Today's NY Times reports that:
"Representative Silvestre Reyes, a Texas Democrat who was called because he served in the Border Patrol for 26 years, dismissed the hearing as “a waste of time,” saying the Republican-led Congress had repeatedly failed to provide enough money for border enforcement.
And one Republican on the subcommittee, Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona, who had sponsored a measure closer to the Senate version, called the session a “faux hearing” at a time when, he said, the two houses should be in negotiations to reconcile their differing approaches."
Other news agencies reported "more of the hearing was spent trading partisan shots, than dissecting the Senate bill," and that, Rep. Flake, said, "I resent the implication we tried comprehensive reform and it failed." It's not that '86 was too much like the Senate comprehensive reform, it's that it wasn't comprehensive enough, he believes. "We didn't allow a legal framework for additional workers," he said.
Congressman Reyes has a blog. Yesterday, he wrote about the ham-handed House Hearing and his support for the comprehensive immigration reform set forth in the Senate Bill.
On Sunday, the Washington Post carried a piece endorsing comprehensive immigration reform and pointing out that "the first House "field hearings" on immigration legislation have at times seemed more like talk show free-for-alls than serious contributions to the legislative process."