Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to remind our colleagues that Members on both sides of the aisle were exasperated many, many times because if we did not ask the right question or just the exact question, we were not provided the information that was requested. Secondly, how many times have we held hearings and the day or weekend later we open up the newspaper and there is a conflicting story in there about information that we had been provided in the meeting. So it is about our responsibility to do our oversight, it is about our responsibility to do this job right. I urge all Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Intelligence authorization bill aimed at getting the full story on the prisoner abuse issue at places such as Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan. The abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were reprehensible; I think we can all agree on that. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have agreed on that, particularly after reviewing the now-infamous photos behind closed doors that were made available to us on Capitol Hill. I am equally disturbed by the indictment of CIA contractor David Passaro, who allegedly assaulted a detainee at a detention facility in Afghanistan. This indictment is yet another sobering reminder that the detainee abuses were not limited to the Abu Ghraib prison. Make no mistake: interrogations are critical to the war on terrorism. I know that; I respect that. They are one way of generating dots that might lead to the intelligence community, providing information on the next terrorist plot. But the prisoner abuse issue and the broader issue of our interrogation policy is one that cries out for stronger congressional oversight. Congress has got to get that straight and has got to get the story and understand how interrogations may have gone off track. Anything short of that would be a breach of faith with the American public which expects us to conduct vigorous oversight on issues of importance such as this. The intelligence community has been trying to get the straight story on Abu Ghraib. We have had five hearings thus far. But, frankly, the witnesses that have appeared before our committee have not been very forthcoming, in my opinion. Nor up until last night has the Department of Defense been very forthright with key documents for the committee, documents that we have requested, including documents from the Defense Department, which they promised to provide to our committee. Our sixth hearing was to be an all-day affair, the majority's chosen topic that day: the value of interrogations. While that is a legitimate area of inquiry, it is not what I would call hard-hitting oversight, nor would it have enhanced our understanding of the events that occurred at Abu Ghraib. My amendment would strengthen oversight in the Intelligence authorization bill. It would hold the executive branch's feet to the fire by fencing a large sum of money until the committee received all the documents related to the handling and the treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. It is intended to underscore the seriousness of the prisoner abuse issue and the committee's determination to get the straight story. It will take the Department of Defense little time at all to comply with this request from our committee. I offered this amendment during the committee's consideration of this bill. Although the amendment was defeated on straight party lines, I am pleased to report that yesterday the Department of Defense finally, finally, sent over a large batch of documents on interrogation policy. It included many of the documents that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was seeking, but not all of them. For example, it did not include the standard operating procedures for Guantanamo Bay which Major General Jeff Miller promised the committee; and it did not include documents related to interrogation policy in Iraq, signed by Lieutenant General Sanchez. Nor does it include Brigadier General Karpinski's December 2003 response to the Red Cross. This authorization bill needs to be stronger on oversight. We need to do our job properly. We should not fall for the administration's selective provision of documents simultaneously released to us and to the media. The majority's report language called this amendment a petty action masquerading as a good gesture. Petty or not, this amendment and other actions generated pressure that yielded results, which is more than a few hearings have accomplished to date. I believe that there is more to the interrogation story, like the revelation last week that Secretary Rumsfeld ghosted a detainee at the request of CIA Director Tenet in direct conflict of testimony presented to our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. For this and many other reasons that we have well documented, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this amendment, and I appreciate the remarks of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because it is important to set the record straight, let the facts come out and see where everything was. I would remind everybody that for a whole year, post-9-11, when intelligence people would come and brief our committee, I would ask what was the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and repeatedly their answer was none. In one case, one individual said there might have been, if we stretch it, one instance. But I think it is important that we get to the bottom of this. This is a right way to do it. This is something that the whole House should support, and I applaud the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. REYES. It was signed by the committee staff based on questions that we had and documents that had been provided. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend and colleague and the former ranking member of this committee.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, this was a list that we compiled of documents that were promised to us through the hearing process.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, we have a comprehensive list of documents that have been put together. I will be glad to furnish it to the chairman.

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

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind my colleague that we have provided a specific list of documents that we required that have not been complied with. And as to giving them to us as quickly as they possibly can, how long does it take to have somebody copy the interrogation procedures of Guantanamo Bay and provide them to the committee? It takes at the most maybe a day, so they have not been forthcoming.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the bill before us today, H.R. 4567, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2005. I particularly want to discuss how certain provisions in this legislation would affect my district of El Paso, Texas, and the entire southwest border region. While the bill provides an overall funding increase of about 9 percent over last year for all homeland security activities, there are certain areas in the bill where we must do better. For example, H.R. 4567 provides only a little more funding for customs and border protection activities than is necessary to keep pace with inflation, and actually provides less funding than last year for citizenship and immigration services. A Democratic proposal to add $3 billion to the bill for urgently needed improvements to our homeland security was blocked in the Appropriations Committee. This contingency fund would have given us additional resources to strengthen our border security, provide our first responders additional resources, and better protect against the threat of bioterrorist attacks. I am very pleased, however, that the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas, Mr. Turner, was accepted. The amendment would require an independent study to assess staffing needs at the border, giving us reliable data to help determine the required level and allocation of personnel at the border. It is a great step forward in ensuring that our border security needs are adequately addressed and funded. Mr. Chairman, as we move forward with this legislation, it is my hope that we will increase funding for critical homeland security programs, to ensure that even in a time of fiscal constraints we are doing absolutely everything possible to keep our borders, and all of America, safe and secure.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my sorrow on the passing of President Ronald Reagan. I had the privilege of meeting President Reagan twice--once when I participated in a G.I. Forum event in El Paso, TX, honoring veterans, and the other time while I was in the Border Patrol providing security as the President visited Brownsville, TX. It was easy to see that President Reagan was blessed with a good nature and positive spirit. All Americans remember his abiding love of country and strong defense of freedom. President Reagan has left a lasting legacy in the way he confronted communism and helped to end the Cold War. He was the kind of leader we needed during those difficult years. For that, our Nation, and the world, will be forever grateful. On behalf of my constituents in El Paso, I extend heartfelt condolences to the Reagan family during this very sad time.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, today we honor those men and women who have fought and died for the cause of freedom. The cost of freedom is not small, and throughout history our nation has risen to accept this mortal cost so that our fellow citizens of the world could be free. This generation of Americans, like the generations before, has been called on to serve our great nation with honor, upholding our ideals for people at home and around the world. We are in debt to our brave men and women in uniform who have heeded the call to service in conflicts around the world throughout history, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today on the floor of the people's House, we pause to offer a special tribute to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation. Our brave men and women in uniform selflessly sacrifice their own tomorrows so that we may live in freedom. Their families, and especially their children, make sacrifices for us too. As these children grow into young men and women, we need to remind them that their sacrifices and the sacrifices of their parents were not made in vain. We must remind them that as the Bible says, ``in the path of righteousness there is life, [and] in walking its path there is no death''. Most important, we need to remind them that they are the inspiration for their parents' sacrifices; that their parents sacrifice so that they and their children and grandchildren may know the blessings of liberty. The citizens of the 16th District of Texas have volunteered to preserve freedom at home and abroad throughout our nation's conflicts. We, in El Paso, intimately know and understand the sacrifices that are made by troops and their families in times of war. We are used to seeing our soldiers leave and return, as El Paso's own Patriot battalions based at Fort Bliss are some of the most frequently deployed units in the country. The soldiers, who call Fort Bliss home, even if only for a brief time, are our neighbors, our friends, and our family. Last year, the people of El Paso gathered together in prayer for the safe and swift return of members of the 507th Maintenance Company who were ambushed by Iraqi forces outside of Al Nasirriyah. The memories of those who were lost were not forgotten in the midst of the joy of welcoming many of them home. They will forever be sons and daughters of El Paso. As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I know what it feels like to put on the uniform of the United States and leave my family and friends for an uncertain future in an uncertain place to defend the ideals of our nation. I was one of the lucky ones who returned home. We owe much to those who are not so lucky--to them and their families, we owe our deepest gratitude for their sacrifices. Today, I give a solemn but proud salute to the men and women from El Paso and Fort Bliss who have lost their lives in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These fallen heroes will rest with their comrades from around our nation who paid the ultimate price for freedom. They will forever be honored with our sincere gratitude and respect.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment accepted at full committee be made part of the record.

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

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) offered an amendment at full committee markup on May 12, 2004, and that the amendment was passed by the committee within a manager's amendment. Unfortunately, however, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) was not printed in the committee report 108-491.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment because it can potentially impact a very important part of the world for this country. It impacts not only trade, not only national security, but also cultural exchange programs. As a Member, like my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) that has done extensive travel to both China and to Taiwan, the issues that we are talking about here are important issues for them to resolve. It can potentially upset the One China policy that we all recognize and respect. It is opposed by the State Department, jeopardizes our One China policy. It creates perhaps another political crisis area at a time we can least afford it. So I rise in opposition of this amendment, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Cunningham. The amendment would honor noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces with a memorial in Arlington National Cemetery. Throughout American history, foreign-born men and women have served in our military, standing shoulder to shoulder with U.S. citizens in defense of our Nation. Today, there are over 36,000 noncitizens serving in our Armed Forces. Tragically, in the first year of the war in Iraq alone, 24 of these brave service members made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for their adopted country. Mr. Chairman, we all know that we can never fully express our gratitude for the service and sacrifice these heroes have made. However, establishing a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in their honor is a fitting way to show the appreciation of a grateful Nation for the thousands of people who have come to this great country and given their lives for America. I thank my colleague from California for offering this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to give it their strong support.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us provides for cooperation between our Armed Forces and Federal law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Recent history shows us that there is no impediment to cooperation between the Department of Defense, that is opposed to this amendment, and our border law enforcement agencies. It is also worth remembering and reiterating that in the event of a crisis, the President already has the authority. Let me repeat, the President today already has the authority to place our military assets or whatever assets he deems necessary and move them to protect the homeland. It is for these reasons that the Department of Defense has always opposed this amendment whenever it has been presented here on the House floor. Essentially, the amendment grants the Secretary of Defense any authority that he already has under title 10 of the U.S. Code. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we understand that we cannot continue to debate an issue that further stresses and further puts military personnel in a situation that compounds and exacerbates the already evident pressure of our armed services. It is important that our colleagues understand that a vote for this amendment is a vote that may feel good, that may seem right, that may be politically expedient, but it is not the right thing to do. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Goode amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), my good friend and colleague. In fact, we came to Congress together, and as my colleague knows, I spent more than 26 years in Federal law enforcement on the border between the United States and Mexico. I was on the front lines of our Nation's war on drugs and against terrorism. I know how difficult it is to patrol and to secure our Nation's borders. And I know the need for additional resources and I surely understand the realities of the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Goode) concerns. As a combat veteran and as a member of the Committee on Armed Services and as an experienced Border Patrol agent, I understand and I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia. However, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is simply the wrong solution to our current problems along the border. This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, and over 100 other countries around the world. We cannot and we should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders. If this Congress wants to secure our borders, then let us deploy additional law enforcement officers to the border, but let us do it the right way. Let us make a commitment to hire and train 20,000 Border Patrol agents or 1,000 agents a year to be deployed along our borders until we fully staff our ports of entry and in between our ports of entry with Border Patrol agents and Customs personnel. We should not use military personnel for these kinds of jobs. We need our military to be at their best. Patrolling our borders against illegal immigration and against drug trafficking has very minimal military value and detracts from the training with our warfighting equipment for our warfighting missions. It will also lead to decreased military training, which reduces unit readiness and overall combat effectiveness of our armed services. We in Congress are very concerned about protecting our men and women in uniform from threats such as the improvised explosive devices. I submit that this amendment is an improvised explosive device except that instead of an IED, it is ill-advised, expensive, and detrimental to border communities in particular. The Department of Defense, as we all know, is opposed to this amendment, has been opposed to this amendment year after year, every time it comes on this floor. Currently, requests for DOD support can be made to the Secretary of Defense either directly by a Cabinet member or through the President. The Department of Defense already plays a significant role in supporting the defense of our border, if not through armed personnel, then through activities in technology. UAVs supporting border security are based at Fort Wachuka, Arizona. Other support comes from essential units such as the Joint Task Force 6 headquarters based in my district. It provides critical training to law enforcement personnel along the border, including engineering, barrier fencing, and lighting. And while today, Mr. Chairman, I may not agree with the gentleman from Virginia, I do know that what he wants to do is the right thing for our country. I would, therefore, ask him now to join with me and find a way to place additional professional law enforcement personnel on the border and not military personnel that are already stretched so thin throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our distinguished ranking member from the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who knows and understands the issues that border communities have to face.