Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in celebration with the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of their upcoming National Day and to discuss Taiwan's status in the international community and with the United States. The Republic of China was founded early in this century, and despite a history of struggle, they have been a strong ally and partner of the United States. They have developed a dynamic economy and industrial base with ties around the world. As a result, they are a valued trading partner. Moreover, they share our economic principles and with their economic success are a tremendous example of free market capitalism. Additionally, they have shown themselves to be a stabilizing economic force. All of us have heard of the financial devastation and recessionary conditions plaguing various nations in Asia, yet Taiwan remains economically strong. They have assisted neighboring countries and used their financial strength to ease the Asian economic crisis and act as a valuable resource. Taiwan has been able to take this leadership role, despite remaining isolated without a seat in the United Nations nor in the major international organizations. Moreover, despite a lack of formal diplomatic relations with the United States, Taiwan has consistently worked in conjunction with the United States in support of our various interests. With their important strategic geographic and economic position in the world, they are an important ally. During the occasion of Taiwan's forthcoming National Day we therefore celebrate our friendship with Taiwan. We must continue to cultivate an ever close partnership with Taiwan. I commend Taiwan on its leadership, friendship, and close relationship. Mr. Speaker, I therefore congratulate Taiwan on its accomplishments and join in celebration on Taiwan's forthcoming National Day.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 3598, and urge the House to pass it. I am proud to have authored this legislation to name the Federal building in El Paso, Texas after Richard C. White, the man who represented the people of El Paso in Congress for 9 terms, from 1965 to 1983. In his years of service to our Nation and to the people of the 16th district of Texas, Congressman White showed genuine concern for his constituents and a commitment to do all that was in his power to help those whom he served. He truly led a life filled with integrity, compassion and contributed to the welfare of others. And he made a lasting impression on the lives of all who knew him. I am proud to have personally known Congressman White. The more I learned about this individual, the more respect and admiration I and members of my family had for this fine gentleman and representative of the people's House. He made a lifetime commitment to his community and to his country. As a young man he served as a marine in World War II, seeing combat in Bougainville, Guam and Iwo Jima, where he was wounded and received the Purple Heart for his service to his country. His military service was only the beginning of a lifetime of public service. Upon returning to the States, he began an outstanding career in 1949 as a lawyer advocating for the people of El Paso. Heeding a for even greater community service, Congressman White launched a distinguished career as a State legislator, serving first in the Texas legislature from 1955 to 1958. From the beginning he worked hard to improve the quality of life along the Texas border and left behind a strong legacy for all border legislators. Among his numerous legislative accomplishments, he focused on health care and environmental issues, establishing a nursing school at the University of Texas at El Paso and creating the Hueco Tanks State Park. Thereafter he sought to make an even greater impact by serving at the national level and began a congressional career in 1965 as a representative for the 16th district of Texas. Many of my colleagues were his colleagues and remember his powerful advocacy on behalf of El Paso and for the well-being of the Nation as a whole. I can tell them that as I now serve in the seat he formerly held, I take great pride in working to meet the high standards that he set for all of us here in Congress. Congressman White personified the meaning of honorable leadership and public service. He stood for high ethics and moral values, and he always stood by his word. Many of my colleagues recall his work on the Committee on Armed Services which reflected an unyielding commitment to our national security. He provided unwavering support for air defense through El Paso's Flort Bliss Army Post and drafted the reorganization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, he brought the needs of El Paso and the border to the forefront. He created the Chamizal Border Highway and the Chamizal National Memorial and enacted the Scenic Rivers bill. Moreover, I know that many of you were proud to have served with him on the Interior and Insular Affairs committee, the Post Office and Civil Service Committee and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. While Richard White was known for his legislative accomplishments, maybe his greatest accomplishment was serving as a tremendous role model for countless young people from El Paso, the State of Texas and this great country. He had a kind word for everyone he met and never failed to take time to encourage our children to reach their full potential. This was reflected in his dedication as a family man. And despite having attained seniority and earning the admiration of his peers in Congress, Richard White left this body after 9 terms in 1983, to return to that family that he so much loved in El Paso. He was the proud father of 7 children and was devoted to spending more time with each and every one of them as they grew up. Nonetheless, after leaving Congress, he continued working towards the betterment of El Paso. He remained active in numerous community affairs and lent his wisdom to me and the 16th district as a mentor and as a civic leader. I can say that Richard White made the most of his life by touching the lives of all those around him. He will always be remembered as a wonderful Congressman and wonderful husband, a tremendous father, friend, role model and a great person. He was a true gentleman who is profoundly missed and it is only fitting that we honor and remember him by passing this legislation today and naming the El Paso Federal building in his name. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) the majority leader, and also the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for scheduling this bill on the floor today. I would also like to thank Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their full support of this legislation. In addition, I want to thank the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of Richard White today. I appreciate the work of their staffs in moving this legislation forward. I would also like to extend my extreme gratitude to the 41 Members who cosponsored H.R. 3598 and the other 16 Members who agreed to cosponsor the bill after it came out of committee. Congressman White would have been pleased to know of his many friends in the 105th Congress who knew him and respected him and who remember his legacy of public achievement and leadership on behalf of this great Nation. With passage of this bill, I look forward to the Senate's quicken enactment of the bill and the President's signature. Richard White, thank you and gracias for your leadership and inspiration.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to me, and I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support of the elimination of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act in the foreign operations appropriations bill. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we can no longer pursue a failed policy of prohibiting U.S. assistance to the government of Azerbaijan. The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is difficult and complex, as we have heard this afternoon. However, retaining section 907 does not assist in the resolution of their dispute. Moreover, it does not serve our national interest and our foreign policy initiatives. Section 907 limits our ability to be a neutral broker in the process of mediating the ongoing conflict. With section 907, we restrict our flexibility in dealing with a nation that is moving towards a market economy but, in the meantime, is greatly underdeveloped. Last January I had the opportunity to visit Azerbaijan, and I can tell my colleagues that we can influence great change with the lifting of section 907. The nation is greatly underdeveloped, with weak institutions and basically a closed society. By lifting section 907, we could provide technical and economic assistance, which would provide reforms that would create a more open society and increase stability and promote regional cooperation. While our foreign assistance to Armenia should remain in place, it is appropriate that at this time we move to repeal section 907. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we defeat this amendment and restore section 907.

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

Mr. REYES

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

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious debate about a very serious issue that can potentially have very serious consequences on communities along the border. Again, let us one by one separate fact from fiction. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) talks about 5 tons of heroin coming across the border and asked the rhetorical question: If 5 tons of heroin can come across the border, cannot a nuclear weapon come across the border? Yes. Absolutely. But I can tell my colleague from Ohio, there has never been one incident on the U.S.-Mexican border where 5 tons of heroin have come across the border. There has never been one single incident where 1 ton of Mexican brown heroin has come across the border. I know because I worked it, I lived it, I did it. I fought the war on drugs. Part of what we need to understand here is to get a grip on what the facts are and what all the rhetoric is and separate these two things. First of all, heroin is introduced into this country in very small quantities because it is a very valuable commodity, and drug smuggling organizations do not want to risk millions of dollars on one intercepted package. Secondly, fact from fiction. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio talks about my perfecting amendment limiting the power and the authority of the White House, the President of the United States. I want to tell this body and I want to tell my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, that if there is a national emergency, the President already has that authority. He can deploy every single soldier wherever he wants if there is a national emergency. So I think the argument about my perfecting amendment limiting us in the war on drugs is ludicrous. Fact from fiction. I mentioned earlier let us separate our ability for instant gratification and for that all-satisfying quick fix. There is no quick fix. I made mention that there are currently two bills that will increase the resources of customs, that will increase the resources of the United States border patrol; and, conceivably, we will have a United States border patrol of as many as 20,000 agents, trained, profession, bilingual officers that work on the border, that are expected to be on the border, and would never confront an 18 year old by shooting at him. Those are the facts. Those are the kinds of things that repeatedly get ignored here. I listened to my colleagues, and they all say they have a tremendous amount of respect and all of the nice things that they say about me in the context of the job that I did for 26\1/2\ years. But that is not what this is about. What this is about is listening, listening and understanding the impact that a proposal like this would make on communities along the border. Again, I ask this House to consider, is it not strange that all those that propose and support this kind of an effort, that want to sound tough on the war on drugs, that want to sound like they want to protect communities all across this country do not live nor do they represent the border? I find that kind of strange. All of us that represent border communities understand the implications. All of us understand the consequences. All of us understand and live with constituents that do not want the danger. They do not want this kind of proposal coming out of the people's House. Listen to the argument. Listen to the consequences, and then understand that the military is not a solution. The military trains for warfare. We need the military to be ready to defend us in a completely different context, not patrolling the border, not in our border communities, and not jeopardizing the residents that live along that border. They have an expectation to have the same kinds of protections that the rest of the communities along this great country have. Those are the issues. Those are the facts. Ultimately, if this thing passes, and ultimately, time and time again, as we argue and debate this thing, ultimately if it passes, those are going to be the consequences. Yes, we are going to be talking about settling with families whose children have been killed, settling with communities that are not understanding why this body would put troops in their communities.

Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the things that my colleagues will recall, Mr. Chairman, I started out by asking my colleague from Ohio specifically what he intended or what the intent of his amendment was. Based on that conversation, I offered my perfecting amendment. The issue here, and this should be of concern to all of us, are those that think that we here in this body should adhere to a quick fix at any price. We have already seen one young man killed on the Texas-Mexico border as a result of military troops on the border. I would ask my colleagues that are so intent on protecting the neighborhoods, does that mean that they are willing to deploy United States military resources to the neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. and Florida and Kansas and Illinois and the areas that they represent? I think not. We cannot afford it. We should not subject neighborhoods to that kind of military presence. Yet that is the very thing that they are proposing in the context of the amendment that is offered that they are opposed to a perfecting amendment that would preclude border neighborhoods from seeing and having to deal with troops on our borders. Part of the process of understanding those that want that quick fix, because of what we need to clarify here is that it is not inconsequential that those of us who represent border communities are opposed to military troops in our communities and along our borders, the areas that we serve, the areas that we represent. No one should be enamored with a quick fix. No one should say, it is okay to put U.S. soldiers in jeopardy both professionally, legally and personally by deploying them to the border to do counterdrug operations. That is not what they were trained for, that is not what they want, that is not what anyone wants that is involved in drug enforcement. INS does not support it, the Attorney General does not support it, the administration does not support it. Those of us that know and understand and have worked, not have gone for 3 or 4 days and suffered 115 degree heat and the bites of insects and everything else, those of us that have worked that area, in my case 26\1/2\ years, and in the cases of America's finest law enforcement officers that are serving us very well today, day in day out, 24 hours a day, they do not want troops on the border to complicate an already complicated and controversial part of the legacy of this country. We should understand that there are no quick fixes. Quick fixes come with a tremendous cost. It has already cost the life of an 18-year-old high school student in Redford, Texas. I would submit that those of us that are so concerned about the deaths in this country throughout the neighborhood should take that into account.

Mr. REYES. Again, in summary, and again concluding as to the perfecting amendment that I have before this House, I hope that this body understands that there is a reasonable way to address the problems that we face against narcotics trafficking and against those that would perpetrate criminal acts against border residents. I understand. I spent 26\1/2\ years working the area. I understand what my colleague from Illinois is talking about. But I think that we have to respect a process that takes into account the fact that border residents are United States citizens also, and they deserve and should expect the same kinds of protections and the same kinds of rights and privileges that the rest of the country has.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, at this point I want to ask unanimous consent to make a technical modification to my perfecting amendment to change the last word ``amendment'' to say ``section''.

Mr. REYES. Yes, I will. Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, in my 5 minutes I wish to address some of the comments my colleague from Illinois made. I just want to, first of all, tell my colleagues that one of the things we need to understand and remember here is that if the intent is to control and to stop the flow of narcotics into this country, then we have to realize that 90 percent of the drugs that flow across the U.S.- Mexican border, 90 percent of the drugs that flow across the U.S.- Mexican border, come through the ports of entry. Statistics show us that only 10 percent come in between the ports of entry, and have nothing to do with some of the concerns that the gentleman raises. That is point number one. Point number two is that we in this Congress, for the last several years, and for 2 or 3 years henceforth, have taken it upon ourselves to increase the number of resources specifically intended for the United States Border Patrol. We have doubled their force. By the year 2001, we are going to have a Border Patrol force that will exceed 10,000 officers. I am a cosponsor of a bill that was introduced, bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that states that we want to take the Border Patrol up to 20,000. I think that if we will continue on that course, giving the United States Border Patrol the resources necessary to do the job, it does several things. First of all, we have trained, professional Federal law enforcement agents that understand and are recognized as being part of the law enforcement presence along the border. They understand the culture, they are bilingual, they are expected to be there, and it makes sense. That is part of what I think we ought to be about in terms of addressing the strategy in between the ports of entry. Second thing is that I am also a cosponsor of a bill that will give additional resources to Customs. We have to understand that in order to be successful at the ports of entry, we have to do two things. First of all, we have to send a strong law enforcement presence; and, secondly, we have to facilitate commerce. That has been part of the argument and part of the frustration that I have faced here, and other Members from the southern border, from the U.S.-Mexican border have faced here in this Congress, is that we want and expect people to settle for different rules between the United States and Mexico and between Canada and Mexico. That was the premise of the argument in section 110. So what we are trying to do is put forth some public policy and resources that, first of all, do the job; secondly, do not endanger border communities; and, third, have people understand that there is a better way of doing things.

Mr. REYES. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the gentleman for clarifying for me his amendment. Part of the concern that I have is we just recently settled with the family in Redford, Texas, $1.9 million for the death of their son, who died as a result of an incident along the U.S.-Mexican border which, unfortunately, was involved with specifically military units on the border patrolling in assistance to law enforcement. I have the background of 26\1/2\ years of Federal law enforcement on the U.S.-Mexican border. I am very concerned about periodically the attempts in this House, in the people's House, to put forth a policy, a law, a procedure, or a process where we would make such a situation where military troops would be on our border to help law enforcement. I am reminded of the analogy where we have a very rich dessert that looks good, it tastes good and it feels good. But although while we are eating it we think it is good for us, it does not have any nutritional value. It adds fat content to our body, and, ultimately is very detrimental to us. And that is exactly the point I want to make here this afternoon about putting troops on the border. If the amendment is to bring military assets, such as radar, such as being able to track airplanes, such as being able to assist law enforcement in identifying routes but specifically excluding military patrols on the border, then I do not have any objection to it. In fact, in the past it has been a very effective policy. I worked on the border. I worked in south Florida. I can attest to the fact that we do need that kind of capability. One other concern that I want to bring forth here is that we cannot possibly have it both ways. I just came here from a hearing where we listened to testimony from U.N. Inspector Scott Ritter about the situation in Iraq. Part of the concern and the testimony that we are hearing now is the readiness factor that we have right now and our inability at this point, and the concern from the national security perspective, that we would not be able to do a Gulf War type operation today. So we cannot have it both ways. We cannot continue to bring forth, because it sounds good, because it feels good, a proposal to have the military participate in the war on drugs and then expect them to do and carry out their mandates.

Mr. REYES. And Mr. Chairman, what is the time frame for that? Do I have to do it immediately?

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to know is what is the procedure to amend the amendment to make sure that we are talking about assistance from the Department of Defense by way of what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) mentioned in terms of equipment, in terms of being able to track planes and those things, and specifically not troops on the border?

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of understanding the gentleman's amendment, I would ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for clarification. Can the gentleman tell me, is he proposing what he has proposed in the past, that the Secretary of Defense shall assist by placing troops on the border? What exactly did the gentleman have in mind?

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, what is my remaining time?

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 120. I believe that this resolution is counterproductive to the national interests of the United States and to the continued improvement in the bilateral relationship between our Nation and Vietnam. I did not have the privilege of serving in this House with Ambassador Pete Peterson, but over the course of the last 2 weeks I have had an opportunity to sit with him on several occasions and talk to him about his experience as ambassador to Vietnam from this country. Ambassador Peterson, I think, more than anyone else understands the problems and the complex nature of the issue as we transition from a very negative relationship with Vietnam to hopefully a better and more understanding relationship. Ambassador Peterson tells me that Vietnam is a country in transition. It is a country in transition culturally, philosophically, economically, socially and even educationally. I believe that it is important, it is vital that we remain engaged with Vietnam and that we assist Vietnam and provide the leadership to help with that assistance to that country so that they can transition from a dictatorship to ultimately a democracy. I had an opportunity this morning to again be with Ambassador Peterson in the Cannon Building where there is an exhibition and it is simply titled ``Vietnam, The Land That We Never Knew.'' Mr. Speaker, I was in Vietnam 30 years ago. I spent 13 months there in the United States Army. I told Ambassador Peterson that I really did not have any interest in going back, but he has convinced me that with the policy of engagement, it is our obligation and our duty to go back and see the Vietnam that we never knew. I am opposed to this resolution and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas; excuse me, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra). He wants to be from Texas.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.