[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 96 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
                      LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1933

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 1(c), I 
offer a motion to instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend 
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants 
to increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts 
between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to 
address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public 
safety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bonilla moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill HR 3355 be instructed not to agree to any provision 
     having the effect of diminishing the amount of money made 
     available to the United States Border Patrol Service from the 
     amount provided in the House amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Mazzoli] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct the crime 
bill conferees as a necessity, but also as a tribute to the men and 
women who proudly wear the green uniform of the U.S. Border Patrol 
Service.
  The primary mission of the Border Patrol is to stop illegal drugs and 
aliens from entering the United States.
  Illegal drugs ruin the lives of too many Americans and are the 
scourge of our Nation. Illegal aliens burden the services of our local, 
State and Federal Governments.
  Our mayors, county judges of both parties and Governors are calling 
out to Washington for leadership and assistance. We must help them, we 
must help our constituents. The best and most effective way to do this 
is to stop those who come into our country illegally at the border.
  By stopping this traffic at the border, we would cut deeply into 
illicit activities. Every year the Border Patrol seizes tons of 
marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other deadly narcotics.
  These drugs have a street value of well over a billion dollars. Since 
1986, the value of Border Patrol drug seizures increased by over 700 
percent.
  Those drugs will never enter our communities, our school yards and 
playgrounds, thanks to the drug interdiction activities of the U.S. 
Border Patrol.
  Our long borders with Canada and Mexico are largely unmonitored. 
There are more Capitol Hill Policemen--1,100--than agents in Texas' 
largest border patrol sector--the Laredo sector which only has 364 
officers.
  In fact, while the Capitol building and grounds are well protected, 
the Laredo sector, with an area of 101,439 square miles and 171 miles 
of riverfront with Mexico, is forced to spread its officers thinly. 
This is wrong. As a result, decent hardworking Americans pay the price 
in higher taxes, fewer services and increasing crime rates.
  According to a Department of Justice report, an estimated 25 percent 
of all inmates in Federal prisons are criminal aliens. Too often these 
criminals are not deported but maintained at Government expense. This 
is also the case with alien criminals in our State and county 
facilities.
  Very few of these criminals are deported and those who are, often 
return to our communities hunting law abiding Americans.
  By increasing funding for the Border Patrol and adding agents and 
support staff, America's borders and heartland will be more secure.
  This is not just a border problem, or a Texas problem, or even a 
California problem--it is an American problem.
  The Border Patrol apprehended 1.25 million illegal aliens in 1993, a 
4.4-percent increase from the previous year. This is the fourth 
consecutive year that apprehensions were above the one million arrest 
mark. This is significant because the U.S. Border Patrol Service makes 
the most arrests of any law enforcement agency--in the entire world. So 
just imagine what can be accomplished with more agents at work.
  As the issue of crime is discussed, any solution would be incomplete 
without mention of the Border Patrol. The dramatic increase in nation-
wide criminal alien activity and growth in illegal narcotics from our 
border area should be a prime example of the need for greater support 
measures for the Border Patrol.
  The Hunter amendment would put 6,000 more agents on the border. The 
House approved this vital amendment. Please join me in instructing our 
conferees to stand firm in protecting our borders and keep this 
provision in the crime bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not my position today to oppose the gentleman's 
motion to instruct, but I think it is important for the House to have 
before it some information about what really this does.
  I would join the gentleman from Texas and all the Members of the 
House in saying that the Border Patrol is one of the most important 
agencies of the Immigration Service and of the Federal Government and 
for many years the Border Patrol has not had sufficient assets or 
resources both financial and personnel to get the job done. But I am 
happy to note that under the administration of President Clinton that 
there has been stronger efforts mounted in this regard than we have had 
in a number of years. In a moment, I will outline some of that data.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is also useful to note that while the 
gentleman's motion to instruct has as its final line the operative part 
which is that the House conferees would not agree to any provision 
which has the effect of diminishing the amount of money made available 
to the Border Patrol from the amount provided in the House amendment, 
and the House amendment, which is before the conference committee on 
the crime bill uses the term ``such sums as may be appropriate.'' So 
that in reality of the House conferees do not have before them any 
specific sum of money for Border Patrol purposes.

                              {time}  1710

  They simply have the general admonition from this House appropriating 
such sums as may be necessary.
  In connection with the amount of money actually appropriated, I am 
told that in his budget cycle that the House Appropriations Committee 
approved by this House has appropriated sufficient money for another 
700 persons, men and women for the Border Patrol, so that if the 
appropriations bill is eventually approved, as we think it will be 
because the Senate is moving in the same direction, then we will have 
enough money within the year fiscal 1995 to have something up to one 
hundred new Border Patrol agents.
  It is also instructive to note that just over a period of a number of 
years, as we know, the role and responsibility of the Border Patrol has 
increased. For example, in the fiscal year 1981 funds appropriated for 
the purpose of the Border Patrol, both agents and support personnel 
amounted to $87 million. In 1994 it is, roughly speaking, in the 
category of $350 million, up from $87 million. So there has been a 
recognition on the part of the Congress under several administrations, 
and particularly this one, the Clinton administration, that the Border 
Patrol does need to have additional funding. That is exactly what we 
have done.
  There also has been as part of the immigration initiative announced 
by the Attorney General very recently in February some $327 million 
proposed and released, some $264 million of which will come from the 
crime control fund, which is the pending crime bill, and some $63 
million to come from additional appropriations. If my figures are 
correct, something like $2,262,000,000 will be in the fiscal year 1995 
budget authority for the Immigration Service. So in addition to the 
Border Patrol part, which the gentleman is pointing out, which is of 
absolutely great importance to his State and all of our States, the 
overall Immigration Service is also being shored up and being augmented 
by necessary appropriations to get the job done.
  So again, I have no objection to the gentleman's motion to instruct. 
But it is important to point out that the conferees at this point of 
the part of the House do not have before them any specific sum of money 
for the Border Patrol. They have the general admonition, the general 
instruction of such sums as may be necessary, and that sum will be 
decided by the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments and also appreciate the bipartisan efforts he also pointed out 
have taken place on both sides of the aisle, but also by the 
administration that is interested in helping the Border Patrol in its 
efforts, and we just want to make sure that that continues. Again I 
just emphasize my appreciation of his support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, neighbor, and 
friend, the gentleman from San Antonio, TX, for yielding me the time. 
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct.
  As a flood of illegal aliens pours through the gaps in our national 
borders, the Administration cannot be trusted to deal with the problem 
without a little prodding.
  Only 2 months ago, I was stunned when Doris Meissner, the 
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, told me at 
an Immigration Subcommittee hearing that she did not need--and did not 
want--the 6,000 new Border Patrol agents that the recently passed 
Hunter amendment would fund.
  Mr. Speaker, my phone rings daily with calls from taxpaying 
constituents irate over the growing number of their tax dollars being 
spent on Government benefits for illegal aliens. And as bad as the 
problem is in Texas, it's even worse in States like California and 
Florida.
  All across Texas, American citizens and legal immigrants--who play by 
the rules and in some cases have waited decades to enter the United 
States legally--are forced to compete for scarce jobs and social 
services with illegal aliens who have simply cut ahead in line.
  That is fundamentally unfair. America was built on respect for the 
rule of law. Our job is to make sure the law is enforced. This motion 
to instruct demonstrates our determination to do so.
  Every other civilized nation on the planet does a better job than the 
United States of protecting its borders. We have no need to apologize 
for enforcing our laws and requiring immigrants to enter legally, just 
as previous generations have for hundreds of years.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. 
I want to congratulate the author of this motion to instruct, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], for his concern for the men and 
women of the Border Patrol and for his concern for the need to have law 
and order on our borders.
  I want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar 
Smith, who is the head of Republican Research Tax Force on Immigration 
who has put together an immigration package that I think is second to 
none. He has held national hearings really as the result of a great 
deal of work by many Members on the Republican side, and has taken 
testimony from Members on the other side of the aisle as well.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], my 
colleague, for sponsoring the amendment to add 6,000 Border Patrol 
agents, as well as my colleague from California [Mr. Cunningham], who 
is also a cosponsor of that very important amendment.
  I want to thank a Member who is going be leaving us, the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli], who has dedicated a great deal of time and 
effort here in the House to working on the problems of controlling our 
border, and for the input that he had in this year's appropriation bill 
in urging the chairman to move forward on a higher mark. It is a mark 
in which we get about almost a thousand new agents this year. I want to 
thank him for all of the work he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Smith], for taking to task the INS commissioner who said they did 
not, at least at that time, support our amendment to add some 6,000 new 
Border Patrol agents. I hope the administration will reserve its 
position and come to the position of strength that his amendment and 
that of the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Bonilla, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Cunningham's 
amendment has led us to, and that is doubling the Border Patrol.
  My colleagues, this amendment basically takes the Border Patrol from 
about 4,500 personnel to well over 10,000. We need that because on the 
southwest border of the United States there are 12 smuggling corridors 
where massive smuggling of illegal aliens and narcotics take place on a 
nightly basis. Those corridors occur any place where you have a 
population on each side of the border, San Diego-Tijuana, Calexico-
Mexicali, to all the way in the east, Matamoros and Brownsville. They 
need a Grand Central Station effect. They need a lot of people and an 
urban area so the smugglers and the smuggled contraband can get lost in 
the crowds. They also have to have a logistical base in the smuggling 
corridors where there is a heavy population, and generally they also 
have freeways or highway arteries that come down close to the border. 
But once they get the contraband across, whether they are smuggling 
illegal aliens in a U-Haul truck, or smuggling cocaine, they can move 
it quickly on to the freeway and disperse it to their destinations.
  If we want to have a real border, we need to have the political will 
to do essentially what was done in El Paso, TX. People have talked for 
years about how complex it is to have a real border. Let me tell my 
colleagues how complex it is. It is so complex that we basically took a 
bunch of border patrolmen at El Paso and every 100 yards we would walk 
down with a group and say ``Stand here.'' Then we would walk another 
100 yards and we would say to two more border patrolman, ``Stand 
here.'' It is simply a matter of having the political will to have the 
personnel to line the border, so that you have a couple of agents every 
100 yards or so in these smuggling corridors on a 24-hour basis. That 
is three shifts. You have to have reserves so that you can move to an 
area where massive smuggling is taking place or some of the so-called 
bonsai raids where 300 or 400 people will try to overwhelm a border 
patrol.

                              {time}  1720

  You have to have an ability to respond to that, and you have got to 
have enough personnel to run headquarters and also to handle the 
Canadian border. That requires, if you figure it out, about 10,000 
agents. So we need to go from 4,500 agents, as the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bonilla] has suggested to 10,000 agents. We need an increase of 
about 6,000 agents.
  If you put that in the context of what this Government is doing, we 
are cashiering 1,700 young people a week out of the military, out of 
the uniformed services, so we are talking about 4 weeks' worth of 
uniformed terminations in the armed services and you could totally 
flesh out the Border Patrol.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for his motion to instruct. I hope 
everybody will vote up to it.
  You know, I had the honor the other day of giving out some awards for 
heroism to Border Patrol agents and their families in San Diego. These 
are wonderful people. They serve this country just as strongly and just 
as fervently as any of our people in the armed services, and they have 
not been given enough credit. What they would really like, I think, 
from us right now is reinforcements, and the motion to instruct offered 
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] does that.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter], for his nice remarks and to say that I think often of our 
very first meeting in 1981 at the Hotel Coronado. I think the gentleman 
was on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors at the time, and I was 
just newly appointed to this committee, and I remember our 
conversation, and I have happily served with the gentleman for these 
years of his time in Congress. I want to thank him.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MAZZOLI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his nice 
statement. You know, seeing you there at the border in San Diego, CA, 
was an early illustration to me that there are a lot of Members in this 
body who really work hard, who really give great credit to the body. I 
wondered, ``Why is this guy out here going on these night patrols 3,000 
miles from his own district and trying to help a cause that does not'' 
at that time at least, ``was not very popular,'' and it was because you 
thought it was right. I appreciate that.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank my friend for that. I also would endorse 
everything he said about the bravery and gallantry and dedication of 
the men and women of the Border Patrol. They certainly on a day-to-day 
basis have some of the toughest jobs in Federal service.
  For them, the amendment like the gentleman is offering and the work 
that has been done by the gentleman from California, the gentleman from 
Kentucky, is starting to pay off dividends.
  I would like to maybe make a couple of points. When Ms. Meisner came 
before the committee and suggested that maybe the number of 6,000, 
which is what the amendment by the gentleman from California calls for, 
might have been a little bit too generous, and I do not think maybe Ms. 
Meisner was thinking about that from the total needs of the Border 
Patrol as much as from the time it takes to train and deploy and sort 
of cycle people in there. So I think it probably was not a rejection of 
the concept as much as just how we could do it.
  I would say this, and I have said this very often, and it gets back 
to Father Ted Hesburgh who, when I first met the gentleman from 
California, was ending up his work as chairman of that immigration 
committee which led to the eventual recommendations, which led to the 
1986 act, but Father Hesburgh is very fond of saying unless you close 
the back door in the immigration setting you will not be able to keep 
the front door open. What Father means by that, and what I think the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas gets to, or his motion to 
instruct, unless we close the back door which keeps out people who are 
seeking to enter illegally or come in with claims that are false of 
asylum or somehow use false documentation, we will not be able to keep 
the front door open, which is the door through which many people have 
come in legally because they are rejoining family, because they have 
job talents that this Nation needs, because they have an ability to 
create businesses to add to the economic growth of our Nation, and the 
more of what I see now happening, unfortunately, around the country is 
a kind of frustration, a kind of feeling that is growing of disquiet 
about immigration, not making the distinction between legal and 
illegal.
  And so I really believe that our Nation, our Government, would make a 
great step forward by doing everything possible to curtail illegal 
immigration in order to maintain a generous and magnanimous program of 
legal immigration, and we suffer the loss of the one if we do not 
attend to the problems of the other.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to draw personal attention. There is one person in this 
entire House who has made this the tip of his spear when it was very 
unpopular to try and stop the problem we are talking about of illegal 
immigration, that is the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]. He 
even told me about the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli]. I was 
still in the Navy when the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] came 
and said, ``Duke, we need to stop the drugs coming across the border as 
well. Let's use F-14's.'' I was out at NAS Miramar, and I had to 
explain to my colleague an F-14 radar cannot see a low flier at 50 feet 
over the ground, and you are not going to find any F-14 driver flying 
down there with his lights out at night anyway.
  The whole bill he and the gentleman worked in the House allowed the 
military to be able to participate in building a fence, helping us 
build a road, put up the lights, and that was all the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], and on the Senate side Governor Wilson, who 
was then in the Senate, a allowed that to happen.
  I would like to thank the gentleman. Even when I was in the Navy, I 
know of his efforts. There are a few other people, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead] the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] 
who when this was not a popular issue fought hard, and there has been a 
lot of frustration, to try and get it done.
  Why are we working so hard? I would also like to thank another 
individual, Gus Tellivini, who was on the border down there when the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli] came down, he was the head of the 
Border Patrol. It is like locusts coming across down there, and let me 
tell you a few things it is going to help. Unlike some of my 
colleagues, I think in the crime bill we need a balance. There should 
be strong education programs. There should be a strong rehabilitation 
system. Yes, even after going down in San Diego and talking to the 
night basketball thing, it does work. Day-night basketball does help 
with the kids. I support that. There should be some of those programs.
  But let me tell you when we are putting new policemen on the street 
what it helps. If I could put Border Patrol up there, I could stop the 
million that are infesting the school systems in California from K 
through 12. That costs, the teachers are telling me, and that is one of 
the big problems. My wife is a teacher, and it is one of the big 
problems in our school systems in San Diego. We have 16,000 illegals in 
our jail system. That costs between $25,000 and $50,000 each just to 
house them depending on what kind of facility they are in. That money 
could well be used.
  Up to two-thirds of all the children born in L.A. hospitals are to 
illegal aliens. They then go down, because that child is now an 
American citizen, and qualify for AFDC and welfare. That costs us 
millions of dollars just in the State of California.
  We look at the other health care. When ``20/20'' and ``60 Minutes'' 
did a price on the emergency care that goes in, when we are talking 
about the elevation of health care costs, that also goes up. So if we 
can stop illegals at the border, if I can stop them from coming into 
international airports from other countries, losing their papers and 
filtering into the system, the same type of guy that blew up the World 
Trade Center which was an illegal alien, we can save a lot of money.
  We are looking, and the President, and most of us, I think, support 
universal health care. We do not know how to pay for it. This Nation: 
It costs us $37 billion a year, the illegal immigration problem, $37 
billion, and take that times 5 years, and say, ``Well, Duke, that is 
inflated.'' Let us take half of that. That is $93 billion a year that 
we could save ourselves and apply it to our schools or health care 
problems or wherever we want for additional coverage.
  That is why, you know, I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] 
in this resolution, to talk about Border Patrol, where we need 10,000 
to cover from St. Louis all the way through the border States, and I 
think it is money well spent, because it saves money in the long run.
  If we were going to invade Haiti because of the immigration problem 
that we have from Haiti, we would have invaded Mexico a long time ago 
if that was the logic. I mean, we have tens of millions of illegals 
coming into our country from all over the country, but here in San 
Diego, we have a special problem through ourselves that we need to 
stop.

                              {time}  1730

  So I laud the gentleman and appreciate the additional time.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, as a representative from the southern border, I can tell 
you that the men and women who risk their lives every day to patrol our 
border have not received a fair deal from Congress.
  Currently, the San Diego sector accounts for 50 percent of all 
immigration arrests in the country. In 1992, there were more than 
565,000 arrests--accomplished with only 1,035 agents. Though the San 
Diego sector carries out 50 percent of the arrests, it has only 30 
percent of the agents and less than 15 percent of the operational 
budget of the agency.
  Our Border Patrol officers are working in a dangerous environment 
with woefully inadequate resources. Let me give you just a few 
examples:
  The body armor used by our agents has, in most cases, exceeded the 
life of the manufacturer's warranty. Outdated body armor offers 
virtually no protection to officers in the field.
  Detention facilities are completely inadequate given the numbers 
being arrested. Recently, almost 2,000 illegal immigrants were arrested 
in a 24-hour period--and brought to a facility designed for only a few 
hundred. Conditions are unsafe for everyone.
  The radio communications system is outdated and unworkable. With 20 
or more agents sharing one frequency it is, at times, close to 
impossible to get on the air. Emergency responses are delayed--and 
routine operations are frequently interrupted.
  How can we ask these men and women to protect our borders--and then 
fail to give them the minimal resources they need?
  The helicopter fleet is almost 30 years old--and can't compare with 
the speed, air time, or other capabilities that are standard in other 
law enforcement agencies.
  To add to the helicopter problem, there is a real shortage of pilots. 
In the San Diego sector, there are typically only 6 hours of helicopter 
flying time in every 12-hour shift--and that is on a good day. Within 
the next 5 years, almost all of the pilots now in the San Diego sector 
will be eligible for retirement.
  Employees at the Imperial Beach Station perform maintenance out of a 
tent to keep their vehicles going. At the Brown Field Station the 
sector garage tries to service 700 vehicles from a building designed to 
support only 250. Because of this overload, the sector currently 
contracts out much of its own vehicle repair work, at a much higher 
cost to the taxpayer--thus wasting precious dollars that could be used 
to bolster enforcement.
  Most facilities are small and overcrowded. Many of the agents do not 
have lockers for their equipment and must operate out of the trunks of 
their personal cars.
  How can any of these men and women do the job that we in Congress are 
demanding.
  I support the motion because we need additional agents to control the 
border. But the infrastructure--buildings, radio communications, safety 
equipment, helicopters and even phone lines--must be provided as well.
  Like law enforcement agencies all over the country, the Border Patrol 
is asked to do a dangerous job. We have a responsibility to those 
officers and their families to give them the resources they need to do 
the job safely.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead].
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Hunter/Bonilla 
motion to instruct conferees to support authorizing the addition of 
6,000 new Border Patrol agents over a 5-year period which is presently 
contained in the House-passed crime bill. I would like to commend the 
sponsors of this motion for their vigilance over this important issue.
  In 1986, when Congress adopted my amendment to the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act authorizing a 50-percent increase in our border 
strength, our Border Patrol force included a total of 3,238 agents. 
Today, our current on-line force has reached 4,092, only 854 more 
agents than we had onboard 8 years ago. Congress cannot continue to 
refuse to give our Border Patrol the manpower and resources they need 
to tighten our wide-open borders. This inaction by Congress is 
resulting in a multibillion-dollar price tag for health care, 
education, and other benefits granted to illegal immigrants. It is the 
responsibility of the Congress to enforce the immigration laws of our 
country, and the Border Patrol is the very first line of defense 
against controlling illegal immigration and drug smuggling.
  For decades we have heard assertions from special interest groups 
that the border is unenforceable. The effectiveness of Operation 
Blockade in the El Paso sector proves, of course, that this is 
nonsense. In El Paso, apprehensions of illegal immigrants have gone 
down by 81 percent and crime has been reduced by 46 percent. This 
successful blockade demonstrates the beneficial effects of an adequate 
number of Border Patrol agents.
  Last year was a turning point for our Border Patrol force, when this 
body overwhelmingly passed the Hunter amendment, of which I am a 
sponsor, appropriating $60 million for 600 additional agents this year. 
The authorization before us today will continue this trend. Right now, 
we have a relatively small force of just over 4,000 dedicated and 
talented law enforcement officers performing a nearly impossible task 
in policing and protecting our land borders. Up to 4,500 undocumented 
aliens enter the southern California area each day. Last year the 
Border Patrol apprehended 1.25 million illegal aliens, marking the 
fourth consecutive year that apprehensions surpassed 1 million. Agents 
continue to put their lives on the line by intercepting 1.34 billion 
dollars' worth of narcotics in 1993 that would have otherwise found 
their way onto our streets and into the hands of gangs and pushers.
  If we can put 100,000 new policemen on our streets, as the omnibus 
crime bill proposes, we can certainly expand our Border Patrol force by 
6,000 over the same length of time. Of all Americans, 81 percent 
support an increase in our border force and it is important to retain 
that provision in whatever version of the crime bill is adopted by the 
conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more crucial to my district 
and to my part of the State of California than this issue of 
undocumented aliens. I think that is true in Texas and many of the 
other border districts along our Mexican-American border. The most 
significant thing we can do to stem the tide is to increase our efforts 
at the border. We can do lots of other things by reducing the 
attraction, and we are trying to do that in other ways and by 
strengthening our efforts at the checkpoints and a variety of other 
places, but to strengthen our effort at the border is where we can stop 
at tide of crossings illegally.
  That means new personnel, additional personnel. I heartily endorse 
this motion to instruct, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas 
and the gentleman from California for their efforts to make certain 
that we increase by 600 the number of Border Patrol agents which is in 
our bill.
  I hope that the conferees will use the House version in this aspect 
rather than the Senate version.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to very briefly sum up to once again inform the House that the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the members of that committee, on the 
conference on the crime bill, have no objection to the gentleman's 
motion to instruct, and I therefore would not oppose it on their part.
  I think it is, once again, important to just clarify that while the 
gentleman's motion to instruct demands that the House conferees not 
diminish the amount of money for the Border Patrol from the amount 
which has been provided by the House amendment, by the House bill, as 
we have said earlier there is no specific sum of money set by the House 
bill. The House bill provides such sums of money as would be necessary 
and those moneys, of course, are filled in by the Committee on 
Appropriations, which this year will provide up to 700 additional 
Border patrol agents.
  Having said that, it seems to me very important for us to recognize 
that the bulwark of our Nation's ability to prevent influxes of illegal 
immigrants is the Border Patrol, composed of the men and women who 
serve it. So it is very important that we from time to time both in the 
appropriation bill and the authorizing legislation and motions to 
instruct, as offered by the gentleman from Texas, make it very clear 
that this Congress, this House of Representatives, commends the work 
being done by the Border Patrol and recognizes the amount of work done 
by that agency and offers our services in trying to make that work done 
even more efficiently and effectively in the future.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  [Mr. BONILLA addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. HUFFINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of the 
motion offered by my distinguished colleague from Texas. No country can 
survive for long if its borders are not secure. Right now, a few brave 
guards stand alone in the desert, swamped by wave after wave of illegal 
immigration. I urge the conference to keep the measure we voted for in 
the House and provide funds for 6,000 new Border Patrol agents. 
California needs more Border Patrol agents and so does America.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Representative 
Bonilla's motion to instruct crime bill conferees to maintain the House 
crime provision significantly increasing the number of U.S. Border 
Patrol agents. The House-passed crime bill contains the Duncan 
amendment to hire 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents and other 
services to apprehend illegal aliens.
  In Arizona we are seeing first-hand the effects of inadequate 
resources for border patrol services. Illegal border crossings have 
increased significantly over the past year in Arizona. Recent 
Immigration and Naturalization Service reports show that illegal-
immigrant apprehensions have increased 54 percent between the periods 
of October through April 1993 and October through April 1994. 
Increasing the number of Border Patrol agents in Arizona would go a 
long way toward helping to combat the problems resulting from this 
significant increase.
  In June, I sent a letter to Attorney General Reno calling for an 
immediate reassessment of the fact that Arizona has been shut out of 
the administration's $40-million immigration enforcement plan, which 
added 1,000 border agents and other officers to the borders of 
California and Texas. Arizona, in contrast, received 33 support 
positions, and only at the urging of Arizona's and New Mexico's 
Senators.
  Our Nation's immigration enforcement plan should be directed toward 
the entire Southwest border region, and should include proper resources 
for the State of Arizona. While the great States of Texas and 
California admittedly need extensive immigration enforcement resources, 
other States such as Arizona and New Mexico must continue to confront 
significant border problems. The Clinton administration must recognize 
that in order to control illegal immigration, smuggling and drug 
trafficking across the entire Southwest border, Arizona must be 
allocated its fair share of resources.
  I am hopeful that this very necessary increase in funding for the 
Border Patrol will result in increases in Border Patrol personnel for 
the entire Southwest region. I urge my colleagues to support 
Representative Bonilla's motion to instruct crime bill conferees 
regarding this increase.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Bonilla 
motion to instruct.
  In April I joined with the gentleman from San Diego, Mr. Hunter in 
successfully offering an amendment to the crime bill authorizing the 
expansion of the border patrol to 10,000 agents. This type of Federal 
commitment is overdue and sorely needed by the agents themselves and by 
those communities located on or near the United States-Mexico border.
  Historically the border patrol has not received funding commensurate 
with its tremendous responsibilities. Its primary responsibility is 
preventing illegal entry into the United States--in 1992 the border 
patrol apprehended 1,199,587 illegal aliens along the border. In 
addition, border patrol agents have primary responsibility for drug 
interdiction between ports of entry, and the border patrol conducts 
numerous interagency task force operations with other Federal, State, 
and local law enforcement agencies.
  This issue is of particular interest to me, Mr. Speaker, because I 
represent the San Diego-Tijuana border region, the Nation's busiest and 
most violent border zone. Of those 1,199,567 apprehensions in 1992, 
more than 50 percent or 560,000, were apprehended in our region. 30 
percent of all controlled substances seized by the border patrol in 
that year were confiscated in the San Diego area.
  For years the political leadership in our country let the border leak 
like a sieve and nobody cared. And now our states and our localities 
are paying the price. Spending money on the border patrol is a cost-
effective investment. If someone is prevented from crossing illegally, 
we do not incur potential medical, educational and law enforcement 
costs.
  The Hunter/Schenk amendment is an opportunity for the Congress to do 
something besides talk about our border problems.
  I urge my colleagues to instruct the conferees to accept this very 
important part of the crime bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The question is on 
the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________