[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3694-H3715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


       Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise and report the bill back to the whole House with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have offered the motion 
to strike the enacting clause to have a chance to protest against the 
outrageous denial of democratic procedures.
  Along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the 
gentleman from Ohio, who chairs the Committee on the Budget, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), I offered 
an amendment to the Committee on Rules to require that American ground 
troops leave Bosnia by December 31 of this year.
  We recently had a supplemental in which we were asked and voted, I 
did not but the majority did, an additional $162 million per month for 
the American ground troops in Bosnia. I believe, and others do, that it 
is time for the Europeans to step up.
  We believe, at the very least, this House ought to vote on whether or 
not

[[Page H3695]]

there should be a continuation of American ground troops in Bosnia. I 
have heard a number of Members complain about this. We have heard the 
people on the committee complain that we do not have enough funds to 
fund Defense. Some of us feel Defense is taking too much money from 
other programs. What justification is there for bringing a bill and 
having the Committee on Rules refuse to let this House even vote on 
whether or not we ought to have the ground troops in Bosnia?
  Another amendment was offered by the gentleman from California and 
the gentleman from Colorado to reaffirm the role of this House in 
dealing with troops in Iraq. Let us be very clear. Many of us disagree 
with what the President is doing. It is the leadership of the House 
that has decided that the House will not be able to speak on Bosnia or 
Iraq.
  And I will say this: If Members voted for the rule and are going to 
vote for the bill, at least have the consistency not to complain about 
American troops being in Bosnia and Iraq, because we are trying to give 
those Members a chance to deal with it. As to Iraq, most of us would 
probably vote to authorize that, but it ought to be voted on by the 
House. As to Bosnia, a majority of the House might say it is time for 
Europe to defend Europe and pull out. But, again, the House is not 
being given a chance to vote on it.
  This is a very grave error and we have to protest. If we were able to 
defeat this bill, it could come back very soon after we came back and 
those amendments could be made in order. And we just want Members to be 
on record that if they vote for the bill in this form, they have waived 
their right, by any reasonable standards, to complain about the troops 
in Bosnia or to complain about executive branch excesses not listened 
to by the Congress.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  The gentleman is quite right, the Constitution gives the Congress the 
responsibility to declare war. It gives it to no other part of our 
government. No other part of our government. Politically, sometimes it 
is difficult to go on record on a question of war, but it is our 
responsibility to do so.
  When I brought a privileged motion under the War Powers Resolution 
concerning Bosnia to the House floor, I was proud to be able to say 
that the American Legion had endorsed my effort. The American Legion 
agreed that we should not send soldiers and sailors and air personnel 
overseas, potentially to die, in service of their country, without the 
request of the people's representatives in Congress. Regrettably, that 
particular motion failed by a few votes. That motion failed, I think at 
least in part, because it was under the War Powers Resolution.
  So with my colleague from Massachusetts, I attempted to get in the 
rule the chance to vote on whether we should have troops in Bosnia or 
troops in the Persian Gulf without having to rely on the War Powers 
Resolution. But we were denied that chance.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we 
ought to be very clear. If Members are going to go ahead and vote for 
this bill, let us at least change the title.
  We asked for a vote on troops in Bosnia. We asked for a declaration 
of a congressional role in Iraq. Let us call it, if we are going to 
ratify a rule which says these things cannot even come up, the 
Congressional Abdication of Constitutional Responsibility Act of 1998, 
because that is what we will be doing.
  We will be saying we in Congress will take our shots, we will make 
our political points, but tough decisions about the Middle East or 
Bosnia, let somebody else do them because we find them inconvenient or 
difficult.
  I was told by the chairman of the Committee on Rules that he kept 
them off the floor to accommodate the President. I must say that it 
came as sort of a surprise to me that this bill was being constructed 
to accommodate the President. And it is not the sort of accommodation 
of a President we ought to engage in. We could save $2 billion a year 
by telling the Europeans it is their turn to do Bosnia. And we could 
serve the Constitution of the United States by the elected 
representatives debating it.
  The leadership of this House has apparently decided, in cooperation 
with the President, not to speak out and to abdicate its constitutional 
responsibilities. That is a very grave error that does not serve well 
the traditions we profess to care about.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California 
once again.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Just to add, Mr. Chairman, one additional point of 
praise to our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), who offered an 
amendment in the supplemental that we not go to war in the Persian Gulf 
without the approval of this House. That was stricken in conference. 
This is our last chance to do our constitutional duty.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The motion before us is a motion to strike the enacting clause. This 
is a preferential motion that is debatable only by 5 minutes on each 
side. If it is withdrawn before the vote, the motion may be repeated as 
soon as there is any intervening business, like further debate. If the 
motion is agreed to, the Committee will rise and there is a vote on the 
motion before the House. If that motion is agreed to, the defense bill 
is dead.
  So I want everybody to completely understand what is before the 
House.
  Secondly, let me address the comments on Bosnia. What I said of the 
President is, I would become not his critic but his constructive 
critic. And what I mean by that is that I want to work with the 
administration on an end state in Bosnia.
  What we hope to do, and what I have been working on with the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) of the Committee on 
International Relations, along with the administration, is that when 
the President said he would set benchmarks of success in Bosnia on the 
civil implementation of the Dayton Accords, that in fact these are 
benchmarks that are realistic and achievable; ones that are pragmatic 
and ones that I believe are realistic.
  We are in the course of drafting that resolution so it can be brought 
to this House floor so we can have the type of vote that the two 
Members that just previously spoke can actually have. Hopefully, we can 
do that in the next month.
  I urge Members, if in fact a vote is called, to vote against the 
motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The motion was rejected.

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to debate the subject of the 
assignment of members of the Armed Forces to assist in border patrol.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the 
sponsor of the first amendment in order, I ask unanimous consent that 
the 30 minutes of general debate time be divided three ways between 
myself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) each controlling 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the sponsor of the 
amendment please proceed, and I reserve the balance of time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It does not mandate 
the use of troops on our border. What it does, though, is it says that 
if the Administration, through the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
the Treasury, decides to use the military, which I believe they should 
to stop this narcotics madness, there are certain requirements.
  Number one, they must be adequately trained. Number two, they

[[Page H3696]]

could never be on patrol without the presence of a law enforcement 
entity, and they could not make arrests, and the local governor and 
communities shall be notified of their presence.
  Now, we have a number of substitutes presented here, and the last one 
attempts to almost replicate my original amendment, supposedly. But the 
difference is mine would provide for patrols without question. The 
substitute provides for reconnaissance missions. And under the 
dictionary of ``reconnaissance,'' it is in fact to gather information 
and to scout but do not engage.
  Let there be no mistake, the difference is, if we decide that we are 
going to do something about these broad shipments of narcotics, the 
Traficant amendment would allow our troops to be adequately trained, 
never to be without the presence of a law enforcement entity. But, by 
God, they can engage and they can take issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to troops on the border.
  As everyone knows, my background is one of having spent 26\1/2\ years 
patrolling this Nation's border as a border patrol agent and as a 
chief. I think it is a bad idea. I believe that we have to understand 
that the only way we are going to ensure the integrity of our borders 
is through trained, professional, Federal agents.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Traficant 
amendment. I know this body passed the amendment in the last Congress. 
I believe that the President, as the chief executive officer of the 
land, has the inherent ability if in fact there is an emergency or a 
threat to the borders of our Nation, I believe it is inherent to, not 
only as the chief security officer but also as the Commander-in-Chief, 
that if in fact our law enforcement agencies are inadequate to protect 
the ports of entry or the borders of our Nation, the military in fact 
should be there to do that. I believe that is inherent as the 
President, and we would expect the President to do that.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, that is all my amendment says. But it 
then codifies how those troops shall be used so there are no more 
accidental shootings, there is adequate training, they are never 
without the presence of a law enforcement entity. And it does exactly 
what the Chairman now is discussing.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what makes me 
uncomfortable is the fact that we are going to set forth a process that 
when the Attorney General notifies the Department of Defense, then they 
have to provide, and it becomes very bothersome to me.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that today, in the 
Immigration Naturalization Act that the government has already passed 
that is in effect, it provides that kind of authority. There is a 
section that provides the authority to the President to declare an 
emergency and do exactly what the gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we all have to 
recognize is that, in 1993, as we had a larger military force than we 
have today, that there were people that were looking for other jobs for 
the military to do in civil military affairs and other things. This 
idea also came about around that same time period.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 
expired.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have to recognize right now with the United 
States Army is we are left with 10 divisions and of those 10 divisions, 
we have the five follow-on divisions that are being hollowed out; and 
we have to be very careful if we are going to be taking our troops and 
assigning them into collateral duties. Let us be very careful.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray).
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and I think even my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who recognizes just how much the 
gentleman from Ohio has tried to moderate this issue and all he is 
trying to do is send a very clear message not just to the 
administration, not just to the American people, but to everyone that 
America will do for itself what it does for everyone else in the world 
and that it would defend its children and its neighborhoods with 
whatever resources are available.
  We are just talking about allowing the people who pay the bills to 
have this military available, to have their neighborhoods protected 
just as much as the people in Bosnia or the people in Europe or the 
people in Africa. Is it too much to ask, Mr. Chairman, that we just 
recognize the people paying the bills should have the same peacekeeping 
capabilities that the rest of the world does?
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not care about the drugs that are coming 
across the border, and we all know that, and illegal immigration and 
the related crime, let me remind my colleagues that this is a human 
issue, too.
  More people die every year trying to cross the border illegally than 
were killed in the Oklahoma explosion. Let me say that again. Every 
year, more people die on the border trying to cross illegally. And many 
of those people that are dying are young juveniles who are being 
dragged across the border by people who think that it is safe to come 
across our borders.
  I ask my colleagues that we send a clear message that America will do 
everything possible to secure its national frontiers, that the United 
States Congress expects the Federal Government to treat the boundaries 
of America as sacred and as secure as the boundaries in Bosnia or 
anywhere else in the world. We are asking that the common-sense 
approach of enforcing and using all the resources are available.
  Let me just close with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) saying we 
want to secure the borders. The problem with not securing the borders, 
Mr. Chairman, is that we have refused to do everything humanly possible 
in the United States. Let us do as much here on our own soil as we do 
on everyone else's soil.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Traficant amendment. I 
think everyone here, particularly those Members from border states such 
as my State of Florida, recognize the simple truth. We are losing our 
war against drugs, and we are nowhere near winning our battle against 
illegal immigration.
  I have a great deal of respect for efforts of the border patrol, the 
INS, the DEA and others who have been waging these wars for years. They 
have been valiant in their attempts, and they deserve our thanks and 
credit. But given the ease in which smugglers seem to be importing 
illegal drugs into our country and the steady stream of illegal aliens 
that keep crossing our borders, we obviously have not been able to 
equip them with the resources and tools they need to really stop these 
activities. And both these activities threaten our Nation by aiding and 
abetting crime and by weakening the fabric of our society.
  The Traficant amendment is not radical. It simply allows those who 
are fighting these wars against illegal drugs and aliens to ask the 
military for help. It is not mandatory. It is not required. It simply 
allows the Pentagon to lend its resources where needed and when 
available.
  I do not know about my colleagues, but I am growing tired of the term 
and hearing it ``the war on drugs.'' I want to end the war. I want to 
win the war. But we cannot do that as long as the resources of our drug 
lords outstrip those who we have asked to fight.

[[Page H3697]]

  I would hope that all my colleagues who have talked tough about 
fighting drugs and talked tough about terrorism and talked tough about 
illegal immigration will put their votes where their rhetoric have been 
and support the Traficant amendment as offered today.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on National 
Security, I oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  An increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a dangerous 
proposal that will put the border residents in danger. Our military is 
the world's best trained fighting forces, and they are not the police 
officers, and they are not the border patrol agents. They are trained 
to fight, and we put our own citizens in danger.
  I would like to remind my colleagues, exactly 1 year ago an 18-year-
old high school student, American citizen, was shot to death by the 
Marine on patrol in west Texas. This tragic incident highlights the 
complexities of placing soldiers on the border and the potential harm 
to many residents.
  I represent the border, and I recognize the importance of fighting 
drugs. And border residents also, just like everyone else, want to stop 
the influx of illegal drugs, and they believe in stopping the flow of 
undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more border 
patrol and Customs Service agents. The Customs Service agents are the 
ones that are directly involved in assuring when products come across 
that those things are well checked out.
  It is no wonder that the Department of Defense and Justice and the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service all oppose this proposal. The 
border patrol has nearly 8,000 agents patrolling our national borders, 
and the Congress has authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year 
up to the year 2001.
  Last year, the San Antonio Express and News pointed out that the 
incident in west Texas is an isolated incident. Yet it is one that puts 
everyone in danger. We need to be concerned about the possibility of 
future incidents such as those when we put people that are untrained on 
the border that are U.S. citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on National Security 
Subcommittee on Military Readiness. At a time when readiness concerns 
are at their highest and with the troops sent for extended periods of 
time to Bosnia and elsewhere, we cannot afford to pull additional men.
  I would ask that my colleagues vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House National 
Security Committee, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentlemen 
from Ohio. An increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a 
dangerous proposal that will put border residents in danger and reduce 
military readiness. 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 put our own citizens at grave 
risk by deploying them on American soil.
  I represent two counties along the border with Mexico. In my town 
hall meetings, almost everyone I spoke with opposed putting troops on 
our border. Many of them had served in our military, and I respect 
their opinion. Border residents, just like everyone else, want to stop 
the influx of illegal drugs, and they believe in stopping the flow of 
undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more Border 
Patrol and Customs Service agents who are well trained to deal with the 
challenges of patrolling the border.
  Exactly one year ago, an 18 year old American citizen was shot to 
death by a Marine on patrol 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 8,000 agents patrolling our nation's borders, and Congress has 
authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year until 2001. Last year, 
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. Chairman, I serve on the House National Security Readiness 
Subcommittee. At a time when readiness concerns are at there highest 
and with troops sent for extended periods of time to Bosnia and 
elsewhere, we cannot afford to pull additional men and women away from 
their posts to do the work of Border Patrol agents. It is unfair to our 
fighting men and women, and it does harm to our national security. The 
military can provide assistance in numerous ways without this 
unwarranted diversion of troops.
  All of our budgets are tight. Putting troops on our border is 
extremely costly; it is a bad use of scarce resources. The drain on our 
defense budget puts our readiness at risk. The Department of Defense 
has warned 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; it could require troops to spend 
more times overseas with less time to train between deployments. These 
funds could be better used training our Armed Forces for their 
warfighting missions or ensuring Border Patrol agents are properly 
trained and have the resources needed to enforce our nation's laws and 
to protect themselves.
  The substitute offered by Congressman Reyes seeks to partially 
address these concerns by requiring data from the Department of Defense 
on the costs, military value, effects on readiness, training, and 
preparedness of deploying military personnel to our borders.
  Mr. Chairman, I, and the tens of thousands of residents I represent 
along the border, urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided 
proposal and for the substitute offered by Congressman Reyes. 
Hopefully, in conference, this entire provision will be removed. The 
placement of additional soldiers on our borders is a dangerous proposal 
that could have deadly consequences for border residents. We must 
remember who we are protecting.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding 2 
minutes. But it might take me a little longer. Will the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) yield me 1 minute?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins) 1 minute.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, in the Third District of Georgia, illegal 
immigration and drug trafficking are major concerns. I congratulate my 
colleague from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for offering his amendment, which 
helps to address both of these difficult challenges.
  I strongly support the amendment, which will allow our military 
forces to participate in the most basic national defense function there 
is, that of the defense of our own borders.
  General Charles Wilhelm of the U.S. Southern Command recently 
referred to the international drug trade as the greatest chemical 
weapons threat to our national security.

                              {time}  1730

  Congress should act today to allow the U.S. military to pursue its 
mission to protect our national security.
  It is high time for Congress to set its own priorities. The 
administration and some Members have shown great willingness to 
sacrifice American service members around the world to protect the 
borders of other nations. Today, we must act to protect our own 
borders, our own hometowns, and our own children and grandchildren from 
the hardships and suffering caused by illegal immigration and drug 
trafficking.
  Members have a clear choice to make today. We can support the 
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and represent the 
interests of our constituents by addressing the flow of illegal 
immigrants and drugs across our southern border, or we can choose to 
represent the interests of illegal aliens and drug smugglers by 
supporting and maintaining the current failed policies.
  If you believe there is not an illegal immigration problem, you 
should support the Reyes substitute. If you believe the drugs are not 
flowing from the nations of the Andean Ridge to the streets and schools 
of your hometown, you should support the Reyes substitute.
  If, however, you know, as I do, that illegal immigration and drug 
trade are destroying the fabric of our communities, you should oppose 
the Reyes substitute and stand in strong support of the Traficant 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from

[[Page H3698]]

Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and to provide the INS and the Custom's Service 
the assistance they need to defend our American borders.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Everybody that is soft 
on drugs supports this amendment. If you are really tough for getting 
drugs, then you support the other amendment. Real simple, right? Wrong 
again.
  I know my friend from Ohio is a big antidrug, anticrime, antiillegal 
activities; but understand this, most of the drugs come through the 
port of entry, not from the points in between. So you are putting 
troops out on the highways and byways, and that is not where the 
problem is. What am I saying is that this will not work. Even if we did 
it, it would not work. We would have another failure. What happened?
  Number two, we are only asking some requirements that would at least 
let us know what in the devil is going on beside this mindless running 
the military and the antidrug activity and everything else.
  Three, have you ever heard of Posse Comitatus at all? Anybody? Is 
this strange? Think about what you are doing and think about the simple 
fact that it will not work.
  Let us give everybody real high points for being against drug 
proliferation, but let us use our senses about this. The Committee on 
National Security mostly and the Armed Services is against this, not 
because they do not want more jurisdiction, because they know it will 
not work; and you should, too.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman brings up a very good 
point that the Members should understand about the Posse Comitatus Act. 
When we have many different agencies out there, whether it is the 
Customs agency on the Border or any agencies, then if it is such a 
threat, then we should be beefing up those agencies, not our military 
getting involved in civil affairs.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment covers ports of entries as 
well, and it specifically states they can not make arrests, and it has 
been determined by the Parliamentarian that it does not infringe with 
Posse Comitatus laws at all.
  We have got young people overdosing in cities all over this country, 
and we are going through this same type of constitutional jargon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly rise to support the amendment 
of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). I think the gentleman is 
precisely right. It is time this country did something about drugs. If 
we think the border patrol is doing it, then let us ask ourselves why 
do we have 20,000 young people a year dying from drug overdoses?
  It is time to use our best, but any method we need to stop drugs in 
this country. I cannot tell the gentleman how strongly I feel that he 
is exactly right.
  Put the 82nd Airborne on maneuvers down there if you want to stop 
drugs. You have the safeguards in the bill to take care of the terrible 
tragedy we had before, but the tragedy is you cannot stop it in my 
hometown, and you cannot stop it in the State. We have got to stop it 
on the borders, and our military can do the job.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Who has the right 
to close this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has the right to 
close.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the national security of this country is 
threatened. It is not city to city. It is not State to State. But it is 
country to country.
  We have 400 tons of cocaine, we have hundreds of hundreds of tons of 
marijuana, we have multiple tens of tons of heroin coming across our 
border every year. We lose 20,000 kids a year either to drugs or drug 
violence. If that is not national security, I do not know what it is.
  If we lost 20,000 kids today in Bosnia or the Middle East, this 
country would be up in arms. We darn well better do everything we can, 
including putting our troops with civil authorities along the borders 
to stop the scourge of drugs.
  We have to stand up. It is a matter of national will. It is a matter 
of national understanding and desire to solve a problem. I salute the 
gentleman from Ohio for his amendment. We need to stand behind him and 
make sure it becomes law.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant). It seems to me both amendments seek the same objective, and 
that is to ensure that we successfully confront the scourge of drugs in 
America. I am for that. But, unlike the formulation of the gentleman 
from Georgia, I do not accept the premise that I, therefore, have to be 
against Reyes and for Traficant.
  I am for Reyes because I think it is a more thoughtful way of 
accomplishing the objective. The President of the United States has put 
General McCaffrey in charge of our drug control effort. I do not think 
he is a wimp. I think he understands military security needs. I think 
he understands how to utilize the military. He is the former Commander 
in Chief of SOUTHCOM, as so many of you on this floor know. His advice 
is that we do not move in this direction at this time. I think we ought 
to respect that.
  I would also say, on a different front, that I am concerned, as all 
of you are, about conserving the resources we have available to keep 
this Nation secure. This bill does not have enough money in it for the 
military. I know some of my colleagues think that is not the case. I 
would be for spending more money in this bill.
  I agree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I 
congratulate him for his leadership, and I agree with the chairman of 
this committee who have joined together in a bipartisan way to say, 
America, this is not a time to pretend that our security interests have 
been secured. This is not a time to retreat from our commitment and our 
responsibilities. We may not like being the sole superpower in the 
world, but that which we are, we are; and we have responsibilities.
  I am supportive of deployment in Bosnia. We have saved hundreds of 
thousands of lives, and we have saved millions of people from being 
dispossessed from their homes. That is not only a moral good, it is a 
strategic good.
  I say to my friends that, although I am going to support the Reyes 
amendment, I, too, agree that we ought to make every effort possible to 
secure our borders from the scourge of drugs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from

[[Page H3699]]

Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I live in Texas; frankly, much closer to 
the Mexican border than the gentleman from Ohio. While I have great 
respect for the gentleman's interest in fighting drugs, as a father of 
two small sons who will be raised in Texas near the Mexican border I 
will absolutely take a back seat to no one in this House in my interest 
in fighting drugs.
  Let us be fair in this debate. This is not about who wants to fight 
drugs and who does not. This is about the best way to do it. There is a 
right way and a wrong way to accomplish our Nation's goals. The wrong 
way is to put thousands of U.S. soldiers on the Texas/Mexican border to 
make our State look like east Berlin during the Cold War.
  The Army does not want this. Those of us who represent major Army 
installations, and I represent the largest populated Army installation 
in the world, Fort Hood, I can speak for thousands of Army soldiers in 
saying that they came into the Army to fight for our Nation's defense 
and wars, not to stand on the borders of our States in the fight 
against drugs, a noble cause, perhaps, but one that is inappropriate 
because of the Posse Comitatus.
  What is the next step? I agree that fighting drunk driving fatalities 
is terribly important. Do we want to station thousands of soldiers on 
American roads and highways to fight drunk driving? Certainly not. For 
the same reason, we should not put thousands of Army soldiers on the 
border of Texas.
  The fact is that it takes three soldiers for every one deployed, 
those to be trained, those deployed, and those who just recently 
deployed. We simply cannot afford in our national security interest to 
allow thousands of soldiers to be diverted to the Texas or any other 
border in our States.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I only have one speaker remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has the right to 
close.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to vote on the Traficant amendment, you must 
defeat the Reyes amendment. Mr. Reyes admitted when he started he 
opposes troops on the border. The buzzword in here is reconnaissance. 
Reconnaissance means to gather information, to scout, but do not 
engage. That is the difference.
  I do not mandate anything. No one is doing anything. Someday maybe we 
will get a President that may want to. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) does not want it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) does 
not want it. Maybe the Pentagon does not want it.
  The American people not only want it, they need it. How many more 
overdoses in cities across America? Well, 100 percent of all heroin and 
cocaine comes from overseas. All the Traficant amendment says, and this 
disguise of an amendment which parallels it, even though he does not 
want it, with the reconnaissance language, no engagement is just that.
  We are not engaged in a war around here. This is a joke. I do not 
mandate it. But, by God, if there is an emergency and we are to do it, 
here is what the Traficant language says: They can be deployed. They 
must be trained. They can never be out unless it is a joint 
participatory law enforcement envoy with them who would make the 
arrest. But if they see a narcotic trafficker, they can tackle them. 
They can engage.
  How much more are we going to protect? You said we have done a good 
job in Bosnia. We save lives. We have.

                              {time}  1745

  We saved lives in Korea. This is a national security issue. This is a 
national security bill. Is the border between Mexico and Canada the 
same as the border between Ohio and Pennsylvania? The border is a 
national security issue, and, by God, the Congress of the United States 
better start securing our borders.
  Now, I know the business and the politics of this place, but I have 
got kids dying of overdose, and we are not doing a damn thing about it.
  This is camouflaged language, and the only way you are going to have 
this vote, and maybe it will not become law this time; it took 14 years 
to change the burden of proof in a tax case, and it might take another 
10. But you answer this question: How many more overdoses have we had? 
How many more kids getting shot and ripped? If we do not protect our 
borders, who is going to do it? Japan? How about China now?
  I want a ``no'' vote on Reyes, and I want to send a message to 
everybody, the American people want the Congress of the United States 
to treat our borders as a national security checkpoint, and I want an 
admission from this Congress. We have had a lot of rhetoric and talk. 
We have failed. We do not even engage. The substitute does not even 
engage. This is about our war on drugs.
  Now, I am not the most well-liked guy around here. I do not come with 
easy things. But, damn it, I am going to present the engagement of a 
debate on this, because we have been wrong. And if we need more money, 
appropriate it. I think we are real low in the military. And if they 
decide they want to have an emergency and send troops, they should come 
in here and ask for the money, and we should give them the money.
  That is exactly what I stand for, very simple. This substitute, the 
man says he opposes deployment of troops, and he puts the buzz word 
``reconnaissance, do not engage.'' Well, if we are not going to engage, 
then why do not we just throw out the ball, give the needles, and keep 
jacking the arms of kids all over America.
  I want the Committee on National Security not only to vote for this, 
I want you to fight like a junkyard dog to keep it in the final bill. 
And I hope to God we get some day a President that is going to utilize 
the option that the Congress of the United States would make available 
to him. I do not mandate it. I will just ensure if they do it, we do 
not have another shooting we had in Redford, Texas. And that is why we 
had it. The Congress was not engaged, and the Congress let a slipshod, 
throw-out-the-ball program end up taking a life. We did not throw out 
the FBI for Ruby Ridge, and we should not throw out the military 
presence on the border because of an accidental shooting.
  My major concern is not immigration, which some people are demeaning 
me with; it is tons and tons of heroin and cocaine. For those who 
represent cities overrun with narcotics, you are talking about the 
source. Not treatment now, you are talking about the drugs coming in. 
And if we do not intercept them, folks, we do not have a program.
  So I am going to ask in closing here, because I cannot come back now, 
to defeat the amendment of a substitute that does not engage. And if we 
are going to do this, allow us to engage under restricted parameters 
that meet Posse Comitatus and could also get us into all ports of 
entries to get at this madness. We can do that, we should do that. This 
is a national security issue.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot this afternoon about 
being proactive, being engaged, being pro-law enforcement. I would like 
to begin by clearing up a misconception on this issue.
  Voting to send armed military personnel to the border and patrolling 
our Nation's borders is not a pro-enforcement vote. It does not mean 
that you are tough on crime; it does not mean that you are tough on 
drug traffickers or tough on illegal aliens.
  If anyone wants to be tough on crime, wants to be tough on drug 
traffickers, then you need to come spend some time on the border. Come 
spend some time with me working with the Border Patrol. Come spend some 
time with me working with Customs, with DEA.
  If you want to be tough on crime and you want to understand how tough 
it is to patrol the Nation's borders, come

[[Page H3700]]

with me and see it for more than a couple of hours. Do not stand here 
in this House and talk about how tough we can be and how tough we 
should be and the kinds of things that we are or are not doing.
  The truth is, all across the border, both on the southern and the 
northern border, we have got Border Patrol officers, we have got 
Customs officers, we have got Inspectors, we have got DEA, they are all 
engaged in enforcing this Nation's laws against both illegal 
immigration and narcotics trafficking.
  The gentleman from Ohio, whom I respect, is concerned about drugs. I 
have repeatedly explained to him, 90 percent of the drugs coming into 
this country come through ports of entry, ports of entry that today are 
utilizing National Guard to help Customs inspect the trucks.
  Now, let me give you a statistic. Out of every 100 trucks coming in 
from Mexico, only three get fully inspected by Customs. So I would ask 
the question, if you were a drug trafficker and you had those kinds of 
odds, would you send drugs through the river, or would you send them 
through the ports of entry in that way?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members not support sending military to the 
border, and I ask that you support my amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio spoke about the war 
on drugs, and nobody can deny that that is happening in America today. 
But the front line of the war on drugs is just as much in Youngstown, 
Ohio, as it is in Nogales, Arizona; and I do not think any of us 
believe that the 82nd Airborne should be patrolling the streets of 
Youngstown, Ohio.
  The fact is, we are already using military forces in a substantial 
way along the border. We have JTF-6 located in El Paso that coordinates 
all of the intelligence work that we are doing on the war on drugs. We 
have the Air Force operating the aerostats that look for the planes 
that would be crossing the border. We have Reserve engineering 
companies that are on active duty along the border building roads and 
fences every single day. We have the National Guard that is helping to 
load and unload trucks so they can be inspected along the border.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on two of the appropriations subcommittees that 
between them fund almost 100 percent of Federal law enforcement. We are 
struggling in those subcommittees to make sure that we have adequate 
resources to provide the Customs agents, the Border Patrol, the INF 
inspectors, the DEA people that we need. But we need specialized people 
trained to do the work. We do not need paratroopers, we do not need 
Abraham tanks, we do not need B-2 bombers. We need to have the kind of 
people that can do the work of interdicting drugs and protecting our 
borders. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio for his 
passion and years of work on this measure. I just want to say to the 
gentleman that we have in place the DEA, Customs and Border Patrol. 
This is an issue of who are the proper agencies out there and whether 
they have the sufficient funds.
  I respectfully disagree with the gentleman. I would urge the Members 
to vote for the Reyes amendment and against the gentleman's measure, 
respectfully.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendments printed 
in part C of House Report 105-544, which shall be considered in the 
following order:
  Amendment No. 1, by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); and 
Amendment No. 2, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in part C of 
House Report 105-544.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part C Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1023. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO 
                   ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 
                   AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     assign members of the armed forces to assist--
       ``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
     preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and 
     illegal aliens into the United States; and
       ``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection 
     of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members of 
     the armed forces under subsection (a) may only occur--
       ``(1) at the request of the Attorney General, in the case 
     of an assignment to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service; and
       ``(2) at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     the case of an assignment to the United States Customs 
     Service.
       ``(c) Training Program.--If the assignment of members of 
     the armed forces is requested by the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together with 
     the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training program 
     to ensure that members to be assigned receive general 
     instruction regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the 
     border areas in which the members will perform duties under 
     the assignment. A member may not be deployed at a border 
     location pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a) until 
     the member has successfully completed the training program.
       ``(d) Conditions on Use.--(1) Whenever a member of the 
     armed forces who is assigned under subsection (a) to assist 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United 
     States Customs Service is performing duties at a border 
     location pursuant to the assignment, a civilian law 
     enforcement officer from the agency concerned shall accompany 
     the member.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
       ``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to 
     conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement 
     activity or to make an arrest; and
       ``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known 
     as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
       ``(e) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall 
     notify the Governor of the State in which members of the 
     armed forces are to be deployed pursuant to an assignment 
     under subsection (a), and local governments in the deployment 
     area, of the deployment of the members to assist the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United States 
     Customs Service (as the case may be) and the types of tasks 
     to be performed by the members.
       ``(f) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of members of the armed forces 
     assigned under subsection (a).
       ``(g) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made 
     or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 
     2001.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute.
  To the distinguished chairman, you are advising this Congress to 
support troops on the border that cannot engage. You are telling them 
to vote for a substitute that does not engage, but puts troops on the 
border.
  Mr. Chairman, the only difference with these two amendments is he 
says you can put them on the border, but they cannot engage. The 
Traficant amendment says, I do not limit them. They can tackle them, 
they can detain them, but they can only be there if the administration 
wants them, and they must be out there with a civilian law enforcement 
entity, and they cannot make the arrests, and it specifically states 
and cites the Posse Comitatus laws.
  How many more overdoses will we have? Why does not the Congress just 
deploy troops to the border and then tell them, ``Don't engage.''
  Beam me up, really. That states it. That is the drug policy of the 
United States of America.

[[Page H3701]]

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense does not support this, the 
Department of Justice does not support the Traficant amendment, the 
people who live along the border in Texas and parts of California do 
not support this amendment. And if you do not believe that, talk to the 
folks in Redford, Texas. When the military was deployed in Texas last 
year for that brief time they were out there, while we all talk here, 
talk about reducing drugs and the number of people who die in this 
country as a result of drug overdoses, the deaths that were occurring 
were not because of drug use so much as Ezequiel Hernandez, a U.S. 
citizen, dying at the hands of our own military. The first time since 
1970 that someone who was an American citizen on American soil has 
perished at the hands of his own compatriot.
  That is what happens when you put a force that is trained to kill on 
a border to do work that is not necessarily to kill, but to interdict.
  If I were a Border Patrol agent watching this debate, I would say, 
``Thanks a lot. I go out every day and I try to stop drugs from coming 
into this country, and you are telling me I do not do a good job. And 
you are telling me my fellow companions that go out there every day, 
they do not do a good job, and we have to have now someone else not 
trained to do my job, do my job.''
  We have got to stop talking and give the resources, so the folks who 
do the work have the chance to do it. That is what we have to do. A lot 
of talk here, a lot of action on the border. Let us support the folks 
who do the action and stop the drugs from coming in, rather than just 
saying we are going to stop the drugs. That is what we need to do.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to become involved in 
this debate, but as ranking member of this committee, I must. I must 
look out for the military that we have, knowing the various missions 
that we have and, frankly, the lack of young men and young women that 
we have presently on duty.
  Mr. Chairman, first we should look at the specialists, those that are 
involved in Border Patrol, the Customs, the National Guard. We already 
have military people of all services, including the Navy, working 
against the drug traffic.
  This evidently involves brute force. The 82nd Airborne, my goodness, 
they are the first line of our defense. We have today too few young men 
and young women to cover the necessary missions that they have. We need 
more. We need more resources for the right specialists, and even to 
consider this, we need more resources for those in uniform.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has the right to 
close.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I was born and raised on the border, and 
I stand and I speak in favor of the Reyes substitute amendment and 
against the Traficant proposal.
  I find it incredibly ironic that exactly one year ago today a Marine 
assisting the INS on our border shot and killed Ezequiel Hernandez, an 
18-year-old U.S. citizen from Redford, Texas. Zeke, as he was called, 
had the misfortune of living on our southern border in an area known 
for drug trafficking, and he paid the price with his life.

                              {time}  1800

  I have to ask all of my colleagues here if they believe that that is 
fair. Ezequiel became a casualty of America's drug wars, the victim of 
an upsurge of violence along the 2,000-mile United States and Mexican 
border that has put residents and law enforcement officials on edge. 
Zeke is dead and there is nothing we can do to bring him back.
  It is unfair to our fighting men and women, and it does harm to our 
national security. The military can provide assistance in numerous ways 
without this unwarranted diversion of troops. All of our budgets are 
tight. Putting troops on our borders is extremely costly, and it is a 
bad use of resources.
  These funds could be better used training our Armed Forces for better 
war-fighting missions or ensuring Border Patrol agents are properly 
trained and have the resources needed to enforce our Nation's laws and 
to protect themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge each and every colleague to vote against the 
Traficant amendment and to support the Reyes amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on National Security.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time. I am going to support with enthusiasm the 
Traficant amendment.
  To lose the war against drugs is tragic, but to surrender to the war 
on drugs without even launching a fight is just inexcusable. I think 
that while it might be different than the policies that we have used in 
the past, I think that the gentleman's approach to this could certainly 
be one of the major efforts in stopping the terrible influx of drugs 
into the Nation and into the bodies of Americans.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I am proud to have the support of the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security.
  Our military is underfunded. We have taken a meat ax to it. We have 
sent our military all over the world to protect the borders all over 
the world. We come down to very sophisticated, legalized types of 
debates when we talk about our own border.
  Today's debate is not just about a nonengagement, status quo 
alternative that is not really even wanted; today's debate is not about 
Ezequiel Hernandes. Zeke is dead because Congress did not put in 
safeguards to the madness that exists.
  Today's debate is about national security in our border. There was, 
in fact, a report issued by the National Defense Panel, and I want to 
share this with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), because I do 
not believe I have, and I want to quote: ``The apparent ease of 
infiltration of our borders by drug smugglers illustrates a potentially 
significant problem. It suggests that terrorist cells armed with even 
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, could also infiltrate our 
borders.''
  I have nothing against the Border Patrol. They need 25,000 more of 
them. When I call over there, if we had 25,000 more Border Patrol, they 
say we would have to hire anywhere between 6,000 and 9,500 support 
personnel to accommodate another 25,000.
  I think it is time to reassess the issue of national security. I am 
not talking about New York and New Jersey, New Mexico and Texas, I am 
talking about every port of entry and I am talking about the border of 
our Nation, and if that is not a national security checkpoint, then we 
do not know what we are doing here.
  Now, if, in fact, we are saying we are going to lose readiness, I do 
not mandate this, and we should not have to lose readiness protecting 
our borders, Congress. That is an insult. If we need money and the 
President would decide to do it, there is an appropriation process, 
there is a Committee on Appropriations.
  Let me say one last thing. What I do is codify how this would happen 
if that Commander in Chief would so decide, and maybe this one may 
never do it, and maybe there are people in the House that might never 
want it. But how many more tragedies and deaths and tons of cocaine and 
heroin do we keep reading about before we act?

[[Page H3702]]

  I offer a process. It is very imperative that we defeat the Reyes 
amendment. It does not engage and he does not even want troops. I am 
saddened that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the authorizing 
chairman, would support a nonengagement deployment that costs the same 
amount of money, but would leave them handcuffed. I would ask that my 
colleagues support my amendment.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. 
Again, I rise in opposition to troops on the border, and in reference 
to the comments from my colleague from Ohio, I doubt that we in this 
body want troops at O'Hare, at JFK, LaGuardia, LAX, those are all ports 
of entry, and when we are talking about terrorism, I have been there. I 
have done it. Terrorists do not come in a specific profile, they come 
dressed like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), they come dressed 
like me. Most importantly, they come through the ports of entry. They 
have nothing to do with the troops being out patrolling between those 
ports of entry.
  Drug smugglers, border bandits. The last time I was in a gun fight 
was in March of 1995 with border bandits and drug smugglers. I know the 
issues, I know what is important, and I can tell my colleagues, 
military on the border is a bad idea.
  If my colleagues doubt that, let me give an example. I was in Bosnia 
in January. Of about 28 soldiers that we had a town hall meeting with, 
3 of them had told me that they had been on a drug mission in Texas and 
part of the problem that I see here is that when we are involving our 
troops doing police work, it is completely different from combat. I 
think it is a disservice to have them on the southern border of Texas 
today and 6 months from now have them in Bosnia, in real danger, and 
having to decide, is this combat or is this law enforcement?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. All time has expired.
  It is now in order to consider the substitute amendment to the 
Traficant amendment, numbered 2 in part C of House Report 105-544.


Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Reyes as a Substitute for Amendment No. 
                       1 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment 
is as follows:
  Part C amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Reyes as a substitute for 
amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1023. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO 
                   ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 
                   AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     assign members of the armed forces to conduct reconnaissance 
     missions to assist--
       ``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
     preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and 
     illegal aliens into the United States; and
       ``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection 
     of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Written Request for Assignment; Elements.--(1) The 
     assignment of members of the armed forces under subsection 
     (a) may only occur at the written request of the Attorney 
     General, in the case of an assignment to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, and at the request of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, in the case of an assignment to the United 
     States Customs Service.
       ``(2) The written request from the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a precise definition of which activities the members 
     of the armed forces are to participate in, the duration of 
     their mission, and the liability to be assumed by the 
     Department of Defense upon assignment of armed forces 
     personnel;
       ``(B) an examination of the beneficial and detrimental 
     effect of these assignments on the military training, 
     readiness levels, military preparedness, and overall combat 
     effectiveness of the armed forces;
       ``(C) the estimated cost of such assignments to the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United States 
     Customs Service (as the case may be), as required under 
     subsection (f); and
       ``(D) an examination of the possibility that members of the 
     armed forces may inadvertently participate in law enforcement 
     activities in violation of section 375 of this title and 1385 
     of title 18 (popularly known as the `Posse Comitatus Act'), 
     both of which prohibit direct participation of military 
     personnel in civilian law enforcement activities.
       ``(c) Training Program.--(1) If the assignment of members 
     of the armed forces is requested by the Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together with 
     the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training program 
     to ensure that the members to be assigned are properly 
     trained to deal with the unique and diverse situations that 
     the members may face in performing their assignment along the 
     international borders of the United States and major ports of 
     entry.
       ``(2) A member may not be deployed at a border location 
     pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a) until the 
     member has successfully completed the training program.
       ``(d) Conditions on Use.--(1) Whenever a member of the 
     armed forces who is assigned under subsection (a) to assist 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United 
     States Customs Service is performing duties at a border 
     location pursuant to the assignment, a civilian law 
     enforcement officer from the agency concerned shall accompany 
     the member.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
       ``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to 
     conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement 
     activity or to make an arrest; and
       ``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known 
     as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
       ``(e) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall 
     notify the Governor of the State in which members of the 
     armed forces are to be deployed pursuant to an assignment 
     under subsection (a), and local governments and local law 
     enforcement agencies in the deployment area, of the 
     deployment of the members to assist the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service or the United States Customs Service 
     (as the case may be) and the types of reconnaissance missions 
     to be performed by the members.
       ``(f) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of members of the armed forces 
     assigned under subsection (a).
       ``(g) Reporting Requirements.--Upon the completion of each 
     assignment of members of the armed forces under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing--
       ``(1) an examination of the beneficial and detrimental 
     effect of such assignments on the military training, 
     readiness levels, military preparedness, and overall combat 
     effectiveness of the armed forces;
       ``(2) an assessment of the value of this section; and
       ``(3) recommendations on the continued use of the authority 
     provided under subsection (a).
       ``(h) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made 
     or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 
     2001.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes), and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Reyes amendment 
and in opposition to the Traficant amendment, and I thank my friend 
from Ohio for raising this issue.
  I live in the district that has the busiest border crossing in the 
world. We need the attention to this issue. We need the help of this 
Congress to fight those drugs. But I tell my colleagues, this is the 
wrong way to do it.
  We should ask ourselves, I say to the gentleman (Mr. Traficant) and 
those who spoke from Georgia and Illinois, why is it that the Members 
of this body who represent the 2 cities that are the biggest on the 
border, that have the busiest crossings on the border, and many other 
of the border Congress people oppose the Traficant amendment? We know 
something about the border. We know that this fight has to be 
increased. But we have constituents who we are bound to protect.
  We believe, and we have evidence, and my colleagues have heard it 
today,

[[Page H3703]]

that those who are trained in the best equipped, best disciplined, most 
efficient fighting machine in the world are not equipped or trained to 
fight this fight.
  Our constituents are at risk with American troops at the border, and 
may I remind my colleagues, this is a friendly country. Nobody has said 
that yet. The last invasion I recall was maybe the Alamo, but this 
could do serious damage to that relationship. It could do serious 
damage to our constituents.
  Yes, I say to the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Traficant), let us fight 
this war, but let us not limit ourselves to the old and easy ideas of 
ending the scourge; let us go beyond the conventional solutions of this 
greater force, move toward more innovative proposals.
  We who represent the places where the gentleman is concerned about 
are against the gentleman's amendment. I urge my colleagues to join us 
in defeating the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I 
yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman opposes the deployment of troops under the Traficant 
amendment, but supports the deployment of troops under the Reyes 
amendment, and they cannot engage. That is what the gentleman just 
said.
  My constituents do not live on the border either, but 80 percent of 
the heroin and cocaine going into their arms and up their nose comes 
across that border.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we just heard it said that if we have our American 
armed services personnel on the border that it will harm American 
constituents. It is not the Army, Navy, Marines that I know of. They 
are not going to turn their guns and use their weapons on American 
constituents, and I probably misunderstood what I heard, but I did hear 
that it was going to harm our constituents. That is not the point.
  The point is to keep drugs away from our constituents who are being 
harmed by drugs that are getting in.
  Mr. Chairman, if one is in a burning building and one has to jump 5 
stories, one does not say wait a minute to the fireman below with the 
safety net, are you from the right fire jurisdiction? I do not want to 
jump just to anybody.
  Our school kids are being flooded with illegal drugs, and this is not 
about which uniform is going to protect our border; this is about 
protecting the children in the schoolyard, it is not about a turf war 
between the DEA or the INS or the Marines. It is about protecting 
children.
  I am a member of the drug task force. We have been studying the 
problem for a long time. We cannot effectively fight drugs without a 
strong interdiction program, and much of that has to be done at our 
border. This is not about telling the INS they are not doing a good 
job, this is about saying, send in the cavalry, the war is a lot bigger 
than we thought it was, and we need to have everybody on deck, helping 
out to try and stop this, because it is killing our children. Forget 
which government agency is going to get the credit. Let us save our 
children and put kids first.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of the Reyes amendment. Let us think about this for 
a minute. We have 2 borders in this country, one with Mexico and one 
with Canada. The shortest of the 2 is Mexico. We are suggesting here 
that that is the border we need to put troops on in a country that has 
been a great ally to the United States, and frankly, the border between 
California and Mexico and Texas and Mexico is the busiest commercial 
border in the world.
  We are going to try to now slow down that border and put people that 
are untrained on that border, and it just does not make sense. 
Essentially it sends out a message that our country just wants to be 
fortress America. Most of America is surrounded by water. What about 
all the coastlines? Are we going to put the troops in my district in 
Pebble Beach in Florida and in West Palm Beach? People would not stand 
for that.
  Besides that, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) comes up here 
and says his amendment allows him to engage and yet we read in the 
amendment, here it says, ``Nothing in this section shall be construed 
to authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to conduct search, 
seizure or similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest.''
  The Reyes amendment is a better one, please support it.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, the Traficant amendment 
lets them engage, to tackle and detain them for the law enforcement 
entity to arrest them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will take 30 seconds, since I have to go 
get a BESTEA bill out on the floor so Members can go home tomorrow.
  I ask Members, defeat the Reyes amendment, because it is status quo. 
Support the Traficant amendment because then we will do something about 
the drugs crossing these borders that are killing our children. Please 
defeat the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes). He is a great guy but the amendment is wrong. The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is right. It is a 
good amendment, vote for it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask for opposition to the Reyes 
amendment. Let us not be so darned politically correct when it comes to 
the defense of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the drug importers and sellers are watching us today, 
and they will say, either we vote for the Reyes amendment, which 
maintains the status quo, or we vote for the Traficant, which will say 
we will do what we can at the border within the resources of this 
country to defend this country.
  Those who are saying that Mexico might get upset, and let me 
challenge them, Mexico has been willing to do at the border what we 
have not. Everyone who votes against Mexico's certification ought to 
look at that vote. They have put the troops on the border, not because 
it is anti-American, but because it is antidrug.
  Let us have the guts to be pro American and antidrug, and if Members 
want to vote against Mexico, they had better vote for this bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Traficant amendment and oppose 
the Reyes amendment. The basic reason, in 1968 I was in the Marine 
Corps stationed in Quantico, Virginia. We came up here when there were 
D.C. riots after Martin Luther King, Junior, was assassinated.
  We as the U.S. Marine Corps patrolled the streets, made sure people 
were not out looting and things like that. Whenever we came across a 
problem, we called the District of Columbia police. They were the ones 
that made the arrest. The point is, we operated with them in a very 
fluid manner. I think this is a possibility for the Southwest. Support 
the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members support the Reyes amendment, they say we can 
put troops on the border, but they cannot be engaged. The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes) admitted when he started the debate he does not 
even want troops on the border. They are just trying to kill the 
Traficant amendment. We know that.
  The Traficant amendment says they must be trained, they must be 
requested by the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
the President; let us face it, specifically

[[Page H3704]]

trained. They can never go out on a patrol by themselves. And yes, they 
cannot make the arrest. That is the protection constitutionally, the 
posse comitatus law. They can tackle that guy, they can return fire.
  Narco terrorists have been shooting across the border at our people 
for quite a while. We have border patrol agents in hospitals being shot 
by narco terrorists, Mr. Chairman.
  In order to have a vote on the Traficant amendment, Members must 
defeat the substitute. I am asking Members to do that, and give this 
House a chance to up-or-down vote on an amendment that we can fight for 
in that conference. Maybe right now there is not enough steam with it, 
but we are engaging in the debate for our constituents. I am asking 
Members to defeat the Reyes substitute and vote for the Traficant 
amendment.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). I have spent some time today discussing this 
issue with him, and I appreciate the fact that this year I believe that 
the debate has been on a very high level, and about the real issues. I 
respect the fact that he is concerned about the amount of narcotics in 
this country. We are all concerned about that.
  But where we disagree is where we think that in support for the 
Traficant amendment, where we think that we can stand here or vote for 
a proposal that could conceivably cost the lives of, yes, constituents.
  Somebody made mention of questioning whether we are harming 
constituents. Ironically enough, one year ago today a young man in 
Redford, Texas, was shot and killed in a very unfortunate incident by a 
United States marine deployed on one of these patrols. If that is not 
harming a constituent, I do not know what is.
  We talk about being members of the drug task force, we talk about 
drug strategy. There is only one way to defeat drugs. That is on three 
different levels. I know, because I spent 26\1/2\ years doing that, not 
being a member of a drug task force, or not being a part of this or a 
part of that, but doing the job, working with other Federal agencies, 
local and State agencies.
  There are three ways we need to approach this problem. That is 
through education, that is through treatment, and yes, that is through 
enforcement. But enforcement does not include deploying the military 
into our communities along the border. The price is too high. The death 
of one young man in Redford, Texas, is too high. Stop and think, as 
parents, what Members would be feeling today one year ago, when that 
young man was shot and killed. It pours salt in a wound that has not 
even healed yet.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) makes mention of my 
opposition to troops on the border. Yes, I am opposed to troops on the 
border, but I think I am opposed to the troops on the border for the 
right reasons. I do not have to sound tough on drugs, I have been 
there. I have done that. I ask that Members support the Reyes 
amendment, and that they ultimately understand why we are opposed to 
sending troops to our borders.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to register my opposition to 
the Traficant amendment, by my friend from Ohio; and in support of the 
Reyes substitute which would better organize the scope of the 
military's role on the border.
  As a veteran and a former law enforcement officer, I understand the 
unique perspectives of those who strive to keep the peace on the 
border, and the views of those in this Congress who believe we should 
put military resources we already have in a place they are needed. 
However, putting our soldiers on the border is a very bad idea.
  For 50 years, the United States spent our money and our energy 
fighting a war against communism. In 1989, we saw the Berlin Wall 
finally come down.
  It would be a mistake of enormous proportions if we erected our own 
wall, in the form of our military, along our southern border.
  At a time when Mexico is our neighbor, friend and economic partner, 
it would be folly to station troops WHO ARE TRAINED TO KILL on the 
international border.
  There is a huge difference between law enforcement officers trained 
to police the civilian population and the military troops who are 
trained to kill the enemy.
  We are painfully aware that illegal immigrants and drugs are coming 
across the border. But the answer to that problem is to increase the 
Border Patrol staff along the border, not reinforce it with troops 
trained to shoot to kill.
  Already there have been two incidents along the border in which the 
military engaged. As a result, one young U.S. citizen has died at the 
hands of another in pursuit of an ambiguous mission. We cannot change 
that; but what we do here today may well prevent it from happening 
again.
  The reason I support trade treaties like NAFTA and GATT is that they 
address the economic foundations of this region by expanding economic 
and job opportunities.
  We are better served as a nation if we address the economic 
motivation behind the movement of illegal immigrants and drugs, as 
opposed to positioning U.S. troops to be our cops at a friendly 
international border.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the first vote that will be taken will 
be taken on the Reyes substitute, am I correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may 
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote that 
may be ordered on the Traficant amendment, without intervening business 
or debate.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 243, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               AYES--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--243

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane

[[Page H3705]]


     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Parker
     Quinn
     Torres
     Wicker

                              {time}  1841

  Mr. RIGGS, Mr. DAVIS of Virginia, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. DEUTSCH, and Mr. 
EHRLICH changed their vote from ``aye" to ``no.''
  Mr. JOHN, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Mr. CANNON changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 288, 
noes 132, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               AYES--288

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--132

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Armey
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Parker
     Quinn
     Torres
     Wicker

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed 
in part D of House Report 105-544.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Gilman:
       At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. NUCLEAR EXPORT REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

[[Page H3706]]

                 ``CHAPTER 11--NUCLEAR EXPORT REPORTING

     ``SEC. 111. REPORTS ON EXPORTS.

       ``(a) Actions Requiring Reporting.--Unless and until the 
     conditions set forth in subsection (b) are met--
       ``(1) no license may be issued for the export of--
       ``(A) any production facility or utilization facility,
       ``(B) any source material or special nuclear material, or
       ``(C) any component, substance, or item that has been 
     determined under section 109b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 to be especially relevant from the standpoint of export 
     control because of its significance for nuclear explosive 
     purposes;
       ``(2) the United States shall not approve the retransfer of 
     any facility, material, item, technical data, component, or 
     substance described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) no authorization may be given under section 57b.(2) 
     of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for any person to engage, 
     directly or indirectly, in the production of special nuclear 
     material.
       ``(b) Conditions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The conditions referred to in subsection 
     (a) are the following:
       ``(A) Before the export, retransfer, or activity is 
     approved, the appropriate agency shall transmit to the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a report describing such export, retransfer, or 
     activity and the basis for any proposed approval thereof, 
     and, in the case of an authorization described in subsection 
     (a)(3), the appropriate agency shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives a 
     report describing the activity for which authorization is 
     sought and the basis for any proposed approval thereof. Each 
     report under this subparagraph report shall contain--
       ``(i) a detailed description of the proposed export, 
     retransfer, or activity, as the case may be, including a 
     brief description of the quantity, value, and capabilities of 
     the export, retransfer, or activity;
       ``(ii) the name of each contractor expected to provide the 
     proposed export, retransfer, or activity;
       ``(iii) an estimate of the number of officers and employees 
     of the United States Government and of United States civilian 
     contract personnel expected to be needed in the recipient 
     country to carry out the proposed export, retransfer, or 
     activity;and;
       ``(iv) a description, including estimated value, from each 
     contractor described in clause (ii) of any offset agreements 
     proposed to be entered into in connection with such proposed 
     export, retransfer, or activity (if known on the date of 
     transmittal of the report), and the projected delivery dates 
     and end user of the proposed export, retransfer, or activity; 
     and
       ``(v) the extent to which the recipient country is in 
     compliance with the conditions specified in paragraph (2) of 
     section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

     The report transmitted under this subparagraph shall be 
     unclassified, unless the public disclosure thereof would be 
     clearly detrimental to the security of the United States.
       ``(B) Unless the President determines that an emergency 
     exists which requires immediate approval of the proposed 
     export, retransfer, or activity in the national security 
     interests of the United States, no such approval shall be 
     given until at least 30 calendar days after Congress receives 
     the report described in subparagraph (A), and shall not be 
     approved then if Congress, within that 30-day period, enacts 
     a joint resolution prohibiting the proposed export, 
     retransfer, or activity. If the President determines that an 
     emergency exists that requires immediate approval of the 
     proposed export, retransfer, or activity in the national 
     security interests of the United States, thus waiving the 
     requirements of this paragraph, he shall submit in writing to 
     the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a detailed justification for his determination, 
     including a description of the emergency circumstances that 
     necessitate the immediate approval of the export, retransfer, 
     or activity, and a discussion of the national security 
     interests involved.
       ``(2) Consideration of joint resolutions in the senate.--
     Any joint resolution under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
     considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and 
     Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
       ``(c) Publication of Unclassified Text of Reports.--The 
     appropriate agency shall cause to be published in the Federal 
     Register, upon transmittal to the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the full unclassified 
     text of each report submitted pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(1)(A).
       ``(d) Exceptions.--The requirements of this section shall 
     not apply to--
       ``(1) any export, retransfer, or activity for which a 
     general license or general authorization is granted by the 
     appropriate agency; or
       ``(2) any export or retransfer to, or activity in, a 
     country that is a member of the Organization for Economic 
     Cooperation and Development.
       ``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms 
     `production facility', `utilization facility', `source 
     material', and `special nuclear material', have the meanings 
     given those terms in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
enhances the oversight role of Congress in the licensing of nuclear 
exports.
  There is currently little to no congressional review of United States 
nuclear exports. Export licenses granted by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission are subject to advanced publication and the possibility for 
public comment, including a formal hearing. But there is no public 
transparency involved in these licenses granted by the Department of 
Energy.
  More to the point, there is no role for congressional review of 
licensing decisions with regard to either agency except for subsequent 
arrangements for retransfers of nuclear fuel as outlined in section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes a process in 
law which is similar to that in existing law for the export of 
conventional arms. If the Congress has the right to review and 
potentially disapprove the sale of a grenade, then it should have the 
right to review and potentially disapprove the sale of a nuclear 
reactor.
  Under this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the administration must submit a 
report to the Congress on proposed nuclear exports to certain 
countries. Those proposed exports include nuclear reactors or 
components, nuclear fuel or nuclear fuel components, or retransfer of 
such items in any technology transfer.
  Once the appropriate committees in the Congress receive notice of the 
proposed export, they would have 30 calendar days to review the 
proposed sales and, if applicable, introduce and move through the 
Congress a resolution to disapprove the proposed sale.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note that under the Arms Export Control Act, 
the Congress has never successfully enacted a resolution of disapproval 
over a President's objection to ban an arms sale. More importantly, 
however, is that under the AECA, and now under the procedures 
established by this amendment for nuclear exports, the Congress will 
have a mechanism to hold the appropriate executive branch agencies 
accountable for what exports are being approved. Such a formal 
mechanism would allow the Congress the ability to hold hearings and to 
gain information on proposed nuclear sales.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is purposely drawn to exclude nuclear 
exports to our Western European allies as well as other allied and 
friendly countries, including Japan, Australia and New Zealand. This 
amendment is also purposely drawn to exclude certain types of nuclear 
exports, including those requiring general licenses or general 
authorizations.
  The purpose of narrowing the list of countries and the type of 
licenses that are captured under the amendment is to make certain that 
the Congress does not create an undue administrative burden on the 
executive branch or adversely affect our Nation's nuclear industry's 
ability to compete in a world market.
  I fully recognize that there is a fundamental difference between a 
weapon and a nuclear reactor provided for the purposes of a civilian 
nuclear energy program. But, Mr. Chairman, there are real world 
examples in which U.S. nuclear technology has been provided for 
purportedly civilian nuclear programs but then diverted to military 
programs. I am thinking, of course, of India.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment will give us the ability 
to hold both China and Russia's feet to the fire with respect to their 
nuclear nonproliferation policies.
  In the case of China, we want to make certain they do not backtrack 
on their pledge to halt new nuclear assistance to Iran, and that they 
maintain their commitments made pursuant to

[[Page H3707]]

the U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement.
  And with regard to Russia, we want to make certain that they meet 
their commitments pursuant to their membership in the Nuclear Suppliers 
Group and we want to examine closely their continued assistance to the 
Iranian nuclear program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that, in my view, had there 
been any knowledge in the Congress of the possibility of a missile 
technology transfer to China as a result of satellite exports, those 
exports would have been denied. This amendment gives the Congress the 
ability to give the necessary congressional scrutiny to nuclear 
exports, particularly those which may be of a proliferation risk.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. It is a vote for enhanced congressional review of U.S. 
nuclear exports.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I do agree with many of his concerns about nuclear proliferation. I 
think Congress does need sufficient information to be able to 
accomplish its oversight responsibilities, but I believe we already 
have that.

                              {time}  1900

  I am concerned about the unintended consequences of this amendment 
which will be contrary to our Nation's best interest. This amendment is 
unnecessary. Applications for licenses to export nuclear facilities, 
fuel and controlled nuclear technology are already required to be made 
public immediately upon filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
We do not need to add another layer of bureaucracy and complexity to 
this process.
  Non-OECD countries like Taiwan, Thailand and others are planning the 
construction of several nuclear power facilities over the next decade. 
U.S. companies are on the cutting edge of these technologies and would 
be strong competitors for this business. This is business that could 
run into billions of dollars during the next 25 years.
  No other nation prohibits its nuclear equipment suppliers from 
selling to potential customers, including China. Unlike their 
counterparts designed in Russia, U.S. light-water reactors are at very 
little risk for nuclear proliferation, and our reactor designs are not 
conducive to the production of highly enriched uranium, plutonium and 
other weapons-grade materials. We as a nation can rest easier knowing 
that reactors built in these non-OECD countries are not producing 
weapons materials.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that that amendment is overkill, that it will 
add a layer of bureaucracy and unnecessary time-consuming requirements 
to our suppliers, and I would urge a vote in opposition to the Gilman 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has 
expired. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  In studying this amendment, we find that, quite frankly, it is 
unnecessary and that under the Atomic Energy Act no export license can 
be granted unless the United States Government has already negotiated a 
nuclear cooperation agreement with the nation receiving the equipment 
or the technology.
  These agreements are reviewed by the Congress before their 
implementation, thereby eliminating the need for further congressional 
review with each individual license. Changing licensing procedures 
would reward India, imposing new restrictions on peaceful nuclear 
trade, especially with China at this time. It would harm U.S. China 
relations and would perversely reward India for detonating its nuclear 
device and punish China for India's misdeeds.
  New licensing procedures that institute greater delay and greater 
certainty will leave China and other potential markets like Brazil to 
view U.S. vendors as unreliable suppliers.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 20 printed in part D of 
House Report 105-544.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Hunter:
       At the end of title VIII (page 199, after line 25), insert 
     the following new sections:

     SEC. 804. INCREASE IN MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD.

       (a) Increase in Threshold.--Subsection (f) of section 32 of 
     the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     428(e)) is amended by striking out ``$2,500'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``$10,000''.
       (b) Exemption of Micro-Purchases From Procurement Laws.--
     Subsection (b) of such section (41 U.S.C. 428(b)) is amended 
     by striking ``to section 15(j)'' and all that follows through 
     the end of such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``any provision of law that sets forth policies, 
     procedures, requirements, or restrictions for the procurement 
     of property or services by the Federal Government, except for 
     a provision of law that provides for criminal or civil 
     penalties.''.
       (c) Domestically Produced Goods and Services.--In the 
     implementation of the amendments made by this section through 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation (as required by section 
     32(e) of such Act), the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall 
     require the head of each executive agency to ensure that 
     procuring activities of that agency, in awarding a contract 
     with a price not greater than the micro-purchase threshold, 
     make every effort to purchase domestically produced goods and 
     services.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsections (c) and (d) of 
     such section (41 U.S.C. 428(c) and (d)) are each amended by 
     striking ``$2,500'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     micro-purchase threshold''.
       (2) Section 15(j)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     644(j)(1)) is amended by striking ``$2,500'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the micro-purchase threshold (as defined in 
     section 32(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 428(f))''.

     SEC. 805. AUTHORITY FOR STATISTICAL SAMPLING TO VERIFY 
                   RECEIPT OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment 
       for goods and services

       ``(a) Verification After Payment.--Notwithstanding section 
     3324 of title 31, in making payments for goods or services, 
     the Secretary may prescribe regulations that authorize 
     verification, after payment, of receipt and acceptance of 
     goods and services. Any such regulations shall prescribe the 
     use of statistical sampling procedures for such verification. 
     Such procedures shall be commensurate with the risk of loss 
     to the Government.
       ``(b) Protection of Payment Officials.--A disbursing or 
     certifying official who carries out proper collection actions 
     and relies on the procedures established pursuant to this 
     section is not liable for losses to the Government resulting 
     from the payment or certification of a voucher not audited 
     specifically because of the use of such procedures.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter 141 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment for goods and 
              services.''.


         Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a modification to my amendment at 
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered 
in accordance with this modification.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Hunter:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title VIII (page 199, after line 25), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 804. STUDY ON INCREASE IN MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD.

       (a) Study Requirement.--The Comptroller General, in 
     consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement 
     Policy, the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration, and the Secretary of Defense, shall conduct a 
     study to assess the impact of the current micro-purchase 
     program and the advisability of increasing the micro-purchase

[[Page H3708]]

     threshold under section 32 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428) to $10,000.
       (b) Matters Covered.--(1) The assessment of the impact of 
     the current micro-purchase program shall be based on purchase 
     activity under the micro-purchase threshold conducted during 
     the two-year period beginning on February 10, 1996 (the date 
     of the enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions 
     D and E of Public Law 104-106)). The assessment shall 
     include, to the extent practicable--
       (A) a general breakdown of the supplies, services, and 
     construction purchased; and
       (B) an evaluation of the rate of small business 
     participation, economic concentration, and competition.
       (2) The assessment of the advisability of increasing the 
     micro-purchase threshold shall include a comparison of any 
     adverse impact of an increased micro-purchase threshold (such 
     as on small business participation) to benefits (such as cost 
     savings, including administrative cost savings, savings from 
     a reduced acquisition workforce and logistics structure, and 
     reduction in acquisition lead time).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of the 
     study, the Comptroller General shall submit a report on the 
     results of the study to--
       (1) the Committees on Armed Services and on Small Business 
     of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committees on National Security and on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 805. AUTHORITY FOR STATISTICAL SAMPLING TO VERIFY 
                   RECEIPT OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment 
       for goods and services

       ``(a) Verification After Payment.--Notwithstanding section 
     3324 of title 31, in making payments for goods or services, 
     the Secretary may prescribe regulations that authorize 
     verification, after payment, of receipt and acceptance of 
     goods and services. Any such regulations shall prescribe the 
     use of statistical sampling procedures for such verification. 
     Such procedures shall be commensurate with the risk of loss 
     to the Government.
       ``(b) Protection of Payment Officials.--A disbursing or 
     certifying official who carries out proper collection actions 
     and relies on the procedures established pursuant to this 
     section is not liable for losses to the Government resulting 
     from the payment or certification of a voucher not audited 
     specifically because of the use of such procedures.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter 141 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment for goods and 
              services.''.

  Mr. HUNTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simply a request for a study, and it is a study 
in an area where we are trying to make some headway in bringing the 
Department of Defense up to speed with domestic civilian practices; 
and, particularly, we are now undertaking a program whereby we use 
credit cards instead of lengthy contract orders to purchase items up to 
$2,500.
  The Department of Defense and the Administration would like to move 
ahead and increase that limit from $2,500 to $10,000. There are a 
number of people in the small business community who have concern about 
that. They feel that there may be problems. They want to know what the 
impact is.
  And so, we now have a modification to this amendment, which, for 
practical purposes, simply requests the GAO to study the issue and to 
give us what it believes to be the impacts on small business and also 
on savings that could accrue to the Department of Defense should we 
move that threshold from $2,500 to $10,000. That is the essence of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, as there is no Member opposing the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) would be kind enough to engage in a bit of a 
dialogue with me.
  I am sure that he would agree that the question of bundling contracts 
is of some concern to our small business constituents and friends, and 
I wonder if the gentleman could comment with respect to the study and 
the question of bundling contracts.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, there is concern. Because when we move to a 
credit card system, the government buyers are under an obligation to 
try to look at the entire market, the entire array of sellers to the 
best of their ability. They are required to try to be good purchasers, 
to get the best value. That means, in most cases, the lowest price. But 
not always.
  And there is always a fear in the small business community that we 
are going to have a buyer who is going to choose their favorite seller, 
if you will, or their favorite company and simply move contracts that 
way. And so, small businesses are always concerned about this.
  On the other side, sometimes we end up, because we have a very 
complicated system of contracting, we end up paying $500 for $100 desks 
after we have gone through all the competitions and all the things that 
attend that and, ultimately, write a fairly complicated contract.
  So the idea is let us give our buyers for the small amounts for the 
small goods, let us assign them a certain element of discretion and 
presume that they are going to be honest and have good judgment, and 
that when they go down to buy office equipment and other things that 
come up under the $2,500 threshold, that they are going to use good 
judgment and that they are going to use the small business community in 
a practical way and they are going to spread these purchases around. 
And that means that we pay $100 for the $100 desk instead of $500.
  So there is a certain fear on one side; and, on the other hand, there 
is a certain efficiency to be gained. So this simply asks the question 
and requires a study as to what the results will be.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. 
But the intent here, and I guess I just want to make the intent clear 
for those who may be doing the study, the intent here is to also look 
at such questions of working something up so we get a series of $10,000 
or 10,000 $100-contracts that could go to a fairly large corporation 
and cut out otherwise legitimate small business.
  I know that is not the intent of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter). But we do not want to have a study that ends up in that 
fashion.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, 
first, this does not affect or change the ability of the government to 
bundle contracts. But we want the GAO to look at that also, the idea of 
loading up or bundling contracts.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment on this 
side, and we have no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman. I wish to commend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for revising his amendment 
regarding the Micro-Purchase Threshold. I support his amendment to 
provide for a study of implementation of the Micro-Purchases procedures 
that were enacted as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
of 1994 (FASA).
  During the consideration of FASA, the small business community had 
voiced deep concerns about the contracting procedures that applicable 
to Micro-Purchases, those purchases less than $2,500 in value. They 
could be awarded without any competition. Of even greater concern, 
Micro-Purchases were exempt from the long-established requirements of 
the Small Business Act that initially reserved small purchases for 
competition among small firms.
  Purchases below the $2,500 Micro-Purchase Threshold also represented 
a very substantial pool of potential business highly suitable for small 
firms. Procurements below $2,500 are estimated to represent 
approximately 85% of the procurement actions each year, which totalled 
some $15 million in fiscal

[[Page H3709]]

year 1997. In dollar terms, procurement opportunities below $2,500 
total approximately $4 billion.
  The Department of Defense has been advocating increasing the Micro-
Purchase Threshold. Such action should not be taken until we know the 
impact of Micro-Purchase procedures at the current $2,500 threshold. To 
do otherwise would do a disservice to the small business community.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) considered as Amendment No. 
39 printed in part D of House Report 105-544.


         Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Taylor of 
     Mississippi:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1023. RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Expansion of Existing Program.--(1) Chapter 81 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1581 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1582. Random testing of employees for use of illegal 
       drugs

       ``(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     expand the drug testing program required for civilian 
     employees of the Department of Defense by Executive Order 
     12564 (51 Fed. Reg. 32889; September 15, 1986) to include the 
     random testing on a controlled and monitored basis of all 
     such employees for the use of illegal drugs.
       ``(b) Testing Procedures and Personnel Actions.--The 
     requirements of Executive Order 12564 regarding drug testing 
     procedures and the personnel actions to be taken with respect 
     to any employee who is found to use illegal drugs shall apply 
     to the expanded drug testing program required by this 
     section.
       ``(c) Notification to New Employees.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall notify persons employed after the date of the 
     enactment of this section that, as a condition of employment 
     by the Department of Defense, the person may be required to 
     submit to mandatory random drug testing under the expanded 
     drug testing program required by this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     1581 the following new item:

``1582. Random testing of employees for use of illegal drugs.''.

       (b) Funding.--No additional funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated on account of the amendment made by subsection 
     (a). The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the expanded 
     drug testing program for civilian employees of the Department 
     of Defense under section 383 of title 10, United States Code, 
     as added by subsection (a), using amounts otherwise provided 
     for the program.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out in the recent dialogue with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes), there is a war on drugs going on, and our Nation is losing.
  Mr. Chairman, the point that would I like to make with this amendment 
and the law that I would like to change with this amendment would allow 
our Department of Defense to test all of its employees for drugs and, 
in the future, tell future hires that, as a requirement of working for 
the Department of Defense, that they will submit to random drug 
testing.
  In February, I went to Colombia, went to places like Ibague, went to 
places likes San Jose, where American pilots are flying crop dusters 
and being shot at by Colombian guerillas and Colombian narco-
traffickers.
  We have American A-teams on the ground in Colombia training the 
Colombian Lance Arrows, their word for Ranger. We have American Seals 
training their navy. We have Americans in Iquitos, Peru, right across 
the Amazon River, training their riverine operations. It is a real war. 
It is a real war with real casualties.
  The week after I left Colombia, the Lance Arrows that I had the 
privilege of visiting went out, 125 of them. Eighteen of them returned. 
The remainder were either killed or captured.
  The point I am trying to make is it does not make much sense to tell 
our uniformed personnel that work for the Department of Defense that 
they are subject to drug testing but the civilian who does almost the 
same job as a mechanic, as a technician who is working right next to 
him, is not.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) and will concur, and I intend to vote for his amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

                              {time}  1915

  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


         Tragedy At Thurston High School In Springfield, Oregon

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, a tragic event has occurred in my 
congressional district, in my hometown; and I am requesting a leave of 
absence for Friday and the balance of the week, as the eyes of the 
country turn toward my hometown of Springfield where, early this 
morning, a number of students at Thurston High School were shot by a 
fellow student.
  Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. At 
this time, many, many questions remain about the circumstances of this 
horrible tragedy. But what we do know is that a terrible tragedy has 
occurred. I need to return to Oregon to be with my family and my 
community in this time of sorrow.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
use the 5 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a drug problem. As a State Senator of 
Mississippi, I am real proud of the fact that I helped pass the 
toughest drug law in America. In Mississippi, if you sell two ounces of 
cocaine, two ounces of heroin, 100 pills, 10 pounds of marijuana, in 
one sale or intent or a series of sales over the period of 1 year, you 
are caught and convicted, you spend the rest of your life in the 
Mississippi State Penitentiary.
  But it is not enough, because we have this disconnect in our country 
where we say, if you are a dealer, you are bad; if but if you use it, 
it is okay.
  I often wonder how many kids here on Capitol Hill use drugs. They 
work for our Nation. They should not. I would hope at some point during 
this Congress we will see to it that everyone who works for this 
Nation, as a requirement of working for this Nation, will subject 
themselves to drug tests.
  But I cannot do that on this bill. I can, however, require that we 
take a step in that direction and say if you are going to work for our 
Nation's Department of Defense, if you are committing your life to 
defending our Nation or working to support those people who defend our 
Nation, you are not going to use drugs. You are not going to take your 
Federal paycheck and break the law and use illegal drugs. That is what 
we are asking to do.
  I do not think there is any opposition to this. I want to thank the 
chairman for allowing this amendment to come to the floor. I want to 
thank our ranking member who went to bat with the Committee on Rules to 
see to it that this amendment was made in order.
  I want to thank the Committee on Rules. I think they made a mistake

[[Page H3710]]

when they voted not to bring it to the floor, but they admitted their 
mistake and saw to it that it could be voted on. It takes a big man to 
admit he made a mistake.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) considered as amendment number 
41 printed in part D of House Report 105-544.


                 Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Thomas

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 41 made in order by an order of the 
     House of May 21, 1998, offered by Mr. Thomas:
       At the end of title XXXIV (page 373, after line 2), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 3408. TREATMENT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA CLAIM REGARDING 
                   NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NUMBERED 1.

       Section 3415(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 7420 
     note) is amended by striking out the first sentence and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``Amounts in the 
     contingent fund shall be available for paying a claim 
     described in subsection (a) in accordance with the terms of, 
     and the payment schedule contained in, the Settlement 
     Agreement entered into between the State of California and 
     the Department of Energy, dated October 11, 1996, and 
     supplemented on December 10, 1997. The Secretary shall modify 
     the Settlement Agreement to negate the requirements of the 
     Settlement Agreement with respect to the request for and 
     appropriation of funds.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly do want to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on National Security and the ranking member, respectively the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), first of all for their courtesy in allowing me 
to discuss the amendment at this time. Actually, I have to go back. The 
original genesis of this amendment is once again thanking them; only at 
that time they were known as the Armed Services Committee and the 
subcommittee that consists of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  It involved the sale of the naval petroleum reserve known as Elk 
Hills. In 1974 President Ford ordered oil produced at this naval 
petroleum reserve at its maximum efficient rate. For more than two 
decades, oil was produced commercially, but it was a government-held 
property. We always wanted to try to sell it if it was going to be used 
to simply produce oil to sell. But as I was wont to say at one time, 
you can shear a sheep every year, and you can slaughter it only once.
  It was producing more than $1 billion a year of revenue for more than 
a decade. But the gentleman from Virginia put together a sale and 
bidding procedure which not only succeeded in reaching the CBO's 
estimate of a $2.6 billion sale, but, in fact, sold for $3.65 billion.
  One of the reasons we think it sold at that price was that a lien on 
land held by State teachers, given to the teachers during the land 
grant college period, and the tracts of land being incorporated in the 
Elk Hills area, they never received a penny off the land. It was a 
Federal Reserve. But when it was going to be released for sale, they 
certainly were going to claim a revenue stream from that land.
  The solution put in the legislation in the then Armed Services bill 
was to take 9 percent of the sales price, whatever it was, and provide 
it to the State Teachers Retirement Fund. It was put in language that 
said pursuant to an appropriation.
  Elk Hills has been sold, $3.65 billion. Almost $326 million is held 
in reserve to be doled out over the years. In the wisdom of a number of 
people around here, we came to the conclusion of why not just give it 
to them. The money is sitting there. There is no reason to dole it out. 
Certainly $1 billion more than was planned would cover the cost of 
moving these dollars.
  So I am indebted, once again, to the now Committee on National 
Security for their willingness to accommodate the ability to pay the 
State teachers once out of a fund that is now reserved. That is the sum 
and substance of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, as there is no Member to claim the time in 
opposition, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I hereby yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, after having once again thanked the 
Committee on National Security, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment D-19 Offered By Mr. Gilman.

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405, 
noes 9, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               AYES--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)

[[Page H3711]]


     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Brown (CA)
     Dooley
     Fazio
     Frank (MA)
     McIntyre
     Pickett
     Sawyer
     Skelton
     Tauscher

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bateman
     Blumenauer
     Coyne
     Dixon
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Oxley
     Parker
     Quinn
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  1942

  Messrs. FAZIO of California, FRANK of Massachusetts and SAWYER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SISISKY, ADAM SMITH of Washington and RANGEL and Mrs. CAPPS 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3616, 
the Department of Defense Authorization Act for FY 99, because it 
contains two egregious provisions which adversely affect women in the 
military--allowing gender segregated training and housing facilities, 
and banning access to health care clinics overseas for a full range of 
health care services.
  However, I am in support of the bill's authorization of $655 million 
to aid in the cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats nuclear site near 
Denver. This total represents an additional $40 million to President 
Clinton's request, and I commend the Committee on National Security for 
its vision and leadership on this important project.
  Yet the provisions which attacks on the rights of women in the 
military are needless poison pills to this very important and necessary 
authorization bill. Every woman in America has a constitutional right 
to have an abortion. The anti-choice movement in Congress has been 
relentless in its effort to overturn this constitutional right. 
Additionally, segregating women from men will not improve discipline, 
training, or effectiveness. In times of war, women and men fight 
together, not separately. In fact, our military opposes this 
initiative, yet the House of Representatives has approved this 
unprecedented initiative.
  Consequently, I oppose this legislation in its current form and I 
urge my colleagues to think about the message they are sending to all 
American women when they take away these rights of military women. I 
hope that the conference report will return to the House without these 
two meanspirited and harmful provisions.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would 
like to commend the work of both the Chairman, Mr. Spence and the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Skelton. I believe the priorities which they have 
established in this bill are good for both our Nation and for our 
Nation's defense.
  We are preparing to enter the 14th consecutive year of real decline 
in defense spending. I am one of those who believe that we cannot 
continue to put the military at risk. The funding constraints imposed 
by the balanced budget agreement make our choices more difficult. 
However, we still must ensure that other priorities do not drive us 
away from one of the primary responsibilities the Congress has, and 
that is ensuring for the Nation's defense.
  We all realize that the United States holds a unique position in the 
world. People all over the globe look to us for security and stability. 
It may not be fair, but it is the reality. While our Military Forces 
are shrinking, operations around the world are increasing. The 
increased pace of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and other 
contingency operations is forcing our Armed Forces to do more with 
less. However, doing more with less is not always conducive with 
ensuring the long term readiness of our Armed Services. Our troops 
serving today in Bosnia are just one of the recent examples of our 
global leadership and responsibility. I continue to support our 
deployment of troops in Bosnia and believe the work they are 
accomplishing there makes America a better place and the world a safer 
one.
  I say to both the Chairman and the Ranking Member that their 
priorities are right for our Nation, we need to stand up for those 
priorities and pursue them.
  I support this bill to authorize $270 billion for critical defense 
needs in fiscal year 1999 and want to commend the committee for what is 
in the bill before us: a 3.6% military pay raise; the $2.7 billion for 
procurement of 27 FA-18 E/F's; $36.2 billion for continued research and 
development, which includes $456 million for the joint strike fighter; 
the continued support for the important mission of the special 
operations command; the $2 billion to purchase the second new attack 
submarine. The $285 million for 30 Blackhawk helicopters, 18 of which 
are for the Army National Guard; and the procurement of 8 V-22 Ospreys 
for the Marine Corps.
  I also want to commend Chairman Hefley and Ranking Member Ortiz for 
their work on authorizing $8.2 billion for military construction.
  I commend the Committee for funding these DOD and Navy priorities and 
for addressing the needs of our men and women in the Armed Services.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, although I am unable to cast my vote for 
this legislation, I am pleased to take this opportunity to voice my 
support for H.R. 3616, the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  For the fourth consecutive year, the Department of Defense's 
modernization budget fell far short of the $60 billion that former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Shalikashvili testified the 
military needs each year to update its aging force. Even more 
disturbing is the continuing trend of budget requests for modernization 
that are billions less than they were forecast to be during the 
previous year.
  The research and development situation in the United States military 
looks very bleak as well. Spending for research and development 
accounts are forecasted to fall by at least fourteen percent.
  This year's overall budget request represents the lowest real level 
of U.S. defense spending since before the Korean War. Clearly, the 
practice of the United States military increasing its number of 
missions while resources decline will continue unless the defense 
budget is increased.
  H.R. 3616, while consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, continues 
the 14-year trend of real decline in defense spending. I commend the 
National Security Committee for working within these constraints to 
focus the limited resources available on addressing readiness, quality 
of life, and modernization shortfalls. This bill provides the 
Department of Defense with some of the tools necessary to better 
recruit and retain quality personnel, better train them to the highest 
possible standards, and better equip them with advanced military 
technology while trying to provide for an improved quality of life.
  The high pace of operations continues unabated with attendant 
negative impacts on military quality of life. America's military forces 
are under severe stress.
  H.R. 3616 takes proactive measures to directly reduce the stress and 
would provide military personnel a 3.6 percent pay raise--.5 percent 
more than that requested in the budget--to halt the growing pay gap. In 
addition, the bill limits the Department of Defense's ability to 
accelerate military personnel cuts and add $74 million to help the Army 
maintain adequate manpower levels.
  Among many other important provisions, the bill also would mandate 
that burial honors for all veterans be provided on request after 
October 1999 and increase funding for the National Guard Youth 
Challenge Program to $50 million.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate Chairman Spence 
and Ranking Member Skelton for bringing forward a good bill in a tough 
year. At a time when we are asking our armed services to do more with

[[Page H3712]]

less, this bill represents the most balanced approach to our military 
priorities.
  I would like to take a few moments to highlight a few issues in this 
legislation that I have had the privilege to work on over the last 
several months.


                                  F-22

  I am very concerned about recent GAO recommendations that would have 
us further delay the F-22. This program has experienced too many delays 
and too many reductions in planned buy. Specifically, the GAO has 
expressed concern about lack of test hours conducted to date. The truth 
is this program is meeting or exceeding all performance targets set by 
the USAF, and the Air Force is fully satisfied with the quality of data 
derived from the test hours that have been conducted.
  Furthermore, last year this Congress imposed a very restrictive, 
unprecedented cost cap on the contractor, a cap that set in stone the 
cost of this program over a planned buy of nearly 340 aircraft. I am 
pleased to report that the Air Force and contractor are meeting the 
terms of those caps while also meeting established performance 
requirements. Now is not the time to throw this program into further 
disarray.
  I am also pleased to report that Raptor 01, our first test aircraft, 
flew again just two days ago at Edwards AFB. This fully successful 
flight lasted nearly two hours. The bottom line is that this bill 
provides for a fully funded program that is absolutely necessary to 
ensuring air dominance for our warfighters into the 21st century. I 
commend the Committee on its work in this area.


                                 jstars

  Over the last decade, DoD has well-established this nation's ground 
reconnaissance need. That need is translated into 19 fully operational 
JointSTARS aircraft. Today, DoD is ignoring that stated need for 19 
aircraft, and it has stopped procurement at 13.
  This bill makes a commitment for long-lead funding for 2 of the 
necessary 6 additional aircraft. In the area of intelligence, there is 
no room for compromise. There is no substitute. And the bottom line is 
that JSTARS is absolutely necessary to meeting our land reconnaissance 
needs in the 21st century.


                                  mwr

  Morale, Welfare and Recreation is an issue that does not receive much 
attention in such a massive bill, but one that is very important to our 
troops in the field--it relates to their quality of life.
  I am proud of the good work in this bill, under the leadership of 
Chairman McHugh, work that will translate directly into a better 
standard of living for our men and women in the armed services.
  Tough decisions were made, decisions that require we balance many 
interests, but decisions that ultimately must weigh heavily in favor of 
the military men and women who have committed themselves to us.

  Specifically, the Panel authorized the expansion of commissary 
benefits to Reserves from 12 to 24 days. Today we are asking more and 
more of our guard and reserve forces. It is only fair that they are 
more integrated into our military community, which includes increased 
access to the ``military benefit.''
  In addition, the Panel worked hard to protect the military resale 
system. Notwithstanding the hard work of DoD, the Panel remains 
concerned about unsupported initiatives that may do more harm than good 
to our resale system.
  Finally, I am pleased to report that the Panel recommended a 
provision that will require that DoD privately contract for a survey of 
military resale consumers to determine their preferences on key issues 
facing the resale system. A key item to be surveyed is the desirability 
of the availability of beer and wine products in military commissary 
stores. The Panel authorized such sale by DoD. It is the opinion of 
many members of the Panel that convenience to the military consumer 
must come first. I look forward to the results of such a survey.


                               pay raise

  Last, but not least, I am proud to observe that this bill includes a 
3.6 percent pay raise for our military members. We must invest in our 
military and continue to draw the most talented young people in our 
nation. Today we face very serious recruiting and retention issues in 
all of our services. It is my hope that this pay raise will begin to 
show our commitment to the hard work our military does every day.


                              more funding

  Mr. Chairman, we have done the best with what we have been given. 
However, it is not enough. The world continues to be a dangerous place, 
and recent developments in India and Pakistan bring this point home. As 
Chairman Weldon often notes, we are facing a train wreck around 2001 
and 2002--a train wreck that will require tradeoffs that will not be in 
the national security interest of this nation. We must have more 
resources, as we must never grow complacent with our role as the 
world's superpower. I vow to work together with my colleagues to 
continue to press for adequate funding of our military priorities. 
Until that day, I am pleased to report that this bill is a fair balance 
of our priorities.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 1999 
Defense Authorization Act and in appreciation of the inclusion of a 
provision, brought to my attention by my constituent, Mr. James 
Biscardi of Quakertown, Pennsylvania. Without his continued dedication, 
the men of the Navy Armed Guard, who served with honor, dignity, and 
courage, would still be awaiting their deserved congressional 
recognitioin.
  In the beginning of the 104th Congress, Mr. Biscardi, a true American 
Patriot, contacted my office seeking recognitioin for those who served 
in the Navy Armed Guard. By working with him, I drafted legislation, 
now part of the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Act, that recognizes the 
outstanding service of the members of the Armed Guard during World Wars 
I and II and thanks the surviving crewmen of the Armed Guard for their 
service.
  The Armed Guard was created as a branch of the United States Navy 
during World War I to protect the merchant ships of the United States 
by maintaining weapons on 384 merchant ships. During World War II, the 
Armed Guard was reactivated as a response to the German strategy of 
attacking and sinking merchant ships, even those of neutral countries, 
which appeared to be bringing goods to the Allied Nations in Europe. 
Over 144,900 men served in the Armed Guard on 6,236 merchant ships 
during World War II. Nearly 2,000 of these men made the supreme 
sacrifice, and gave their lives in defense of their country.
  The dedication of, and sacrifices made, by the men of the Armed Guard 
deserve the recognition and gratitude of the United States. Through the 
passage of the Defense Authorization bill, the United States Congress 
will be acknowledging the outstanding service of the 144,970 men who 
served in the Armed Guard during World War II, and the men who served 
in World War I. These men have earned a heartfelt thanks from the 
country that they so gallantly fought to protect.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3616) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 441, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1945


        Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
bill?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Frank of Massachusetts moves that the bill be 
     recommitted to the Committee on National Security with 
     instructions to report it back forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of title XII (page   , after line    ), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.   . WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM THE 
                   REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       (a) Limitation.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999 
     may be used for the deployment of United States Armed Forces 
     in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after December 31, 
     1998, unless a law has been enacted that explicitly 
     authorizes the deployment of such Armed Forces.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation contained in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply with respect to--
       (1) the deployment of United States Armed Forces for the 
     express purpose of ensuring

[[Page H3713]]

     the safe withdrawal of such Armed Forces from the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina;
       (2) a limited number of members of United States Armed 
     Forces sufficient only to protect United States diplomatic 
     facilities and citizens; or
       (3) noncombatant personnel to advise the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO) Commander in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for 
intruding at this late date, but it did seem to me, having the elected 
representatives of the American people vote on whether or not American 
ground troops ought to stay in Bosnia until infinity was a reasonable 
use of about 20 minutes.
  It is not ideal to do it this way, but the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Hilleary), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I submitted 
this germane amendment in a timely fashion to the Committee on Rules 
and we were told we could not debate it. My colleagues may not realize 
how important the issues have been that we have been dealing with, 
because they were so important, the ones we have been debating for the 
last couple of days, that we did not have a chance to vote on Bosnia.
  We are told that we are spread too thin. A number of Members have 
complained of the President's dispensing the troops to Bosnia. Being 
heard here today is important, because a lot of Members here have been 
heard on the subject of Bosnia. I am delighted to give them a chance to 
put their voting cards where their mouths have been.
  We are here faced with an amendment that says the troops have to 
leave by December 31. That is plenty of time. It does allow for troops 
afterwards, if they are needed, to pull out in an orderly fashion. This 
is a correctly drawn amendment by the gentleman from California. It 
even says, because we were told, well, later we will come in with the 
right conditions. This amendment says, if a subsequent bill comes 
forward, then that will cover it. All this says is, we will not by 
silence acquiesce in the indefinite extension of that mission.
  This is not Mission Creep, this is Mission Rush. This is Mission 
Hurdle, and we are all allowing it to happen if we do not vote for 
this.
  Now, I believe it was a good thing that the world, and the U.S. 
leading, stopped people from killing each other in Bosnia. The fight 
has been broken up; we have stopped the killing. We have a relatively 
easy military mission, I think. It is to keep the combatants apart.
  Now, Bosnia is very close to the following countries: Germany, 
France, Italy, England, the Scandinavian countries, the Benelux 
countries. They are members of a vestigial organization known as NATO. 
We are giving NATO a chance to mean something. The U.S. carries the 
burden in South Korea; the U.S. carries the burden in Iraq. Is it never 
to be time for Europe to do something on their own? Can Europe never be 
expected by us to do this? It is a relatively small thing: Keep the 
troops in this police action to separate people.
  Members just voted, I did not vote, but Members just voted to put 
American troops on the border. Well, where are they going to come from? 
Maybe we can take them from Bosnia. We are told we have to have troops 
in Europe because they are our allies. Well, if that is the case, if we 
show we are allies by having troops in each other's countries, are we 
sending for Dutch troops to control the Mexican border to deal with 
drugs? Can we expect some French troops to help us implement the 
Traficant amendment? We cannot keep voting for more and more and not 
sometimes say no. If we do not believe the European troops are capable 
of maintaining the peace in Bosnia on their own, then let us stop 
pretending that there is anything but a unilateral American presence.
  This amendment is a chance for Members to vote to say, and we will 
save, by the way, $2 billion. In the supplemental we asked for $162 
million a month, Pentagon calculation. That is the incremental cost of 
keeping the troops in Bosnia. So we can save $2 billion on the defense 
bill, we can inconvenience our European allies by asking them to 
increase their forces, and we can be consistent if we have said we are 
for pulling the troops out of Bosnia, and I have to say to my 
Republican colleagues, you have been fighting the President all over 
the place. You have been whacking him and hitting him and smacking him. 
This is something he cares about. They have the troops in Bosnia, you 
have been shadow boxing and dancing and creating and melting snowmen. 
You have been taking care of China and you have been taking care of 
this and that. Here it is.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules said he could not allow this 
amendment because the President told him not to. Well, the President 
cannot control the vote on a motion to recommit, so if you want to show 
that you believe in the constitutional function of Congress, you can 
vote for it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
will only take a moment to say that the gentleman in the well is 
expressing about the most important prerogative that a Member of the 
House of Representatives can express. The Constitution makes it 
imperative that we vote to go to war, that it not be done by a 
President, that it be done by the people's representatives. When we 
send soldiers and sailors and air personnel to die overseas, they must 
know it is with the approval of the people's representatives in this 
House.
  I applaud the gentleman for his courage and I ask for an ``aye'' 
vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
the time, but I hope I do not yield back the prerogatives of this 
House.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim 
the time in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let us stop and pause for a moment in where we are. This is a motion 
to recommit saying we are going to tell the President of the United 
States that he has to bring the troops home and we have to do it now. I 
have been before this body and I have stood here and I have offered 
amendments in the past with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). I did not like how we 
went into the Dayton Accords, but let us stop and think about where we 
are right now.
  Has the mission been successful? It has. Have we completely and 
always agreed? No, we have not. I gave a commitment to the President, I 
said I would no longer be your critic, I will be your constructive 
critic, and this is not about politics, because it could be in the year 
2000 we could have a Republican President and we are going to inherit 
Bosnia and there are going to be troops that are going to be in Bosnia, 
because I firmly believe those troops are still going to be in Bosnia. 
The key is, how do we slowly bring those troops home so we then have a 
commitment to an enduring peace in Bosnia? That is what this is about, 
an enduring peace in Bosnia.
  Do not get consumed by this by saying, oh, this has got to be about 
the troops, bringing the troops home. If we believe in the commitment 
toward peace, if we really believe in that, this is also about NATO and 
our relationship with our NATO allies. Oh, I also want NATO to carry; 
actually, I want our European allies to carry a greater burden in the 
peace and the stability of the continent of Europe.
  But right now, where are we right now? This is not a wise thing to 
do. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) of the Committee on 
International Relations and myself are working on a resolution, along 
with the administration. When the President of the United States said 
that what we are going to do is we are going to set very real 
benchmarks for success in the civil implementation of Bosnia,

[[Page H3714]]

what is key is that we make sure that the benchmarks of success are 
realistic, they are viable, and that they are pragmatic.
  What we are going to do is, and we put this into resolution form, we 
want to come here to this body so that everyone has a comfort level 
with regard to the benchmarks of success, because I do not want, nor do 
my colleagues want troops in Bosnia for a very long time, and what is 
unfortunate is they may be there because of the parameters that were 
set out in the predicate of the Dayton Accords that may require 
generation secure.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this.
  We debated this fully this past March. With the gentleman in the well 
I had an amendment that opposed the initial placing of troops in Bosnia 
for the simple reason that there was army and training that should not 
have taken place. That has been a success. This is not the right 
message to send to the troops, it is not the right message to send to 
our allies who, by the way, furnish 75 percent of the troops there, and 
by the way, provide 85 percent of the reconstruction assistance. I 
think we should vote this down and pass this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 251, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               AYES--167

     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Klug
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--251

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bateman
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Parker
     Quinn
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  2013

  Mrs. EMERSON and Messrs. NETHERCUTT, SNOWBARGER, McKEON and 
HUTCHINSON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 357, 
noes 60, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 183]

                               AYES--357

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner

[[Page H3715]]


     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--60

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bateman
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Parker
     Quinn
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  2021

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Yates against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

       ``A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 
     for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes.''.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________