[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 116 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1670-E1671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SUPPORT MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1119

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 5, 1997

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, last night the House debated a motion I 
offered to instruct House conferees on H.R. 1119, the fiscal year 1998 
Defense authorization bill, to retain the amendment I had passed to the 
bill authorizing the use of United States troops on our border with 
Mexico. I urge all Members to support this motion and support this 
important provision. I would like to share with Members some compelling 
reasons to support the Traficant amendment.
  The Traficant amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense--at the 
expressed request of the Attorney General and/or the Secretary of the 
Treasury--to redeploy up to 10,000 U.S. troops to assist the Border 
Patrol, the INS, or the Customs Service in preventing illegal aliens, 
drug traffickers, terrorists, and narcotics from entering the United 
States. The Traficant amendment merely gives the Pentagon the authority 
to transfer troops--it does not require them to do anything. The 
transfer of troops could only be made if the Attorney General or 
Treasury Secretary requests such assistance.

[[Page E1671]]

  The troops would only be providing support and assistance--they would 
not be directly involved in any arrests or civil law enforcement 
actions. Once again, the Traficant amendment does not mandate the 
redeployment of troops--it simply provides the President with that 
option. Under the Traficant amendment, if the President decides to 
deploy troops to the border, the Pentagon would work with Federal law 
enforcement to decide how and where to deploy troops.
  The Border Patrol has only 6,800 personnel to guard the two longest 
borders of one of the largest countries of the world. The Federal drug 
czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, recently said that, to do the job right, 
the Border Patrol needs 25,000 agents. It will take years to even come 
close to that level. The Traficant amendment represents a prudent stop-
gap measure to bolster the Border Patrol and Customs Service--until 
they have enough personnel to get the job done. But keep in mind that 
Congress and the President may never have the political will to fund 
that level of personnel for the Border Patrol and Customs Service.
  We have United States troops currently being paid by the United 
States taxpayer that are defending Haiti, Bosnia, Europe, and Japan. 
Why not bring a small number of those troops with specific skills home 
to protect America from drugs and narcoterrorists? That's what the 
Traficant amendment is all about.
  Over the past year, Border Patrol agents have been shot at from the 
Mexican border. General McCaffrey has been threatened by the drug 
cartel. Most disturbingly, cocaine and heroin continue to pour into 
this country through Mexico. Our children are being poisoned by these 
narcotics. Communities are being destroyed by drugs. Whole generations 
of Americans are being lost to gangs and drug-related violence. Our 
prisons are overflowing with young Americans convicted of drug-related 
crimes. We are under siege.
  In my view, drugs pose more of threat to national security than the 
situation in Haiti, Bosnia, or Japan. Yet have thousands of troops 
deployed overseas--supposedly to protect our national security. Some 
have argued that deploying troops along our border will detract from 
military readiness. I don't buy that argument, especially when we have 
United States troops in Haiti giving dog vaccinations, building homes, 
and directing traffic. How does that add to readiness. We recently had 
United States troops in Bosnia retreat from a bridge because of a rock 
throwing mob. How does forcing U.S. combat troops to retreat from mobs 
contribute to military readiness?
  The military claims that they do not support the Traficant amendment. 
Let me remind Members that in this country we have civilian control of 
the military. The military executes the will of the people through the 
Congress of the United States and the President. The truth is, if the 
military can build houses, direct traffic, and give rabies shots in 
Haiti, they can provide some assistance to Federal law enforcement in 
patrolling our border.
  I want to emphasize that the Traficant amendment in no shape or form 
changes Posse Comitatus. Under the Traficant amendment, if troops are 
used to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service they would not 
have arrest powers and they would not have the authority to engage in 
law enforcement functions.
  However, there are within the U.S. military certain units and 
personnel that have the type of training and equipment that would be of 
great help to Federal law enforcement along the border. Let's take a 
look at the types of things the U.S. military could do: transport 
Border Patrol agents to points of penetration, aerial reconnaissance; 
surveillance, intelligence sharing, and inspection.
  Many Members have decried the potential cost of deploying up to 
10,000 troops to our border. Let me make a couple of points. First, my 
amendment authorizes up to 10,000. The real number, should we have a 
President that decides to deploy troops to the border, could be 10, it 
could be 100, it could be 1,000. Second, whether or not United States 
troops are deployed on the United States-Mexican border, or deployed to 
Haiti, South Korea, Japan, or Italy--the United States taxpayers still 
have to pay their salaries, pay their benefits, pay for their food, and 
pay to move them.
  If Members and the Pentagon are concerned about the cost or concerned 
about diverting troops from other missions, then the Congress should 
work out a program whereby we transfer troops from less pressing 
missions--such as Haiti and Bosnia and bring them home to America. 
Right now, the troops we have in Haiti and Bosnia--more than 7,000--
would be unavailable for deployment in the event of a conflict on the 
Korean Peninsula or the Persian Gulf. All I am saying is, why not 
transfer troops currently stationed in Haiti, and places like Bosnia to 
our own border?
  It's time for Congress to stop talking about the war on drugs and 
start doing something to win it. I urge Members to support the 
Traficant amendment and the motion to instruct conferees.

                          ____________________