[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6891-H6898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2030
      MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1119, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on 
the bill, H.R. 1119, to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 
and 1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 
and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Traficant moves that the conferees on the part of the 
     House on the bill, H.R. 1119 be instructed to insist upon the 
     provisions of section 1032 of the House bill relating to the 
     assignment of Department of Defense personnel to border 
     patrol and control.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent if there is a 
recorded vote requested that that request be deposed of tomorrow at the 
schedule of the leadership.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, under the rules when there are two proponents 
of the motion which have been recognized, is one-third of the time 
allotted to a Member in opposition?

[[Page H6892]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] opposed to the motion?
  Mr. SPENCE. No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the time will be divided 3 
ways. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This passed the House by an overwhelming 2 to 1 margin. There has 
been debate of ethnic bias on my behalf. That has bothered me. There 
have been talks that they would just simply strip it out in conference. 
That has bothered me. I pose the question to the Congress of the United 
States, Congress and Federal Government, the White House said there 
will be no Cuban cigars and by God there are none in America. Why is it 
that 10-year-olds in every major city of America can get heroin and 
cocaine as easily as they can get aspirin?
  On the issue of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, that is a nonissue to 
me. The issue to me is if you are coming into this country illegally, 
you should not be. And we have a pitiful record in dealing with illegal 
immigration. I heard a lot of talk about a war on drugs. We have really 
gotten tough. We do not have a director of drug affairs. We have a drug 
czar. The drug czar, to show the power and the clout, is a retired 
general.
  I want to submit to Congress, you have wide open borders. There are 
6,800 Border Patrol. The White House admits that we need 25,000 to 
adequately handle the border. The Traficant amendment to the defense 
bill is rather calm and moderate. It does not mandate the use of 
troops. It simply authorizes them, and the administration in an 
emergency need must request them. And if they in fact are deployed 
there, they shall have no arrest powers, simply to detain for civil law 
enforcement to make those arrests.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of this provision when it was offered 
as an amendment to H.R. 1119. We have since begun conference with the 
Senate on this legislation. Over the past several weeks, objections 
have been raised to this provision expanding the Secretary of Defense's 
authority to assign up to 10,000 DOD personnel to assist INS and the 
United States Customs Service on the U.S. border. Even though this 
provision is likely to remain a contentious issue in conference, I will 
continue to work with interested Members to support the House position 
as we do in all matters before the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I remain supportive of the role of the Department of 
Defense in reducing the flow of drugs into our country. In this bill, I 
commend the gentleman from Ohio for his work in bringing additional 
visibility to this serious and important problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this was a bad idea when it was first proposed, it was 
an idea that we really did not get a chance to fully debate. I think 
tonight I rise in opposition because we are all concerned about illegal 
entries into this country. We are all concerned about drug trafficking. 
We are all concerned about the attacks on our various neighborhoods. 
This is a bad idea from my personal experience because I spent 26\1/2\ 
years patrolling the border.
  The gentleman from Ohio makes mention that we have got about 9,000 
Border Patrol agents patrolling our borders. I should remind my 
colleagues that we have a plan that will increase the number of Border 
Patrol agents by 1,000 agents per year until 2001, at which time we 
will reevaluate the effectiveness of that increase.
  I think tonight it is important that my colleagues realize that this 
proposal does not restrict the utilization of the military to our 
southern border. I think it is important that if you are one of my 
colleagues from Idaho, you should worry about this proposal. If you 
represent Minnesota, you should also worry. If you represent the State 
of New York, you should be concerned. If you are a Representative from 
the West Coast or from the coast of Florida, you should be concerned 
about what this kind of proposal might do to our neighborhoods.
  It is important that we keep things in perspective and that we 
understand that the only rational, reasonable way that we are going to 
combat illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and all of the associated 
concerns that we have about our international borders is to hire 
additional professional bilingual agents.
  It is very important that we keep in context the fact that on our 
southern border, while we may have a serious problem today, that 
problem may shift to the Canadian border tomorrow. That problem may 
manifest itself on the West Coast or the East Coast next year or 2 
years from now. We are opening up a situation where Representatives 
from throughout this country that represent districts contiguous to 
international boundaries will be in a position to have to answer to the 
people that elect them why we are deploying soldiers to do a job that 
should be done by professional law enforcement officers.
  We are also jeopardizing with this proposal the very soldiers that we 
are deploying to protect us under this type of solution. It is 
important that we recognize that there is a serious problem that needs 
a rational decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, a very 
moderate proposal, probably the most moderate proposal the gentleman 
from Ohio has ever presented while I have been on this floor. It does 
not say that we shall put troops at the border to secure our national 
frontiers like the Republic of Mexico has done. The Republic of Mexico 
has felt it is so important to fight the drug and the illegal 
activities along the border, they have placed their troops at the 
border.
  No, this proposal, Mr. Speaker, does not say that. This proposal is 
so moderate that it only says that if the administration feels it is 
absolutely essential to protect the sovereignty of the United States, 
to enforce its laws, to basically be able to secure our borders, then 
under their discretion, under the President's discretion and his 
administration, then they may if they want to use it. The gentleman 
from Ohio is not mandating any operations at any borders or any ports. 
He is authorizing that the President in his good judgment, if it is 
needed in a crisis, will have a resource available to him that Congress 
has ignored for too long.
  Mr. Speaker, let us ask the American people, is it so bad, is it so 
absurd to think that American troops that travel all around the world 
to defend the borders and the frontiers of many, many countries for 
decades, that are in foreign countries all over the globe today, is it 
so wrong to think that those same troops may, if the President thinks 
it is essential, have the right to defend the soil that they are born 
in and that the taxpayers of that soil are paying for their salaries? 
Is it so wrong to have American troops be authorized to defend their 
American soil?
  Mr. Speaker, I give you that. The gentleman from Ohio is not only 
moderate and reasonable, I think he is intelligent beyond the level 
that this House has been willing to accept in the past. Common sense 
says this moderate proposal is not only our right as a House of 
Representatives, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility of the 
representatives of the people that we say we represent.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Who has the right to close this debate, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has the right to 
close.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have at this point reserved the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rodriguez].
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate, I think one of the

[[Page H6893]]

things that we need to look at is the whole issue of readiness. I am on 
the Committee on National Security. One of the things that we have been 
informed is that those 10,000 troops are going to cost us $650 million. 
I want my colleagues to think about that.
  Second, as the gentleman rose and talked about what is so wrong about 
defending our country, we are there to defend our country.

                              {time}  2045

  But do we want troops there that might jeopardize our own citizens, 
as has already happened? That is what we are concerned about.
  When I went up there during the last 30 days, I had an opportunity to 
travel through my district, and it goes all the way to the Rio Grande, 
and, yes, they are against drugs, by the way, and, yes, they are 
against immigration, illegal immigration, and there is a need for us to 
respond. But they have also indicated that they would prefer to have 
Border Patrol people handle that, individuals that are well-trained to 
be able to deal with that.
  When we talk about drugs, we are going to need sophisticated 
individuals who will be able to handle and know the terrain, know the 
area. We run the risk of having incidents that would occur that 
happened to that young man, Mr. Hernandez, unfortunate incident where 
one American citizen got killed. We should not jeopardize that to 
occur, and we should do every effort to make sure that that does not 
happen.
  I also want to inform my colleagues that both the Department of 
Justice has considered this very inappropriate and is not in support; 
the Department of Defense has indicated, and I would like to read some 
of the things that they have said. The general counsel of the 
Department of Defense warned in a letter to the Committee on National 
Security chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], that 
the troops that work along the border are of minimal value to military 
readiness and detract from the training with war-fighting equipment for 
war-fighting missions. This lack of training would directly reduce unit 
readiness.
  If we look at it in addition to the Department of Defense, they have 
indicated that this is not the right thing to do.
  The INS has also indicated that they would prefer to handle this in a 
way that the Border Patrol is involved, and I want to ask my 
colleagues: Would you want to see troops in your own neighborhoods, in 
your own community, people that might not know the area? I would ask 
that you seriously consider that because I would think you would not 
want them in Ohio, in your own back yard.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the National Security Committee, I 
opposed the amendment to authorize up to 10,000 additional troops on 
the border, and today I rise to oppose this motion to instruct 
conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1998. Our military is the world's best trained fighting force; they are 
not police officers and they are not border patrol agents. They are 
trained to fight, and we risk grave consequences by deploying them on 
American soil. Such a dramatic increase of troops on the border is a 
dangerous proposal that will put border residents in danger and reduce 
military readiness.
  During the August break I travelled throughout my district in South 
Texas, including counties I represent along the U.S.-Mexico border. At 
every meeting, residents of the border region expressed overwhelming 
opposition to the proposal to increase the number of soldiers on the 
border. The residents expressed concerns that the soldiers are 
unfamiliar with the people and the area, are not trained to deal with 
the complexities of immigration along the border, and may not be 
bilingual. Border residents, just like everyone else, want to stop the 
influx of illegal drugs and believe in stopping the flow of 
undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more Border 
Patrol agents. The recently implemented Operation Rio Grande is a first 
step toward that goal.
  Last May, an 18 year old boy was killed by a Marine assisting Border 
Patrol agents near Redford, Texas. This tragic incident highlights the 
complexities of placing soldiers on the border and the potential harm 
to border residents. It is no wonder that the Departments of Defense 
and Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service all oppose 
this proposal. The Border Patrol has nearly 7,000 agents patrolling our 
nation's borders and Congress has authorized an additional 1,000 agents 
every year until 2001. The San Antonio Express-News pointed out that 
the Redford incident may be isolated but warned against deploying 
soldiers into an area lawfully and peacefully used by private citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I serve on the House National Security Readiness 
Subcommittee and the Readiness Panel of the Defense Authorization 
Conference Committee. At a time when readiness concerns and the 
increased operation tempo of our military are at their highest we 
cannot afford to pull 10,000 men and women away from their posts to do 
the work of Border Patrol agents. The military can provide assistance 
in numerous ways without this unwarranted diversion of troops.
  The General Counsel of the Department of Defense warned in a letter 
to National Security Committee Chairman Spence that the troops' work 
along the border are of minimal value to military readiness and detract 
from training with warfighting equipment for warfighting missions. This 
lack of training would directly reduce unit readiness levels and would 
extend the time required before these personnel could be deployed to 
support contingency operations. The General Counsel summed up his 
concerns be stating that the proposal would reduce the level of 
military preparedness and overall combat effectiveness of the Armed 
Forces.
  The Department of Defense estimates that the placement of 10,000 
soldiers on the border would cost in excess of $650 million per year. 
This enormous sum could be put to better use ensuring Border Patrol 
agents are properly trained and have the resources needed to enforce 
our Nation's laws and to protect themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I, and the tens of thousands of residents I represent 
along the border, urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to 
instruct conferees. The placement of up to 10,000 soldiers on our 
borders is a dangerous proposal that could have deadly consequences for 
border residents. We must remember who were are protecting.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. Roukema asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend. I did not realize 
that the gentleman's amendment was coming up now, my colleague's, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], but I want to commend him for 
this. I heard his presentation on the Jim Lehrer news broadcast about a 
week or two ago, and it was very coherent.
  I do not believe what I am hearing here, that the same people that 
have been carrying on the program, whether it is Border Patrol or INS, 
are being looked to to save us from what has become a war zone on our 
borders. We are talking about war zones whether it is illegal 
immigration or, more directly, the drug war that is going on there. And 
I am telling my colleagues they have not done well for this country 
under the present circumstances with the present personnel.
  The time is long passed for us to do this. It is common sense, and if 
there are problems with the rest of the military preparedness, then let 
us fix that. But I will tell my colleagues, someone asked the question, 
the previous speaker asked the question, do I want those people in my 
backyard or in New Jersey. I tell him I do not. I do not want my 
children or my grandchildren to be accosted, and to have to face the 
influx of drugs, the invasion. It is an invasion and it is a war as 
much as anything is a war. We can go to Somalia, we can go to Bosnia, 
we can go to the Ukraine; I am telling my colleagues we need them right 
here to protect our families and to do the right thing. We cannot. 
Obviously, the existing personnel have failed us dreadfully.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this well-
intentioned but ill-advised amendment. My State, Florida, like Texas 
and many coastal States, faces challenges in controlling our border, 
but the answer lies in strengthening the Border Patrol to solve this 
problem.
  As the sponsor of the amendment has alluded to, if we have 6,800 
Border Patrol officers not taking care of the problem, let us increase 
the number of Border Patrol officers. There has been no evidence 
offered to suggest that these people, these men and women, are not 
qualified to do their jobs.
  The answer does not lie in diverting up to 10,000 additional military 
troops to handle this function, and as the sponsor of the amendment has 
mentioned, the amendment would have the

[[Page H6894]]

effect of authorizing the Department of Defense to use these additional 
personnel in an emergency situation. If this is such a problem, these 
additional personnel should not be there just for emergencies, they 
should be there all the time. We should be strengthening the number of 
Border Patrol agents down there, not trying to have additional people 
down there who have not been trained to do the job and only using them 
in emergency situations.
  The Department of Defense has estimated that the diversion of up to 
10,000 troops could cost as much as $650 million. Let us use a more 
cost-effective approach. Let us beef up the Border Patrol.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member on the committee.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct conferees on this matter, and in so doing I would like to 
first congratulate my distinguished colleague from Texas [Mr. Reyes] 
for his very thoughtful response to the proposition that is before us.
  I would now like to make four rather succinct points, Mr. Speaker.
  First, in moments of significant problems and high emotion and 
extraordinary rhetoric, sometimes it is the burden of responsibility of 
leadership to try to focus on significant principles. I would assert, 
and assert aggressively here, that the beauty of this country, the 
beauty of this Nation, the beauty of the United States, Mr. Speaker, is 
that under the law in the United States law enforcement is left to the 
civilian Department of Justice and its agencies as it should be.
  I would remind my colleagues that the United States military is 
precluded from becoming a quasi police force, and we were thoughtful 
about that, and we should be very, very circumspect when we consider 
the proposition of crossing that significant line.
  Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I would also remind my colleagues that 
countries in which the military police its citizens are countries lent 
to oppression by that military. We have all seen it replete through the 
pages and the annals of time and history.
  Second important point: The U.S. military is already engaged to the 
tune of more than $800 million per year in assisting law enforcement 
into areas of drug interdiction and border security, mostly with high 
technology assets at their disposal. In this gentleman's opinion, there 
is no need for us to increase this level of support.
  Thirdly, all of us, many of us on the floor of Congress have talked 
about the operational tempo that many believe is crippling the American 
military forces as we downsize. I would suggest that that operation 
tempo is already extraordinarily high. To have as many as 10,000 
military personnel pulled away from their current assignments to assist 
with law enforcement matters would require a further stretching of 
personnel resources to cover their absence thereby expanding and 
increasing operational tempo and stressing the American military 
personnel.
  Fourthly, if the Congress, and I have said to my distinguished 
colleague from Ohio, particularly where it is dealing with the question 
of drugs and the impact of drugs and the scourge of drugs in our 
community, that I agree with his ultimate goal. Where I am debating and 
stand in opposition to the gentleman is how he seeks to do it. If the 
Congress feels that the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the 
Customs Service are indeed understaffed, then the appropriate place to 
address these shortfalls are the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Treasury, not by further tasking the Department of 
Defense.
  So, in conclusion, I would urge my colleagues to rethink this matter. 
This is a significant step. Posse comitatus is an important principle 
that we have embraced in this society, and that is to keep the military 
military and keep the issue of civilian policing civilian and not 
military. When we step across that line, we have made a significant 
step.
  This is a moment of significance, drama, high emotion, very hot 
rhetoric, but it is important for us to come back to those themes and 
those principles that have made the United States what it is, and an 
important democracy and civilian control of the police function is a 
significant part of that principle.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could my friend from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
tell me if he has requested additional personnel for INS, or is it that 
he feels that the INS is incapable of discharging its duty?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I am not so sure. All I know is they are not 
successful.
  Mr. CONYERS. That being the case, could I be of some assistance as a 
humble member of the Committee on the Judiciary to provide the 
gentleman with some insight as to their effectiveness or whether we can 
get additional personnel?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I am familiar with the debate and the additional 
appropriations, and I still believe they fall far short with the 
massive amount of narcotics and the number of illegal immigrants 
running across our border, and the INS has, in fact, allowed 80,000 
criminals in because they allowed them to do their own fingerprints.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield for an additional question?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The gentleman from Michigan is not for this. He should 
get time over here. I am going to reserve my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. If I could continue my dialog with my friend from Ohio, 
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Committee on the Judiciary might be of some 
assistance because I think it may be important based on the discussions 
going on here tonight; I mean, if INS is not doing the right thing, 
that is a matter that we who have oversight jurisdiction over them 
ought to be put on notice. If, on the other hand, the INS is 
ineffective because of the fact that they are overwhelmed by the nature 
of the task and they are short of personnel, then that, as the 
gentleman can appreciate, is another matter.
  So I would ask him to indulge me in trying to provide some assistance 
for him on that matter.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I can notify they passed an amendment to 
the Foreign Ops bill 2 years ago. It called for a study of the 
effectiveness of our Border Patrol programs and they are now under way.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to my good friend, an 
exchair like me. Today, I think that his intentions are very, very 
good.
  I was in the military as well, and I was trained as a military 
officer where I defended my country, whoever I was defending to kill 
the enemy, and as a military veteran and as a former law enforcement 
officer, I understand the unique perspective of those who strive to 
keep the peace on the border and the view of those in Congress who 
believe we should put resources we already have in a place that they 
are needed. And it is not that we do not need more people. If we feel 
that we need 10,000 more people on the border, let us get qualified 
people to do the job.
  The missions are distinctively different. The military, as when I was 
in the military, are trained differently, as we are in law enforcement. 
For 50 years the United States spent millions of dollars and our energy 
on fighting the war against communism, and in 1989 we saw the Berlin 
Wall come down.

                              {time}  2100

  It would be a mistake of enormous proportions if we erected our own 
wall along our southern border in the form of the military. Mexico is 
our neighbor, friend, and economic partner. It would be a mistake to 
station troops who have been trained to kill the enemy on the 
international border.

[[Page H6895]]

  We should also consider the damage to the readiness of the U.S. 
military when our soldiers get away from their mission. It would be a 
great mistake to do that.
  We are not for illegal immigration. In fact, I believe in 
strengthening our border, but with people who are well trained, who are 
qualified to do just that. We do not want to put a Band-Aid on one 
problem, only to create a new one where we forfeit the civil rights 
process in the United States.
  I think that, yes, we do need help. War zones are not only in south 
Texas. We find war zones right here in Washington, in many 
neighborhoods. This is the wrong approach.
  My friend knows that I have worked with him on many, many other 
issues. As a result of the troops being stationed on the border, one 
young American citizen was killed.
  When I talk to immigrants who come here from Mexico and other Central 
American countries and other countries around the world, they do not 
want to stay here. They would like to go back to their countries, but 
because of the economic problems that they have, they come to this 
great Nation. This is why I support GATT, this is why I support NAFTA, 
because this will take care of some of the problems they face.
  Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hate to be against some of 
my colleagues from Texas, whom I really revere.
  I will say, we have got a problem on the border, and drug traffic is 
taking over and our Nation's security is at risk. Homes and lands have 
been taken over by drug lords, Members know that. We have not done 
anything to help them. We have tried to put more agents down there, and 
we cannot seem to get it through the House and get more money to do it.
  Are we to let that border go awry? I think America needs to protect 
its borders, and this motion will reinforce that.
  Do you know what? The drugs have moved, the drug ops have moved, from 
Colombia to Mexico. We all are aware of that. Guess what? They target 
the United States as a drug target.
  One of the cities that is really suffering is one that I happen to 
represent, Plano, TX. We had two guys come in from California the other 
day and they said they could not believe it. They sensed there was a 
drug problem, we know we have a drug problem, and guess what? It is all 
coming across the border.
  I think the situation is dire enough where we would be irresponsible 
if we did not address it now.
  We created the military to protect our Nation and its borders. We 
have troops all over the world, for crying out loud, theoretically 
protecting the interests of this Nation. Surely we can take action when 
the freedom and loss of it occurs right in our own backyard.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage the conferees to stand firm on this.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz] said the military is trained to 
kill. I want to advise the gentleman that our military is giving 
vaccinations, rabies vaccinations, to dogs in Haiti right now. They are 
building homes in Haiti. They are guarding the borders in Bosnia and 
the Middle East.
  To the gentleman from Texas, it is a tragic killing of that young 
Mexican-American, but over 200 illegal immigrants have been killed at 
the border. Evidently there is not one bit of deterrence at our border. 
How many more illegal immigrants will be killed trying to cross the 
border if we do not mandate any troops? These arguments do not wash.
  Now, for the cost of the $650 million, are our military troops paid 
now? Are we just creating a new code? Are they deployed now? Are they 
cashing their checks in Frankfort and Tokyo and going for dinner and 
lunch?
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
  (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, on occasion, Members, when they take the 
floor, talk about the families they represent and what their position 
is. I have heard a lot about the Collins family from Georgia. So I 
thought I would share some of the feelings that the people have along 
the border.
  I represent the border in Arizona, from Nogales to San Luis, and I 
have to say that supervisors, mayors, councilmen and average Americans 
who live on the border are also concerned about the traffic of drugs 
into this country, and they commend us for the additional resources we 
have given, not only in Customs, Border Patrol and other law 
enforcement; and they would like to see that continued.
  They are also concerned about the traffic of undocumented people 
coming into this country, and they applaud this Congress for the 
additional Border Patrol agents and other resources we have given them.
  But they are very scared about having military placed on the border 
in their communities. They understand that the military is not trained 
for law enforcement, and so they ask, please consider their wishes, 
please consider their concerns as we fight the entry of illegal drugs 
with law enforcement.
  They also ask this Congress to look at the different programs that we 
need to implement, not only at the border, but throughout this country, 
that would stop, eradicate, the desire of American citizens for the 
intake of drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask consideration in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bilbray] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas asked the 
question, would we want troops in our neighborhoods? I live within 
sight of the border. I am probably the closest, maybe the gentleman 
from El Paso, a quarter mile from the border.
  Let me assure Members as somebody who has seen the death and 
destruction, seen the assassinations by the drug cartels, and somebody 
who lives not only north of the border, but north of a military 
installation, I would much rather see my children tonight being 
defended by American troops than to be exposed to the drugs and the 
violent activity that is going on along the border.
  But we are not talking about that, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about 
giving the President the option. What are Members so scared of? Is it 
that the argument is so logical, so rational, that they fear that we 
even discuss this rationale?
  I would say to my colleague, there are troops at the border today, 
all along the border. Nobody stood up and protested the troops being 
placed at the border, and not one Member here protested the troops 
being at the border.
  Those troops are the Republic of Mexico's troops, Mr. Speaker. The 
Republic of Mexico saw the conditions along the border were getting out 
of control and that they needed to take some action. They took 
appropriate action. They were not racist, they were not anti-American, 
they were prolaw enforcement, and the troops at the border in Mexico 
are appropriate for the crisis that Mexico has recognized.
  We are not proposing that we put troops there today, but we do 
recognize and ask Members to recognize that the President may recognize 
in the future the need to have an extra reserve to address a crisis 
that is coming on faster than most of us in Washington want to admit.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on Members again, quit finding excuses for doing 
the right thing. Quit saying we do not want to have a fence, we do not 
want to have borders, we do not want to have this or that. Just do the 
right thing, enforce the law, and let us have safe borders, good 
fences, but large gates. Let us encourage the legal activity, 
discourage and stop the illegal activity; and let us learn, even from 
our friends from the south, that sometimes appropriate action means 
taking strong, firm action.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].

[[Page H6896]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I represent the largest populated Army 
installation in America, cochair the House Army Caucus, and in my 
opinion the Army does not need this job. The Army does not want this 
job, the Army cannot afford this job, and the Army should not have this 
job.
  To give the military, the military, a major role in American domestic 
affairs, is a major change in long-standing national policy. To pass it 
under any circumstances, I think is wrong. To pass it without a hearing 
by the National Security Committee is absolutely irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two more serious problems caused by this 
amendment. First, it undermines our national security. The job of the 
U.S. Army is to train soldiers to fight battles and win wars. In the 
last several years, we have downsized the active duty Army from 18 
divisions to 10 divisions. We could not even fight Desert Storm the 
same way today as we did just a few years ago.
  Yet to take 10,000 Army soldiers out of training, out of combat 
training, and put them on the borders, along brush country in Texas and 
Arizona and California, is absolutely the same as downsizing the Army 
by 10,000 soldiers. Some may want to do that in this Chamber; I 
certainly do not.
  The second problem is this: The average Army soldier spends 138 days 
away from his or her family. I met a young soldier in my district 
recently who missed the birth of his first two children because of 
deployments. I do not want that soldier to miss the birth of his third 
child because he is along the Texas-Mexican border, patrolling our own 
borders of America. I want that soldier either with his family or 
training to defend our national security interests across this world.
  This may be good politics for some, but it is bad policy for the 
Army, and it is bad policy for America. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, it would be a tragedy to have the soldier 
miss the birth of his child, but how many people are speaking out for 
children being born addicted all over America?
  And I want to agree 100 percent: The Army does not need this, the 
Army did not ask for this, the Army does not want it, the Army does not 
deserve it. But the Army does not govern. The American people want it, 
the American people need it, the American people deserve it, and the 
American people, by God, are the ones that we are sent here to 
represent.
  This is a civilian government, and when the Army tells us what they 
want and what they need, then we should pack our bags and get out.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Bonilla.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, there is no Member in this body who 
represents a larger portion of the Mexican border than I do. I have 
almost 800 miles of the Texas-Mexico border in my congressional 
district.
  I oppose this motion, not because I am against enforcing our borders. 
In fact, we do have a war zone in some portions of my district with 
drugs and illegal aliens swarming across the river. But today's vote is 
not about having our military support the Border Patrol; they already 
do that. This is about having the military replace the Border Patrol 
along the Mexican border.
  As I said, we do have a war zone, but this is a situation that could 
magnify in the future. Instead of having police officers doing their 
job where they should be, we could have tanks and troops stationed at 
every street corner of America when there is a crime problem, in 
Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami or New York, and we do not want that.
  I oppose peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and any 
other corner of the world, and I also oppose peacekeeping along the 
Mexican border. We do not need troops down there, we need to get 
together and support sending 10,000 new Border Patrol agents along the 
border to enforce our laws. That is how we can deal with this problem.
  That is where the administration has dropped the ball in the last 
couple of years, because of political reasons sending more Border 
Patrol agents to other States that are more politically advantageous to 
him than the States of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.
  I ask my colleagues to support me in sending more Border Patrol 
agents and not deploying peacekeeping troops to the Mexican border.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hinojosa].
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I stand here tonight to say to my 
colleagues that the Traficant motion is one I simply cannot support. I 
proudly represent the Texas border from Hidalgo/McAllen to San Antonio, 
born and raised there. Plain and simply, authorizing the Defense 
Department to deploy up to 10,000 U.S. troops to our international 
borders is a bad idea.
  Why? An article in the August 25 issue of Time magazine, which I have 
in my hand, clearly answers this question. Allow me to quote:

       The danger of such military patrols is that they operate 
     according to rules different from those of other law 
     enforcement agencies. Moving stealthily in camouflage gear, 
     soldiers are under general orders not to identify themselves, 
     not to fire warning shots, and to respond to any perceived 
     lethal threat under the military's rules of engagement, which 
     simply means, roughly, shoot to kill.

  Back on May 20 an 18-year-old goatherder named Ezequiel Hernandez, 
Jr., was in fact shot to death in the tiny west Texas border town of 
Redford when he was mistaken by a Marine corporal for one of the armed 
scouts who typically act as advance guards for drug smugglers.
  I am certain most of the Members in this Chamber have heard of this 
tragic incident. One such death is one too many. Just say no to the 
Traficant motion.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying, those who do not study history 
are bound to repeat its mistakes. What has history taught us? We know 
that on May 20 of this year, an 18-year-old U.S. citizen, Ezequiel 
Hernandez, of Redford, TX, who was tending his goats was shot and 
killed by a Marine who was engaged in drug interdiction efforts along 
the borders. He was the first American to be killed on U.S. soil by 
American troops since the 1970 Kent State incident.
  We know we already have 7,000 Border Patrol agents patrolling the 
borders, and we are going to have an additional 1,000 Border Patrol 
agents for the next 4 years added to the force. We know that Border 
Patrol agents are trained to deal with situations and problems along 
our border. Military personnel are not.
  Ezequiel Hernandez, 3 months before he was shot, was tending his 
goats, as he always was. He shot again into the brush, because he 
thought there was something there trying to get to his goats. It 
happened to be Border Patrol agents. When he found out it was Border 
Patrol agents, he went and apologized to those agents. Had Border 
Patrol agents been patrolling the border on May 20 instead of military 
troops, Ezequiel would probably still be alive. His untimely death at 
the hands of U.S. Marines on our soil, American soil, is now part of 
our Nation's history. It is also a part of a Federal investigation into 
this incident.
  From his death we should learn that when our borders are patrolled by 
heavily camouflaged military troops, unbeknownst to Ezequiel Hernandez, 
unbeknownst to the citizens of Redford, unbeknownst even to the local 
law authorities in those areas along the border, because the military 
cannot tell anyone that they are there, what will happen is that 
unsuspecting American citizens can and will die. If we put 10,000 
troops on our southern border, we will have learned nothing from 
history, and tragically, we will be bound to repeat its mistakes.
  This is not a proposal that is supported by the military. This is not 
a proposal supported by the residents in Texas along the border. It 
should not be a proposal supported by the Members of this House.

[[Page H6897]]

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a variety of testimony in these chambers. 
Sometimes issues get clouded. Sometimes they get clouded in the 
emotion. Let us ask ourselves, who wants or who supports this proposal? 
It is not INS and it is not the Border Patrol. It is not the Attorney 
General. It is not the Department of Defense. It is not the Secretary 
of Treasury. It is not, certainly, the Hernandez family, who suffered 
that tragedy in Redford, TX. It is not our border communities, who do 
not want to live under martial law.
  We have heard that there are two distinct and different missions. The 
military mission is combat. We do not want to see our military 
compromised by doing law enforcement type work that subsequently would 
jeopardize the security of this country and the security of our troops. 
The mission of law enforcement is to protect communities. They are 
trained for this kind of job. Let us keep this in the hands of law 
enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not send troops throughout this country. Let us 
not invoke martial law in this country simply because Mexico and other 
countries choose to deploy troops along their borders.
  We have to ask ourselves, is this proposal fair? Is this proposal 
fair to the Hernandez family? How fair is this proposal to our own 
military? How fair is it to the corporal that came that close to being 
tried for manslaughter?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this proposal.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will 
close the debate on his motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone for being involved. We did not 
have as many accusations this time. Maybe many people recognize the 
intentions are honorable. The distinguished former member of the Border 
Patrol, I have great respect for him, and I assume he has done a great 
job. They have elected him to Congress.
  I took my time to meet with the delegation from Redford, TX. They 
came up to meet with me, and pleaded with me that I would pull my 
amendment from this bill. Several family members of the young man 
tragically killed were there. It was very, very unfortunate. We are all 
saddened.
  Let me tell the Members what they asked me to do: To pull the 
amendment. When I asked them how they felt about the border, they said, 
absolutely no military troops. But let me tell the Members what they 
also said. I would like everyone to listen to it. They did not want any 
Border Patrol, either. They support open borders, no checkpoints. Let 
people come and go freely.
  Let me tell the Members what they also said, without mentioning the 
name of a priest who helped to carry much of the conversation. He said 
the local Border Patrol spends more than 4 to 5 hours a day in coffee 
shops, doing nothing, and occasionally beating up, quote unquote, 
beating up on some poor illegal immigrant that they might catch.
  Mr. Speaker, in a San Diego article June 1997, I will just read the 
first paragraph: ``Bullets again were fired from Mexico at 2 U.S. 
Border Patrol agents in separate incidents, bringing the number of 
shootings at agents in the past month to five.'' In the last 120 days, 
nine Border Patrol agents were shot and injured. They have not been 
killed. They have families.
  The INS, they are an incompetent bunch. If everybody is afraid of 
that language, I will say it, because that is what I believe in my 
heart. I am an old sheriff. To expedite immigration, they allowed 
immigrants to submit their own fingerprints, and they had to admit, 
they may have allowed up to 180,000 felonists into America, and 
admitted they may not be able to find them.
  We do not have 9,000 Border Patrol, we have 6,800. That is one pair 
of eyes for every 2 miles of border. If they are not compromised, and I 
am not going to make that charge, I do not have facts, but illegal 
immigrants are not driving border patrols. They do not have the money.

  We now have the massive amount of narcotic buildup in Mexico that is 
transferred, as the gentleman said, from Colombia. As far as the local 
politicians that do not want this, we have a local politician just 
convicted of bringing in 2,200 pounds of cocaine, a sheriff down there 
in the county where the young man was slain.
  For those who might understand narcotics, that is one metric ton, and 
one pound of heroin in Pakistan is $90. What does it cost in Chicago? 
There is no program, and I agree, the Army does not want it and the 
President does not want it; maybe not this President, but I do not want 
to hear any more about 10,000 troops.
  I was advised in the amendment to set a limit, and I did. The 
Traficant amendment does not mandate one troop. They might send 100 
specialists with sophisticated technology. They could set up teams to 
work with the Border Patrol. If it is fashioned and done right, these 
military agents and Border Patrol in teams would go out, and the 
Traficant amendment says there shall be no posse comitatus law 
violations. They cannot arrest, they can only detain.
  What is wrong with us here? How many more Mexicans will die trying to 
cross this border? How many more? What is the deterrence? The INS? The 
Border Patrol? We have a drug czar that says we need 25,000 Border 
Patrol agents. Who is going to pay for them? How many more pensions, 
how much more health insurance?
  Mr. Speaker, I did not see one Member stand up and say, look what we 
are doing to the military, giving rabies vaccinations in Haiti, our 
military; military building homes. And I do not think it is bad over 
there.
  Mr. Speaker, I disagree with our immigration policy. I am not going 
to kid anybody. Here is what Congress passed. If you are in America 
illegally for 5 years, we made you a citizen. How dumb are we? Here is 
what I support, not making people citizens who jump the fence 
illegally, and sending a message to everybody around the world to jump 
the fence.
  I am for apprehending them, finding them, and throwing them out. That 
is it. I do not care if they are black, I do not care if they are 
white, if they are Mexican, Italian. I do not care who they are, they 
are here illegally, they should not be here, by God. Our program does 
not work.
  Second of all, what about the massive amount of narcotics in our 
cities? There are politicians now, powerful politicians, talking about 
legalizing narcotics. Why? Because we are desperate. We cannot do 
anything about it. Have we really tried? If there is a greater national 
security threat, other than China, right now, which Congress is also 
not looking at, I want someone to tell me what it is, other than 
narcotics. It is tearing apart the families of our communities. I have 
many Mexican-American families that called me and said, we agree with 
you, sheriff.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not mandate it, I allow for it. If common sense 
would ever take over in our country, maybe there could be a utilization 
of this big military payroll to provide some national security for us. 
If we could guard the borders in the Middle East and Bosnia, by God, we 
can provide a national security program for America.
  What do you want to build? Did you all stand up and oppose a 15-foot 
barbed wire chain link fence? I am not for building a wall. We have 
these troops getting a paycheck. They can come out of training, they 
could be assigned there. They could be rotated, if we develop that 
program. But it does not mandate it. But we have the technology and we 
can do aerial surveillance, we can do naval surveillance. I am going to 
tell the Members something, the Border Patrol cannot match up with the 
military power of the cartels.
  Let me say one last thing. The drug czar, General McCaffrey, was 
threatened by one of the most powerful cartels in Mexico that 
threatened to kill him.

                              {time}  2130

  Now they are saying, well, it was just one group trying to gain 
advantage over another group and hoping that the other group will bring 
the Americans in to put pressure on the other drug cartel. Come on.
  We do not need a drug czar. I am not so sure we need all of these 
Federal agencies. If it was up to me as an old sheriff, I would wrap 
all of these Federal agencies up under the FBI. One

[[Page H6898]]

agency. I think they are so miscoordinated, they do not work together. 
We do not even have a program, speaking as a sheriff. It is a joke.
  As far as the Border Patrol is concerned, I believe they have been 
compromised. I am just going to tell it the way it is. I do not know 
that, but, by God, I do not trust it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, I have followed 
many of his military leads and I want to make this statement. If my 
amendment were to come in here and mandated these troops and mandated 
this collision, I could understand the resistance. But I present an 
idea that can only be enacted if there is an opportunity to mold a 
reasonable defense security program. This is not military presence in 
America. This is military security at our border. That is a hell of a 
difference.
  Mr. Speaker, just let me say this. I heard the talk about killing it 
in conference. My colleagues are not going to kill this amendment in 
conference. What they are going to kill is more children, more dying of 
overdose, more young people selling and running cocaine and heroin, 
more politicians on the border bringing in narcotics, more truckloads 
going to Chicago and New York. Truckloads. Truckloads.
  The Traficant amendment allows that if this happens, they would 
assist with Customs to take a look at these trucks on the border, to go 
out in joint forces and maybe transport Border Patrol to key areas. And 
if my colleagues want to hire 25,000 Border Patrol, they do not have 
the money to do that. They are not going to do that. Know what? The 
border does not want it. They do not even want the Border Patrol. That 
is what the people from Redford, Texas, told me, Sheriff. They want 
open borders.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close out with this. I would not have called for 
a vote and I would have not called for a motion to instruct conferees. 
There are big powerful people around here and they are going to lead 
the charge and knock out an idea, I guess, and they probably will. But, 
Mr. Chairman, I say to the majority party that they were elected 
together and they got tired of this. And I am a Democrat and that is 
why my Republican colleagues are in the majority, because some of the 
things that have been done over here that have been very foolish.
  If the majority party does not allow for a reasonable national 
security program on narcotics and illegal immigration, then the 
American people made a mistake in giving them that charge.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], 
``Keep it in, Mr. Chairman.'' I want the gentleman to fight like a 
junkyard dog in the face of a hurricane in that conference for this 
amendment. And I made it so that it will not embarrass the gentleman 
and it will not hurt the gentleman. It does not clamp and ratchet them 
down.
  For the young man from Texas, it was very unfortunate. And God 
almighty, maybe with proper training with the Traficant amendment, that 
would never happen. Did my colleagues ever think of that? That military 
troop was already down there. I didn't see you, my colleagues, bringing 
a point of order against it. He was put down there by George Bush. And 
they did not ask to be authorized. They placed them there.
  Mr. Speaker, this sheriff is saying we have got a Border Patrol that 
does nothing, we have an INS that lets in 180,000 illegal criminals, we 
have a military getting a paycheck and cashing their checks and going 
to the theater in Tokyo and Frankfurt, and we have narcotics coming 
across the border in backpacks, truckloads of cocaine and heroin coming 
into this country, and kids strung out all over America, and Congress 
better start speaking up for those American kids.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I ask that tomorrow we have an affirmative 
vote and this Congress and this majority party stand for the charges 
that are needed to protect our borders.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the House 
and clause 5(b)(1)(c) of rule I, further proceedings on this motion are 
postponed until tomorrow.

                          ____________________