are committed at U.S. ports of entry and communities along our U.S.-Mexico border. This program has previously been funded at as much as $50 million to help alleviate the financial burden that the Federal Government was placing on local prosecutors in the 24 southwest border counties. The Department of Justice has expanded eligible jurisdictions to not only include 24 counties of the border but all 360 counties of all four border States: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. While the number of eligible jurisdictions has increased, annual appropriations have continued to decrease. The Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Act provided only $30 million for the program, which does not come close to meeting the existing needs. My amendment would add an additional $10 million, which would come closer to providing local governments with resources to carry out this Federal responsibility. Last year, I received a letter from the District Attorney of El Paso, Texas, notifying me that he would cease to accept federally referred drug cases for State prosecution due to the excessive local financial burden that the lack of reimbursement was placing on the El Paso community. With help from the U.S. Attorney and our State senators, we were able to prevent this stoppage. If local prosecutors cease accepting these cases, many of these drug cases could not be adjudicated at all. As we are all aware, the U.S.-Mexico border remains a main corridor for the entry of illegal drugs, and despite much success in interdiction and the prosecution efforts of many, harmful drugs continue to be a problem in our country. Our border counties and States are committed to providing assistance in prosecuting Federal drug cases, but Congress needs to be equally committed to funding this important program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting this very vital and important amendment to our border communities, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4843, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006. As a cosponsor of this bill, I would like to thank my colleagues in the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for expediting its consideration in committee and for their strong bipartisan support. H.R. 4843 would raise disability compensation for veterans and dependency and indemnity compensation for their survivors by 2.2 percent beginning December 1, 2006. It would also increase benefits for spouses with children under 18 who recently experienced the death of a husband or wife due to military service. Rising medical expenses coupled with disabilities generate some of the most burdensome financial situations veterans face. El Paso, TX, is home to approximately 60,000 veterans, many of whom depend on government compensation to sustain them as well as of their families. Increasing rates for veterans' compensation is an important part of recognizing and repaying veterans after they so courageously risked their lives in service to our country. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's veterans and their dependents deserve our utmost appreciation for their service to our country. I ask all my colleague to join me in voting favorably on H.R. 4843.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 22, 2006, I was unavoidably detained at a Border Health Conference hosted by the Texas Medical Association in conjunction with my office, and missed rollcall votes Nos. 308, 309, 310, and 311. If I had been present, I would have voted no on these votes.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 5573, the Health Centers Renewal Act of 2006. Federal community health centers provide health care services to poor and under-served communities across the country. They serve the uninsured, the homeless, rural residents, farm workers, and others who have no other access to care. These centers make health care accessible and affordable through outreach programs, education initiatives, and translation services, and many people rely on these centers for their primary care. There are over 1,000 federal community health centers across the United States, and we are fortunate in my congressional district of El Paso, TX, to have three excellent health centers. Centro de Salud Familiar La Fe has been serving clients in the El Paso area since 1967. The organization currently operates eight clinics, including a new Child and Adolescent Wellness Center and an HIV/AIDS clinic. La Fe also employs over 300 El Pasoans. Project Vida is a multi-service agency in El Paso that has a long record of delivering quality services to those in need. The organization operates three health care clinics in our community. Finally, Centro San Vicente provides a comprehensive range of health care services, including primary care, dental care, and behavior health services, to El Pasoans. Mr. Speaker, in my congressional district and across America, community health centers are essential to keeping our constituents healthy and our communities strong. H.R. 5573 will assist them in their important efforts, and I ask all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Jerry Moran for his leadership in introducing H. Res. 731, commending the Patriot Guard Riders for shielding mourning military families from protestors and preserving the memory of fallen service members at funerals. I am proud to join in the bi-partisan support shown by the House of Representatives for this important legislation. As you know, the main mission of the Patriot Guard Riders is to help maintain dignity and respect at the funerals of service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. They are invited as guests to block protestors through strictly legal and non-violent means. Like dedicated sentinels, the Patriot Guard Riders line the streets shielding the grieving family and community from any disruptive protesters. I want to thank personally the Patriot Guard Riders for their nationwide commitment to this cause. The Patriot Guard Riders have paid homage to fallen heroes in my congressional district of El Paso, TX, making a positive impact on my community. On April 12, 2006, the Patriot Guard Riders traveled to Clint, TX, for the funeral of Sergeant Israel Devora Garcia, who was also made a U.S. citizen at his funeral. Sergeant Garcia's friends and family were left to mourn his passing in peace, free from protest. More recently, on June 16, 2006, the Patriot Guard Riders congregated at the funeral procession of Specialist Oliver Oropenza at Fort Bliss National Cemetery in El Paso, TX. They were welcomed by grieving friends and family who were able to honor SPC Oropenza free from disruptions. You may recall that I was the primary Democratic sponsor of H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, under which demonstrations are restricted within 150 feet of methods of ingress and egress from such cemetery property or within 300 feet of such cemetery in a manner that impedes the access to or egress from the cemetery. This bill guarantees the families and friends of fallen heroes the right to grieve in peace, while also protecting the freedom of speech. I am very proud that, with strong bi-partisan support this bill was passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by the President on Memorial Day 2006. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Patriot Guard Riders, who have been physically present at the funerals of our fallen heroes since August 2005, to protect and guard the families and friends of the fallen from protest. I stand in strong support of their honorable mission, and I ask for all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 731.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time on this very important matter. To my good friend Mr. Murtha, I also salute you as a Vietnam veteran, one that knows what the cost of war does to a family and to our country. My friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that this is a simple choice between retreat and resolve. This is a false choice. It is a political stunt. This is about respect. This is about respect for our role to do our jobs as a Congress in oversight. We can win this war with a comprehensive and reasoned approach to deployment of our troops. But the President's supporters characterize any disagreement as cutting and running. It does not wash. This is unfair and it is disingenuous and this is unpatriotic. The real choice is between blind adherence to Secretary Rumsfeld's ill-conceived strategy and the somber assessment of the proper way to fight against an insurgency. Congress has an important role to play in this process, and that is what today's debate should be about. In my role as a member of both the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, I traveled to Iraq and paid a great deal of attention to the effects of this war and their impact on our military, on their families, and our intelligence apparatus. There have been and continue to be critical gaps in our intelligence system in this war. When the Vice President says that our troops will be greeted as liberators, I have to think that we were not prepared. When the Army's chief of staff tells us that a successful campaign would require many more troops than we were planning to deploy, I have to think that we were not prepared. When the administration cannot get its story straight about the rationale for war and the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, I have to think that we were not prepared for this war. These mistakes, these gaps in our knowledge, frankly, cry out for oversight. It is not about resolve versus retreat. It is about respect for this Congress doing its job in oversight. This Congress could have and should have done a better job of conducting oversight and vigorously questioning the statements that have been made by this administration: statements about the presence of WMD or about connections to 9/11 or about the war taking no longer than 6 months. In fact, when I asked the administration, before we went to this war, whether there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, the answer was no. We could have made America safer by conducting vigorous oversight, but we as a Congress have failed to do that. At the same time, while most of our men and women have served honorably and bravely, the unsustainable pace of our operations combined with an overstressed force has led to major problems. It led us on the road to Abu Ghraib and to some of the most heinous allegations lodged against our American troops in history. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the conduct of this war has made us less safe. This is what this debate should be about. It has distracted us from the global war on terror. It has hurt recruiting and retention in the military. It has broken our Army for possibly the next decade or more. It has hurt our ability to work with other nations. I think that is where the real debate should occur.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This afternoon, regrettably, we are talking about the cost of this war, the cost of the commitment of the American people: the cost in money, and the cost in lives, over 2,500 to date; the cost in wounded, over 18,000, with very little or no oversight, very little or no accountability, and certainly very little or no shared sacrifice in this country. This resolution that we are discussing, because it is not even a debate, is more about politics than about practical solutions. Anyone that doubts that, all you have got to do is read the article in today's paper that sets out the political strategy by the majority leader in terms of this resolution. Oversight, oversight, oversight. Where was our armor, both body armor and vehicle armor? What was our plan post ``Mission Accomplished'' press conference? Where were we during the issue of Abu Ghraib rendition and so many other things that have come up? In fact, last night I went home and I switched on the TV and I just happened, by chance, to catch the program on HBO, Last Letters Home: The Families. And it occurs to me this afternoon that we owe those families from that HBO program, and the 2,500 other families, an apology, because they have made the sacrifice. They understand the cost of this war. And they must be wondering where the accountability and where the oversight is. We need to apologize to them and to the American people for not doing our job.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, tonight we start what I hope is the first of a series of honest discussions with the American people, something we have been unable to do up to now. There are a number of issues, a number of problems with where we find ourselves as a Nation tonight. One of the biggest problems is we have not shared the sacrifice. As we speak here tonight, 2,498 of our Nation's finest have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan; 18,000 have been wounded with over 8,500 unable to return back to duty. Do we honor and revere and love our troops? Absolutely. Do we respect and honor the sacrifices that their families have made and are making? Absolutely. Are we concerned about those that are yet to fall, those that are yet to come back with wounds? Absolutely. Part of the debate that we want to have on this particular issue is to make sure that we do not debate other auxiliary things except Iraq. Iraq is the area, ground zero, for the kinds of issues that we are dealing with, the kinds of things that my colleagues have spoken about tonight. The kinds of things we have failed to do as a Congress in exercising our oversight responsibilities. I have been to Iraq six times, to Afghanistan 12. I have visited with our troops. I have seen them. I have shared the environment that they share. As a veteran who served 13 months in Vietnam, which seems like in a different era, I can relate to the kinds of things that are going on in the theater of combat. But the one thing that has been missing for us, in my opinion, has been the ability of this Congress to hold the administration accountable, to do the oversight that is necessary and so vitally important. That is the debate that we want to have on this very important topic. So with that, my good friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Congressman Udall, will now speak.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are long overdue in taking the proper action to fund our United States Border Patrol. I have heard a number of my colleagues come on this floor and criticize them, because they get erroneous information, I might add, from members of the Minutemen project. The Minutemen project came about because of the frustration that the general population was feeling at our inability to control this Nation's borders. If, in fact, this amendment is ruled out of order, and in fact we cannot come up with the $1.9 billion that are necessary to fund the Border Patrol so they can control the border, then why is it that we spend so much time talking tough about border enforcement, talking tough about stopping an invasion, talking tough about securing the border at a time when we are at war with terrorists? All of the talk in the world does not translate to resources for the United States Border Patrol. All the talk in the world does not stop terrorists from coming into this country, but what we do need to do is recognize that the Border Patrol needs additional staffing. They need additional equipment. They need additional technology. The President went on national TV to make that point.

Mr. REYES. No, thank you.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a Member who represents a border community who has always been concerned about our national security and our border security. Today, still, our border security is driven by money not policy, and certainly not in the best interest of our security. This amendment gives DHS the necessary funds, $2.05 billion, to fund the 35,000 beds they have stated they need to eliminate the budget-driven catch-and-release policy. What has appalled so many of us is that DHS is catching and releasing thousands of illegal immigrants into the general population of the United States because they simply do not have the detention space to hold them. These illegal immigrants, also referred to as OTMs, or other than Mexicans, are given what they refer to as ``walking papers'' and are released on their own recognizance with an order to appear voluntarily at a deportation hearing weeks after their release. In fact, Mr. Chairman, they are asked where they are traveling to in order to give them a hearing near their final destination. Of those released, about 5 percent actually return for this hearing. But that number is probably high, in my opinion. This is hurting the morale of our U.S. Border Patrol agents and is a misguided process. Because of catch-and-release, the number of immigrants who have come across our borders has significantly increased. According to the April 2006 DHS Inspector General report, here is what underfunding border security means to this country: 774,112 illegal immigrants were apprehended during the past 3 years. Of those, 280,987, or approximately 36 percent, were released largely due to lack of personnel, bed space, and funding. The report also says that the number of illegal immigrants apprehended in the U.S. is increasing, while personnel and bed space levels are declining. In the 2 years just after 9/11, illegal immigrants captured in the U.S. rose some 19 percent, from 231,000 to about 275,000. This remains a prominent national security risk. And I am including for the Record a news story about how the deportations work. These OTMs include aliens from countries whose governments support state-sponsored terrorism as well as those from countries of special interest who promote, produce or protect terrorist organizations and their members. They also include aliens who should be identified, detained, and removed under the DHS's Criminal Alien Removal Program, but who are not included in that program because there is no funding. The 9/11 Commission recognized this national security risk and recommended to us in Congress that we fund 8,000 detention beds each year for the next 5 years, for a total of 40,000 beds. We passed these recommendations into law in December of 2004, yet this Congress has not funded those very recommendations. In fact, the homeland security appropriations bill that we have before us today includes funding for only about 4,800 detention beds. That is approximately 3,100 less than what the 9/11 Commission said was the minimum that we should be doing to increase our security. Last year, the Congress funded only 4,250 detention beds. That is 3,700 short of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Our willful neglect of our border security has angered our fellow citizens. As a political gesture, this administration and this Congress want to build walls and militarize the border as a response. That is not what we need. We need to keep our promises to the American people and fund those promises that we have made. We must send a clear message that when you cross our borders illegally, you will be caught and detained. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I, as well as every Member in this House, understand the fiscal situation that we are in. However, time after time we seem to find money for other things. Why can't we find the money for our detention space which we desperately need and which is directly related to the security of this country? Compromising border security is not the way to trim our deficit. We are long past the point of an emergency and must include this money to protect our borders, to protect our country, and to get us out of this crisis that we have worked our way into. Point of Order

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, before being elected to Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Border Patrol, including 13 of those as sector chief in McAllen and El Paso, Texas. I have years of experience patrolling the desert of the U.S.-Mexico border region, supervising thousands of hardworking, dedicated Border Patrol agents and doing anything within my power to strengthen our borders and to reduce illegal immigration. However, Mr. Chairman, it does not take that kind of experience to know that this bill fails to provide the funding required to hire and train the Border Patrol agents that we need to secure our Nation's borders. Instead of funding the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents authorized under the 9/11 Commission legislation passed by this very Congress in 2004, the bill before us today provides only enough money for 1,200 new agents. Mr. Chairman, I ask you, what kind of logic is it to spend $1.9 billion to deploy our already overburdened National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border on a supposedly temporary basis but then fail to provide the resources necessary to hire and train an adequate number of Border Patrol agents who are charged with securing our Nation's borders? From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, it is flawed logic, and it is also bad policy. That is why I am offering this amendment with my friend and colleague from Texas, Representative Solomon Ortiz, who also has many years of law enforcement experience as a sheriff in the border region and today represents a border district. Our amendment would provide the funds necessary to hire and train 10,000 new Border Patrol agents, which is in line with what Congress authorized in the 9/11 Commission bill. It would also about double the current size of the U.S. Border Patrol, which is about what we need to do in my opinion before we can reassess whether or not we have achieved operational control of our borders. Mr. Chairman, many of my congressional colleagues talk a great deal about border security. Yet, when it comes time to actually fund additional Border Patrol agents or other necessary security personnel, equipment and technology, we always come up very short. From my perspective, I guess this bill is no different. What is it going to take for us to start putting our money where our mouth is? With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Point of Order

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all thank our chairman, Mr. Buyer, as well as Senator Craig and Senator Akaka for their speedy work in finalizing this legislation before the Memorial Day recess. I would also like to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Rogers, for co- sponsoring this legislation and being a really moving force behind this effort. Mr. Speaker, as we gather to mourn our honored dead, passage of H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, will send a clear message to those who have lost a loved one in service to our Nation that their right to grieve in peace will be respected. Organized protests have disrupted the sanctity of funerals conducted throughout the United States for our military men and women killed while serving in our current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice deserve to be buried with honor and dignity. The families of these courageous men and women deserve funerals that allow them to say goodbye to their loved ones and to mourn their loss in peace. H.R. 5037 is narrowly tailored to protect military families at this sacred time from verbal attacks while also protecting our freedom of speech. Furthermore, provisions in this legislation are in line with judicial precedents specific to time, to place and manner of demonstrations. The Senate amendments to this bill limit the area in which demonstrations are restricted to within 150 feet of methods of ingress and egress from cemetery property or within 300 feet of such cemetery in a manner that impedes the access to or egress from the cemetery. The Senate version of the bill is more narrowly drafted to ensure free speech is protected, but it still fulfills the original intent of the House passed bill. In my congressional district of El Paso, Texas, our community has mourned the loss of 20 servicemembers who have given their lives while serving in our current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a Vietnam combat veteran myself and member of the House Veterans' Affairs and House Armed Services Committees, I want to assure the families of our deceased servicemembers that this Congress will ensure our Nation's heroes are given the dignified burial that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, next Monday, our Nation will come together to remember and to honor our servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice while in service to our country. I want to commend the House and the Senate leadership for moving this bipartisan legislation so quickly so that it can be signed into law before Memorial Day. I ask all of my colleagues to join us in honoring our fallen servicemembers by voting in favor of H.R. 5037. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had regrettably over 2,400 causalities; 2,400- plus stories like the one my colleague from Michigan just related; over 2,400 courageous stories of Americans that have paid the ultimate sacrifice so that people can have the right to freedom of speech. It is very ironic that we have to pass this kind of legislation. But it is also very necessary so that communities around our great Nation can mourn their dead. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), who has been a true leader on veterans issues and especially from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3858, the Pets and Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act of 2005. This is a sample, focused piece of legislation that will require local and state emergency preparedness authorities to include in their evacuation plans how they will accommodate household pets and/or service animals in case of a disaster. It deserves our support. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita revealed gaping holes in our capacity to effectively manage the aftermath of large-scale disasters. Our failures in emergency response and evacuation were numerous, and they varied in both size and importance. One problem with our response was a blind spot in our disaster planning regarding the evacuation of pets and service animals. For too many caring animal owners, the opportunity to escape danger means separation from a beloved pet. More grievous, the evacuation of many residents of the Gulf Region who are dependent on service animals was complicated by inflexible regulations that did not take their special needs into account. H.R. 3858 is commonsense legislation that will ensure planning for future disaster provides for the needs of pet owners. This bill is support by the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Doris Day Animal League and the Best Friends Animal Society. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join in support of H.R. 3858.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate the opportunity to tell you that back in Texas, we have a saying, bad day at Black Rock. This is one of the blackest days that we could possibly imagine in Texas and anywhere else. The gentleman that just spoke talked about good faith, talked about we have to live within our budget, the budget that we set, talked about the Nation's priorities, talked about hard choices, and finally talked about leveling with the American people. Well, good faith, Mr. Chairman, is about coming here and doing what is right, making sure that at a time of war we take care of our men and women in uniform and the facilities that they need, the equipment that they depend on, and everything that depends so much on this war on terror. Live within our budget. I voted against that budget a couple of days ago because I didn't think it was realistic. I knew there were going to be some cutbacks someplace, and now we find out it is cutbacks in our military's budget. Nation's priorities? Well, I would submit we set the Nation's priorities. The Nation's priorities have been set way too long by the Republican leadership in this House, in the Senate, and in the White House. Hard choices. Well, our hard choices, people have to live with. Our military people have to live with. And finally, Mr. Chairman, leveling with the American people means telling the truth about tax cuts versus what is best for our military. With that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that I rise in opposition to that I was talking about in the previous conversation. Every year we debate this issue, irrespective of the cooperation that is ongoing, has been ongoing for many, many years from the Department of Defense, that provides technical expertise, that provides construction support, that provides technical support, that provides, even on a limited basis, operational specialized support on that border. The reality of this amendment is that it is very expensive. It provides authority to the Department of Defense that already exists with the President of the United States should an emergency come up or an emergency exist. It is a bad idea because we need trained, experienced professionals on that border. That border is way too dangerous for us to be sending troops that are trained primarily for combat into a law enforcement situation, understanding that that capability is in reserve, because the President of the United States has that authority. So I would hope that we would stop bringing these kinds of amendments, because they really are not useful and are counterproductive to our enforcement presence on the border. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and former sheriff, who represents a border district, Congressman Ortiz. (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Laredo, Congressman Cuellar, also representing a border district.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, every year we come to the floor and we talk tough about putting troops on the border. It is expensive. The Department of Defense already has that authority. The President can direct it at any time based on whatever situation he is made aware of. One of the things that I would like to tell my colleagues is that we are often here talking about issues and about problems and providing solutions. One of the things, an observation that I will make about us is that oftentimes we are very hypocritical about the things that we say versus the things that we do in the people's House. In 1986, we passed employer sanctions to address the pull factor in the issue of illegal immigration and immigration reform. This Congress failed to fund employer sanctions, failed to fund the very vehicle that would have addressed the pull factor. For the last 10 years that I have been in Congress, we have been debating troops on the border. I would say to my good friend from West Virginia, my good friend from Arizona, my good friend from California, if we are interested in controlling the border, if we are truly interested in doing a good job for the American people, then let's fund employer sanctions. And short of that, let's fund H.R. 98, which gives us a fraud-proof Social Security card and a system where employers would be accountable. You would eliminate the pull factor. We wouldn't need to have this useless debate on troops on the border. Vote ``no'' on the Goode amendment.