National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - May 25, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, I rise today in strong support of this bill. The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces has jurisdiction over several of the most complex and contentious programs, which include ballistic missile defense and nuclear weapons.
I want to recognize and I want to thank our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman EVERETT), my good friend, for his leadership and all the effort that he put into forging a bipartisan mark. I should tell my colleagues that we often do not see eye-to-eye on every single matter, but I am pleased to report that our subcommittee reached bipartisan accord on several major issues that are important to our Nation.
In the short time that I have here this morning, I want to highlight two areas of bipartisan agreement: satellite programs and the Department of Energy's Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1815 restructures two high-profile satellite development programs, TSAT and Space Radar. Restructuring these programs was a bipartisan decision, an effort that I think will save both programs from experiencing cost overruns and schedule slips that have plagued them in the past.
Turning to the Department of Energy, I am also pleased that we were able to set a reasonable, bipartisan objective for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The RRW program has the potential to significantly lower the number of weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to ensure that our Nation never resumes nuclear testing.
Of course, as always, the devil is in the details. The mark contains a detailed reporting requirement on the RRW, and in truth, only when we receive the report will we likely know whether or not that program can live up to its full potential. Still, setting a bipartisan charter for this program and others in our subcommittee is a significant accomplishment of this mark.
With that, Mr. Chairman, time does not permit me to go into the other areas that are of concern to our great Nation, only to say that I urge all Members to support this bill. It is important to our Nation. It is important to those that are in harm's way today keeping us free.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 20 OFFERED BY MR. GOODE
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express strong opposition to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode's) amendment.
I understand his concern. There has been a lot of talk both on the floor of Congress, throughout the country about border control. I understand the need to increase enforcement along our borders to protect against terrorism and drug trafficking.
Mr. Chairman, as a former Border Patrol agent with 26 ½ years' experience along our Nation's border, I know firsthand the difficulties that we have protecting our borders. But I also know that what we need are more trained law enforcement professionals, not military forces and, most certainly, not untrained civilians and vigilantes.
I know how difficult it is to secure our Nation's borders and the need for additional resources; however, this amendment is the wrong solution to our current problem along the border. The military has been more than willing to provide assistance to law enforcement already, but, Mr. Chairman, let me just for the record state that the Department of Defense opposes this amendment.
The Department of Homeland Security needs more border patrol agents, not troops on the border. The President already has the constitutional authority to deploy troops, as necessary, during a national emergency. There is no reason for this amendment.
We have recently authorized an additional 1,500 border agents and have funded those 1,500 border agents.
Last August, we passed the intelligence reform legislation that has a provision for 2,000 border patrol agents per year for the next 5 years. That is the solution, in my opinion, that we need: professional trained Spanish-speaking border patrol agents that know and understand the challenge they face.
Our military today is already stressed. Just last month, the U.S. Army told us that their recruitment was down some 42 percent. We do not have the forces, we do not have the Reserves, and we do not have the National Guard because of the commitments overseas.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ORTIZ. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, we have been in contact with border patrol agents that currently are telling us that they are demoralized. Because if you are an other-than-Mexican undocumented individual, you can come in. We have instances where they are actually flagging down our border patrol agents and they are asking local residents to call the border patrol so they can get what they call their permiso, or their permit, to be able to travel anywhere in the United States.
This is an abuse of our immigration laws, and it is all because we will not fund and we will not establish temporary detention facilities. When I was chief in McAllen sector, we had the same situation in the mid-1980s, where we had Central Americans coming in to the country. I was told that my agents were to issue I-210 letters, which is that permiso, that permit, they want today and wanted in the mid-1980s. I said, no, we are going to arrest them, and we are going to detain them.
We put together a plan. We put temporary detention facilities down in south Texas, and guess what, Mr. Chairman? It worked. They stopped coming. And more importantly, Mexico had to become engaged to make sure that people coming from Central America did not come into Mexico and create difficulties for them.
There is a solution, my colleagues, to this issue. The solution is enforcing our laws. If we put military on the border, all they are going to be doing is refer these undocumented other-than-Mexican aliens to the border patrol so they can be issued another permit to go anywhere in the country that they want. Does that make sense? Is that what we want to use our military for, just the equivalent of tour guides, referring illegals to the border patrol for issuing of a permit so they can go anywhere in the country?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my friend from Arizona that the Department of Defense opposes this amendment, and the President already has the constitutional authority.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), who is, coincidentally, from the northern border that the gentleman from Arizona was just speaking about and who is a member of our committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I remind my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), that the Department of Defense is opposed to this amendment. The President already has the authority.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) that I have the utmost respect for him, but I would remind the gentleman that it is poor public policy to allow citizens to take the law into their own hands, whether it is Arizona or not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who represents a border district.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for a great debate here and all the Members that participated.
Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that is very much discussed around the country. As my friend from South Carolina said, this is in response to the issue that the American people seek relief on. But this is a false response. The Department of Defense opposes this amendment. Homeland Security needs more border patrol agents, more technology, more resources, not troops, to help them. The President already has the constitutional authority to deploy troops as necessary.
I would ask all Members that have spoken on this very important issue, let us get together and let us ask for hearings so that we can have relief in areas like my friend and colleague from south Texas (Mr. Ortiz) articulated. Border patrol agents are demoralized today because they are the equivalent of tourist enterprises, in terms of passing out letters to other-than-Mexican undocumented people that are allowed to travel anywhere in the country.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support efforts to recruit, train, and deploy additional border patrol agents and resources. That is the way we ought to be going.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov