[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7817-H7857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WESTERN HEMISPHERE DRUG ELIMINATION ACT

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 537 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 537

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4300) to support enhanced drug interdiction 
     efforts in the major transit countries and support a 
     comprehensive supply eradication and crop substitution 
     program in source countries. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by Representative Hastert of Illinois, and a 
     Member opposed to the bill. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule 
     for a period not to exceed three hours. It shall be in order 
     to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 
     pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of 
     order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendments, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instruction.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, and considers it as 
read.
  The rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI, prohibiting nongermane 
amendments, against the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified open 
rule for H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) or his designee, and 
a Member opposed to the bill. The rule provides a 3-hour time limit on 
the amendment process.
  The rule permits the Chair to accord priority and recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record and considers them as read.
  The rule allows the Chair to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed votes, 
provided voting time on the first series of questions shall not be less 
than 15 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, teenage drug use in this country is now a national 
crisis. Since 1993, drug use among teenagers has doubled in the United 
States. Among high school seniors, marijuana use is up 80 percent, 
cocaine use is up 80 percent, and heroin use is up 100 percent. It is 
time our country made this drug crisis a national priority. As the 
mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, I attended far too many funerals 
for children who were killed by drug violence. I do not want to attend 
another one.
  This week, we will continue this Congress's serious campaign to win 
the war on drugs. We have committed to win this drug war in 4 years, 
like we won World War II in 4 years. This week, we will consider 
several pieces of legislation to both reduce the domestic demand for 
drugs and to stop the flow of drugs into the country.
  The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act will beef up our drug 
interdiction efforts by providing for the purchase of additional planes 
and ships to stop drugs at the borders. In addition, the bill provides 
anti-drug assistance to the Governments of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and 
Mexico. If they have our help, they have been proven to do a good job 
in giving the support necessary to stop those drugs from leaving their 
country.
  H.R. 4300 is a good, noncontroversial bill. It will reduce the supply 
of drugs in America, it will drive up the price, making it harder for 
teenagers to buy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support 
the underlying legislation. This is an open rule with a generous time 
cap on amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a statement of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCollum), who is also very active in 
this work.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the statement of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum):

       Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

he is speaking regarding a bill introduced by he and his colleagues on 
the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.

       The purpose of H.R. 4300 is to supply a comprehensive 
     supply eradication and crop substitution program in the 
     narcotics source countries of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as 
     well as to fund enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the 
     transit countries in the Caribbean, Central and South 
     America.
       H.R. 4300 was introduced on July 22 of 1998. It was 
     referred to the Committee on International Relations; in 
     addition, the bill was referred to the Committees on Ways and 
     Means, Judiciary, National Security, and Transportation. The 
     respective chairmen of all of these committees, as well as 
     the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, have sent waiver 
     letters to the Speaker on H.R. 4300. Substantial efforts have 
     been made in developing H.R. 4300 with the full and informed 
     participation of committee staff from each of the six 
     affected committees, as well as the Task Force for a Drug 
     Free America led by Chairman Hastert.
       The Congressional Budget Office has conducted a preliminary 
     assessment in coordination with the House Budget Committee 
     and has determined that there are no pay-as-you-go issues 
     contained within H.R. 4300. We expect a full written 
     assessment from CBO on the costs associated with the bill by 
     the end of the week.
       Some of the major provisions of H.R. 4300:
       It provides approximately $2.3 billion through the fiscal 
     years of 1999, 2000 and 2001.
       It significantly expands U.S. aircraft, maritime and radar 
     coverage and operations in drug source and transit zones.
       It substantially enhances the counternarcotics capabilities 
     of the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the DEA in terms 
     of personnel, equipment and training.
       It funds increased drug eradication assistance to Colombia, 
     Peru, Bolivia and Mexico.
       It funds increased drug interdiction assistance to Brazil, 
     Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, the Caribbean and Central 
     America.
       It encourages the use of new technologies to detect 
     narcotics in transit and to destroy coca and opium poppy in 
     the source zones.
       It funds alternative crop development in Colombia, Peru and 
     Bolivia.
       It supports the establishment of international law 
     enforcement academies for Latin America and the Caribbean, 
     Asia and Africa under the auspices of the Justice Department.

[[Page H7818]]

       It supports the establishment of an international maritime 
     law enforcement training center under the auspices of the 
     Coast Guard and the Customs Service.
       It advocates a new prioritization for the Defense 
     Department to treat international drug interdiction to be as 
     important as peacekeeping.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This resolution 537 is a modified, open rule. As my colleague from 
North Carolina has described, this rule provides for 1 hour of general 
debate to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) or his designee and a Member opposed to the 
bill.
  Under this rule, amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule, 
which is the normal amending process in the House. However, the 
amendment process is limited to a 3-hour limit.
  Mr. Speaker, illegal drug use is widely considered to be a major 
problem in our country. More than 11 million Americans buy illegal 
drugs and use them more than once a month. These drugs contribute to 
crime, lower productivity, and health problems.
  This bill authorizes $2.3 billion over 3 years for equipment, 
personnel, and training to reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the 
United States.
  This bill spends money to buy aircraft for the U.S. Customs Air Wing 
and for helicopters for the Colombian National Police. The bill also 
spends money to establish an air base to support U.S. counternarcotics 
operations and for international law enforcement academies.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 
supporting the war against drugs, and I hope that this bill will make a 
meaningful contribution. However, I believe that this legislation would 
have been improved if it had gone through the normal committee process, 
and though it was referred to five different committees, none held 
hearings, received formal administration comment, issued a report, or 
even received a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office on 
this bill.
  Had hearings been held, a number of issues might have been raised, 
such as: Could some of the money end up supporting foreign military 
forces accused of human rights abuses? Was the bill fully coordinated 
with existing Federal anti-drug programs? Where will the money come 
from to pay for these new programs?
  Mr. Speaker, these are serious questions, and I would be more 
comfortable if they were addressed through the normal committee 
process, considering the enormous amount of money that we are spending. 
At least under the rule, Members will have 3 hours to raise these and 
any other issues that are important to them and to their constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is the head of the 
Speaker's drug task force for a drug-free America.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
and certainly the gentleman from Ohio who are bringing this rule to the 
House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this process was kind of complicated. We crossed the 
jurisdictions of about six different committees. There have been years 
of various testimony in hearings that have gone on over the last 3 
years that I have been involved in this issue.
  Certainly there have been multiple visits to sites, in this case, in 
this bill, south of our border in places like Mexico and Colombia and 
Peru and Bolivia and other areas such as Puerto Rico and the Bahamas 
and other areas, even in Europe as we see drugs being moved across and 
actually traded by terrorists across the Middle East and also finding 
their way into our markets.
  It is a very complex thing. It is a lot of work by the FBI and the 
DEA and other law enforcement agencies. The people who do the work 
beyond our borders are Americans who give up their time and are away 
from families to fight the scourge of drugs in this country.
  When you start to look at the whole issue of cutting off supply, 
which is really in harmony with the whole issue of demand reduction, we 
have to have both sides of the equation, try to stop demand, and we are 
going to debate that bill later on today, but to cut off supply is 
really cost effective. You can stop supply in places like Colombia and 
Bolivia and Peru and Afghanistan and even places like Myanmar.
  Certainly it is the cost effective and the most effective way you can 
do it and least expensive. It goes back to the old adage of an ounce of 
prevention is certainly worth a pound of cure. I think we tried to do 
that for this bill.
  This is an open rule. People have the time to be able to debate this 
and bring their ideas to the floor, and I certainly welcome it. I 
appreciate the gentleman from Ohio and certainly the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina in bringing this rule to the floor.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me say I take a back seat to no one on 
the issue of drug control. I support all serious initiatives to rid our 
country in the hemisphere of the scourge of illegal drug trafficking 
and drug use.
  I rise, however, as the ranking minority member of the House 
Committee on National Security to express grave reservations over the 
process, over the process under which this important bill is being 
considered. But I also consider myself a jealous guardian of the 
process and the rights and responsibilities of the Members of our 
institution as well as the committees they are on.
  This bill has major and far-reaching national and international 
implications, along with a staggering $2.3 billion price tag. Yet, 
incredibly, House committee consideration has been totally eliminated 
from the process in which the bill is being brought to this floor.
  No fewer than five committees, unfortunately, waive their 
jurisdiction over elements of the bill; and I for one would like to go 
on record as saying that this is an incredibly dangerous precedent to 
set here in the House.
  My colleagues with whom I am privileged to serve on the House 
Committee on National Security on both sides of the aisle have made it 
their serious and thoughtful business to develop an expertise in 
matters of defense policy, including drug policy.
  The same can be said of the expertise of other committee members in 
their areas of jurisdiction. We have a right and we have a 
responsibility to use the expertise in the careful consideration of any 
legislation which is referred to our committee, especially one so far-
reaching as this bill.
  The Chairman of the Committee on National Security, my good friend, 
my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has made 
his reservation known to the Speaker by letter, and I thank him for 
that. But the waiver, nevertheless, has been granted, and now we usher 
in a process by which a task force is being formed and laid in the 
legislative cycle which circumvents all committees of jurisdiction and 
brings a major initiative to the floor.
  There is no reason to believe that this will not occur again and more 
often in the future as the process succeeds today. As ranking member of 
my committee, I am greatly concerned that legislative consideration by 
task forces instead of by committees which has expertise in various 
areas on comprehensive measures will begin to supersede the normal 
process and degrade the purpose of service on our respective 
committees.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, during the past 2 years, there have been numerous 
hearings on significant opponents of H.R. 4300 in each of the 
committees of referral: the Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on 
International Relations, Committee on National Security, Committee on 
Ways and Means, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well 
as the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  I would just like to mention that, in the full Committee on 
International Relations in February of 1998, there was a hearing on 
U.S. narcotics policy to Colombia. March 31 of 1998, there

[[Page H7819]]

was also another hearing on U.S. narcotics policy to Colombia; June 24 
on Colombia and heroin. March 26, 1998, there was a markup, and it was 
for providing three Black Hawk utility helicopters to the Colombian 
national police to fight the war on drugs.
  The GAO issued a report in February of 1998, drug control U.S. 
counternarcotics efforts in Colombia face continuing challenges. Then 
the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere on drug issues had two 
hearings, one in July of 1997 on antidrug efforts in the Americas and 
one August 6, 1998, which was a Colombia insurgency hearing.
  So there have been hearings in these various committees, and it has 
had that hearing process adequately applied.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I, too, share the reservations of the 
gentleman from Missouri about interrupting the normal committee process 
with a major new initiative. However, the normal committee process, in 
my judgment, was a part of this task force from start to finish.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on The Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, over the last almost 2 years, we have held several 
subcommittee hearings on the Coast Guard's ability to work with other 
agencies with the Defense Department, even with other countries to 
figure out a plan to interdict drugs coming into the Caribbean area, 
the Eastern Pacific, and the United States. I think what we have done 
is create a plan that needs to move forward. We can interdict drugs on 
the high seas.
  At this point, I am convinced, this might sound astounding, but I am 
convinced that we as a country by about the year 2005 or 2006 can 
interdict 80 percent of the illegal drugs coming into this country 
across the high seas. It is possible to do that. We have the 
technology, the will, the initiative, and this is the first step in 
that direction. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Pursuant to House Resolution 
537 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4300.

                              {time}  1110


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4300) to support enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the major 
transit countries and support a comprehensive supply eradication and 
crop substitution program in source countries, with Mr. Gutknecht in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is one part of the solution to the most 
insidious national security threat that we as a Nation face today. 
International drug trafficking is rampant across our borders, and 
unfortunately this does not affect our borders. It affects our street 
corners. It affects our neighborhoods. It affects our communities. It 
affects our children. It affects people in our workplaces. It affects 
people in our highways and our schools.
  This bill is dedicated certainly to the 14,218 Americans, most of 
them are youth, who died last year directly from drugs and drug 
violence.
  This bill aims to shut down drug growers and drug processors in 
places like Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico and Myanmar. Over the past 
5 years, first-time use of heroin by kids ages 12 to 17 rose by 875 
percent, an 875 percent increase. That means for every one child who 
tried heroin in 1992, more than 8 children tried it in 1997. That kind 
of explosion in drug use, in heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana and 
cocaine, is intolerable. It is immoral, destructive and fundamentally 
unAmerican. Worst of all, it is a tragedy of our own making.
  Deep cuts, billions of dollars in cuts, are the hallmark in the early 
part of this administration. In 1993 alone, the White House slashed a 
billion dollars from drug interdiction programs. Today, our children, 
in their schools, on playgrounds, in after-school environments, are 
reaping the deadly harvest of those ill-advised cuts. This nation is 
awash in these poisons.
  This bill does not solve the whole problem. A second major drug bill 
that will be up today, a prevention bill, focusing on drug prevention 
and treatment, is also a key to having long-term success in stopping 
drugs in this country and actually moving toward a drug-free America.
  This bill, H.R. 4300, is the blueprint for reasserting U.S. dominance 
over drug traffickers and permanently shutting down the international 
drug trafficking cartels.
  In summary, the sections of this supply-reduction bill do the 
following: They reduce drug use by enhancing aircraft, maritime and 
radar coverage in the source and transit zones by providing aircraft 
for the Customs Service; aircraft and ships for the Coast Guard; and by 
improving relocatable-over-the-horizon radar capabilities, especially 
in the Mediterranean and southeastern Pacific area.
  This bill enhances the source country eradication capabilities by 
providing sorely needed aircraft to the Colombian National Police, as 
well as additional resources for Peru, Bolivia and Mexico. It enhances 
alternative development programs through the United States Agency for 
International Development for Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, and it also 
enhances counternarcotics research efforts at the Department of 
Agriculture.
  International law enforcement training is enhanced by establishing 
international law enforcement training centers serving Latin America, 
Asia and Africa. Additionally, it provides for a United States Coast 
Guard international maritime training vessel to enhance law enforcement 
training and maintenance in the Latin American and Caribbean nations. 
The training provided under this bill is designed to foster cooperation 
under international law enforcement agencies which in turn will create 
more efficient counternarcotics efforts and intelligence in the 
regions.

                              {time}  1115

  Moreover, this bill also requires the submission of a report 
examining options on replacing Howard Air Force Base in Panama for use 
and support of counternarcotics in the source and transit zones.
  This bill has been carefully drafted to address the shortfalls in the 
current counterdrug efforts. This is an important piece of legislation 
that will enable our law enforcement agencies to meet head on the surge 
of drugs flowing into the country and into our neighborhoods.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor on this 
piece of legislation, and I commend my colleagues on their hard work in 
drafting this bill. Most specifically, I commend the work of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) in this area of trying to stop drugs flowing into our 
country and across our borders.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things we face today is a huge cost to our 
society, a cost in dollars. Almost $50 billion a year going off our 
street corners and school yards into the pockets of drug salesmen. That 
money flows through a system and ends up in the pockets of drug lords 
in other countries. We need to stop that. But we need to stop it by 
stopping the drugs moving into our country.
  Certainly, if we can stop a pound of coca in Peru or a kilo of heroin 
on the mountain tops in Colombia, it is much more cost-effective and 
certainly proves the old adage of an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure. This

[[Page H7820]]

is the design of this bill, to save the lives of those 14,000 kids who 
die over year on our street corners, the $90 billion of cost to our 
communities, our States, and this Nation to adjudicate and incarcerate, 
and all of those things that we have to do in the drug process.
  This bill cuts across the jurisdictions of seven committees. It is a 
huge, holistic approach in trying to stop drugs coming across our 
border. It is time that we do this. It is important to do this, and it 
is probably one of the biggest threats to our national security.
  Mr. Chairman, let me leave my colleagues with this one thought. If we 
lost 14,000 young men and women to an action by Saddam Hussein, if we 
lost 14,000 young men and women to an action in Bosnia or some place 
else on the face of the earth, this country would respond and would 
respond with all the vitality and all the vigor and all the energy that 
we could muster.
  Well, we have lost 14,000 kids last year and every year and will in 
the years in the future. We need to stop it. We need to be strong. We 
need to address it, and this bill addresses part of that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4300, the 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. However, I want to caveat my 
support by noting my deep regret and the frustration with this measure 
in that it circumvented the committee process, including the Committee 
on International Relations on which I sit, and the four other 
committees to which it was referred.
  All five ranking Democrats requested consideration and made clear 
that they were willing to work expeditiously in order to see H.R. 4300 
reach the floor. These requests were ignored.
  We have reached out to the majority over the last 2 years to work out 
a bipartisan policy that has received meaningful input from General 
McCaffrey. I do not understand why the majority did not work with us 
over the last 2 years to pass a bill and why it has sprung it on us in 
the last minute. By using this approach, our ability to get the funding 
to fulfill the promises in this bill is seriously diminished.
  So, what we have before us is a rushed measure that makes many 
important policy changes and funding allocations with regard to a key 
U.S. national interest, sending it to the House Floor without 
consideration by the committees of jurisdiction. We have a bill that 
provides a highly detailed blueprint for equipping and training a 
number of countries, for establishing counterdrug centers and 
significantly revamping the process for making policy and assistance 
decisions in the counternarcotics area, but the legislative committees 
have been entirely bypassed in making these important decisions.
  Second, the open attacks on the administration in the findings 
section are, I believe, intentionally incendiary and unhelpful. Our 
counternarcotics policy is something to be taken seriously. It is 
irresponsible to play partisan politics with such an important issue. 
All Members of Congress, Republican and Democratic alike, share the 
desire to rid the plague of narcotics from our schools and streets. 
This is not a way to conduct U.S. foreign policy or U.S. drug policy. 
Some may believe it is good politics, but it does not serve the 
American people well.
  Mr. Chairman, on the substance of the bill, having spoken about 
process, I want to say that I have long said that we needed to get 
serious about what we continuously call a war on drugs. In essence, to 
put our money where our mouth is. This bill does make an important step 
in that direction.
  The bill authorizes extraordinary amounts for counternarcotics 
programs. The bill provides unprecedented funds for drug interdiction 
and eradication, including enhanced air and seacraft coverage to combat 
drug transiting, crop substitution, which is crucial to the long term 
success of any policy, and enhanced international law and drug 
enforcement training.
  I would like to note that I find it unfortunate that we have to spend 
$10 million for research into mycoherbicides when a potent and reliable 
source exists, Tebuthiuron, better known in the United States as 
RoundUp. I learned of this product and its effectiveness on coca crops 
in Colombia last year touring those areas of crop elimination and saw 
the success of. Yet it turns out that Tebuthiuron's producer, 
DowElanco, has refused to sell it to Colombia or make it available to 
the State Department for drug eradication for reasons I do not believe 
are particularly valid.
  My sole reservations about this bill, other than process, are whether 
it is implementable and where we will be taking the funds from to fund 
this $2.3 billion measure. I certainly hope that in the process of 
doing so, that remind ourselves that we cannot bankrupt those domestic 
programs geared to reducing drug demand at the same time that we seek 
to do interdiction. This is clearly an effort that needs to have 
various aspects to it to be successful: Interdiction, reducing demand, 
and dealing with education and drug treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, while I have some concerns with the bill, I fully agree 
with the sentiments and with the goals behind it. We must be aggressive 
in working to shut off the supply of illegal drugs. Supply reduction is 
an important component of a comprehensive drug policy and demand 
reduction.
  In addition to the measures taken in this bill, we need to enhance 
our domestic efforts on reducing drug addiction and fund programs to 
provide children with alternatives to a potential life of crime, such 
as some of our afterschool programs, and we need our partners in the 
Western Hemisphere to join with us in a meaningful assistance.
  I am a strong supporter of working with and supporting professional, 
honest, and effective law enforcement forces throughout the hemisphere. 
We must give the President the tools that he needs to effectively and 
comprehensively address illegal drugs and the havoc drugs wreak in the 
community, in the United States, and throughout this hemisphere.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I intend to vote for the bill. I hope 
to work to improve it as it moves through the legislative process so 
that this bill will serve as a realistic, effective, and comprehensive 
blueprint for U.S. supply reduction efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for inclusion into the Record the statement of 
the administration's position which we received only moments ago, which 
basically says it supports the objective of the bill but has a series 
of concerns with reference to the bill and unless those concerns are 
addressed, opposes the bill as currently drafted.


                               Office of Management and Budget

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 1998.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


    (this statement has been coordinated by omb with the concerned 
                               agencies.)

      H.R. 4300--Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act.
       The Administration supports the objectives of H.R. 4300 and 
     shares the Congress' commitment to reducing the supply of 
     drugs coming into the United States from other countries in 
     the Western Hemisphere. However, the Administration opposes 
     H.R. 4300 as currently drafted. Some of the Administration's 
     concerns include:
       Funding enhancements that are not tied to a coherent 
     strategy. The bill simply enumerates a series of specific 
     procurement and funding actions without indicating how they 
     relate to one another or to existing drug interdiction 
     activities. The Administration has proposed a comprehensive 
     and integrated approach to reducing the flow of drugs into 
     the Untied States in its National Drug Control Strategy.
       Proposing authorizations that are far in excess of expected 
     appropriations and the President's Budget without specifying 
     where these funds will come from. H.R. 4300 would authorize 
     $2.6 billion to appropriations in addition to those already 
     authorized for FYs 1999-2001. To date, Congress has not 
     appropriated funds for many of the Administration's anti-drug 
     abuse requests. As one example, the House has provided the 
     Coast Guard with approximately $82 million less than 
     requested for FY 1999 to maintain current operating levels.
       Infringing on the authority of the President and the 
     Secretary of State. H.R. 4300 would infringe on the 
     President's appointment powers and the Secretary of State's 
     flexibility in personnel matters and intrude upon well 
     established procedures for providing foreign military 
     assistance.
       Suggesting the transfer of the Bureau of International 
     Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) from the State 
     Department to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The clear 
     assumption of Section 207 is that certain foreign assistance 
     activities of the State Department could be better carried 
     out by a

[[Page H7821]]

     law enforcement agency. This assumption is neither 
     substantiated nor soundly based. INL is a central and highly-
     regarded component of the interagency counter-narcotics 
     effort.
       Imposing inflexible requirements that could quickly become 
     useless. The bill would authorize funds for two mobile x-ray 
     machines to be placed along a specific highway in Bolivia. 
     The locations of such machines should not be specified by 
     statute but left to the discretion of the commanders on the 
     ground.
       Reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies by 
     consolidating joint interagency task forces (JIATF). 
     Consolidating all JIATFs would reduce Defense Department 
     support to law enforcement agencies attempting to disrupt the 
     flow of drugs from Asia and the Southwest Border.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress to implement a drug control strategy that is 
     realistic, comprehensive, coherent, and flexible.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), a Member who has taken a great deal of time and 
effort and skill in helping put together this legislation.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) for yielding me this time. I first want to thank the gentleman 
for all the work that he has done in the drug task force and helping 
put together a comprehensive plan on both the demand and the supply 
side questions involved.
  Mr. Chairman, we all are concerned about the question of how do we 
get this whole drug question in the United States under control. It is 
not a simple matter. It is demand and supply. It is treatment. It is 
prevention. It is all of those things we talk about.
  But the fact of the matter is that we have doubled the teen drug use 
in the United States since 1992 over the last 6 years. Doubled it. The 
fact of the matter is there is more cocaine and heroin on the streets 
of this country today at cheaper prices than at any time in our 
history.
  The fact of the matter today is that we have our law enforcement 
community domestically, and we have our people in our schools and in 
our communities who are working on drug prevention and drug treatment 
programs, overwhelmed by this supply of cocaine and heroin and unable 
to do the kind of job that we need to see done to get our kids' lives 
protected again.
  The reason for that is manyfold. If we look into the Pacific Ocean of 
the United States, off our coast, and off the coast of Mexico, between 
the Colombia and us in the eastern Pacific, there is not one plane or 
one ship today of the United States Government out there interdicting 
any drugs coming our way or going to Mexico. Not one.
  In the area of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico we have two-
thirds less resources at work trying to see if there is somebody 
shipping drugs our way from Latin America than we did 6 or 7 years ago. 
It is absolutely a tragedy that this is the case and we have to ask 
ourselves why are we in this sorry state of affairs.
  Well, the reasons are multiple. First of all, our military, which has 
a primary responsibility it should be exercising to be involved in the 
drug war, is doing a de minimus job of that. Back several years ago 
when we were actively patrolling, interdicting drugs in the corridors 
coming our way from Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru, we had multiple ships 
and planes of the Army and Navy and Air Force out there with a lot of 
their effort going into interdiction.
  In the intervening year, with Desert Storm and Bosnia and other 
things, our military has sort of disappeared. Customs has taken planes 
it had down in the area of the source countries in Colombia, Bolivia, 
and Peru and put them on the Mexican border and things are not working 
well.
  We also have a lack of will in many ways to do this right. This bill 
is setting the record straight, because if we look into the countries 
where this is happening, where these crops are being grown, where this 
evil product is being produced, and talk to the people on the ground 
who work for our government fighting the drug effort, talk to the 
people with the DEA, with the Department of State, with the Department 
of Defense, with our CIA, with everybody who is involved, we will find 
out they were never tasked with a question or two about how they could, 
if they were asked, go about reducing the flow of drugs to the United 
States by, say, 80 percent, which this bill suggests by the next 3 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, they were never even asked if this could be done. Some 
of us went down a few months ago and we asked that question. We asked 
first of all, could they, if they were given all the resources that 
they could imagine, could they reduce the flow of cocaine and heroin 
coming out of this country, the country they are in today serving the 
United States and its people, could they reduce it by 80 percent within 
3 years? The answer was unanimously, by all of the key players in 
country, yes. Unequivocally, yes.
  Then we asked them whether they had ever been tasked, whether anybody 
ever asked them to develop a plan, the answer was no. Well, we asked 
them what would they do, and that is what is in this bill, H.R. 4300. 
What our people on the ground in those countries have told us they 
need.
  First of all, they told us that President Fujimori has done a 
wonderful job in Peru, which he has, in a policy of forcing down planes 
leaving that country with coca crop. The net result of that, since that 
has been in operation 2 or 3 years, a 40 percent reduction in the coca 
crop in Peru, a country where the majority of coca was grown before 
that policy was implemented. It could not have worked, and it is not 
working as well as it should today, had it not been for our aircraft 
that had radar on it to detect those planes providing information to 
President Fujimori who could implement that policy.

                              {time}  1130

  And what we have discovered as well is that that same type of policy 
could be implemented and could have been implemented a long time ago in 
Colombia, where virtually all the crop that is produced in the Amazon, 
one-third of the country region, has to be taken even in its refined 
form. And most of the cocaine that is produced in that southern part of 
Colombia, wherever it is grown, it has to be taken by a small plane 
across mountains to the coastal areas of Colombia to be shipped out by 
boat or to be further transported to Mexico, the United States or 
wherever. If we had a force-down policy in Colombia, we would not solve 
the entire problem, but we would make great progress in it. But there 
are no planes, there is no radar, there is no ability for the Colombian 
forces to go do anything about it that way.
  We have talked to the Bolivians and we have asked them what could we 
do. They have one highway from their crop-growing region into the 
community where this stuff is refined, and they have two highways out 
with a refined product. They do not have the equipment down there to 
stop the flow. They do not have the x-ray machines we have on the 
Mexican border, and so on. Very simple things they need to have, that 
our people know, and that is what is in this bill.
  We are providing the radar planes, some 20 of them to the Customs 
folks, that can do the look-down; we are providing the chase planes we 
need, because we are not chasing; we are providing new intelligence 
equipment, because intelligence gathering, to know when and where and 
how this stuff is being shipped and who is making it, is very 
important; we are providing the helicopters so that the Colombian 
forces can go up into the mountains of Colombia and actually take out 
the poppy crop, which they should have been doing a long time ago. If 
they cannot grow it, we can eradicate it. There is no heroin.
  Sixty percent of the heroin that comes to the United States is grown 
in Colombia. Just shutting that down alone would be an enormous 
success. But for the equipment, it cannot be done. But we want to 
provide that in this bill, and we are providing that in this bill.
  We need to have what is in the legislation before us today to solve 
this problem. The bottom line is that our own people have said if we 
give them this equipment, and we have the cooperation of the 
governments involved, and I can assure my colleagues the leadership of 
those countries involved are willing to cooperate in every way 
possible. They want our assistance and they want the things in this 
bill. They

[[Page H7822]]

want to be able to reduce the flow. They want to stop the drug 
production and trafficking in their countries. They want their 
economies to thrive and their people to be able to work at decent wage-
paying jobs and other means, and be able to farm crops they can sell 
that are productive and useful and not deadly, like these. They want 
all of that. If we have their cooperation, as we will, then the only 
missing link is the administration getting with it and making all of 
this happen.
  Last but not least, I want to point out that we do not have today the 
right kind of asset allocation by the Department of Defense of its 
resources for the effort on drugs. They have had a drug mission for 
years. It is not just the fact they have moved stuff over to Bosnia or 
somewhere. If we have a war to fight, then that comes first. But in the 
order of things that they have in their asset allocation orders that 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense put out, they 
have about four priorities of category to send their equipment, their 
men, their whatever to do. One is war; number two is activities that 
are somewhat similar to war, where people are under threat of bodily 
harm, like peacekeeping and so forth; number three is training and 
exercises; and number four is everything else, which includes 
humanitarian assistance and anti-narcotics efforts.
  In this bill we provide for moving up the priorities, encouraging 
them to do that. We cannot do that, but we will say to the Department 
of Defense, get with it. We want them engaged in this war on drugs, at 
least supplying the minimal material required for our Southern Command 
to do its job, and we want them to move up their priorities so that the 
anti-narcotics efforts are at least parallel and equal to the number 
two priority of peacekeeping in Bosnia.
  Our kids are dying on the streets of the United States. We should at 
least provide as much military effort in fighting this war on drugs for 
that cause as we are around the world in far-reaching places like 
Bosnia.
  And in conclusion, I would say, my hat is off to the Coast Guard in 
particular. They have been fighting with their arms tied behind their 
backs. We have new equipment and ships coming out for them, Coast Guard 
cutters, so they can do their job. When they went to Puerto Rico a 
couple of years ago, they did a magnificent job of shutting down the 
drug traffic coming through Puerto Rico. But while they were there, it 
came out of other places because they did not have the equipment, they 
did not have the resources to take care of it somewhere else. They are 
now working in the Dominican Republic, where a lot of the drug 
trafficking is coming. We are providing in this bill resources to them 
as well.
  It is extraordinarily important that this legislation be passed. I 
encourage my colleagues to enact H.R. 4300. Let us get a truly 
bipartisan drug policy that says, once and for all, here is the 
equipment, here is the resources, here is what they need; they have 
asked for it, they need it in the field, in essence the troops in the 
field, and Colombia, Bolivia and Peru have asked for it, and let us 
reduce the flow of drugs in this country by 80 percent over the next 2 
or 3 years.
  It can be done. For the sake of our kids, it must be done. And we 
have an obligation and an opportunity today to do that by passing H.R. 
4300.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I will be offering an amendment today 
relative to utilization of our military at our border. It has been 
stripped from the defense authorization bill. It is probably the major 
debate that exists on this issue.
  This is a good bill. I will support it. But there is still one 
glaring weakness: strong border security to ensure a strong reduction 
of narcotics.
  Theories are theories. Our drug program is heavy on theory, 
lightweight on substance and factual data to, in fact, measure outcome 
indicators that reduce the presence of narcotics. Period.
  One hundred percent of heroin comes across our border. One hundred 
percent of cocaine comes across our border. America does not 
domestically produce these economic giants that have destroyed our 
neighborhoods. It is the border. But because of politics, we protect 
and secure our border with only a civilian law enforcement presence.
  This is an indictment on Congress. Not a mistake, not an oversight, 
an indictment. And I want to give credit to the majority party. They 
are willing to engage in the debate. Enough is enough. We cannot stop 
drugs at the border with more cops. We cannot stop and reduce reduction 
with more halfway houses, more counselors, more psychiatrists, more 
psychologists, more professors, more courses in school. They are all 
great. We have been doing it for years. Our streets have so much 
narcotic, a 14-year-old in New York can get it as easy as he can get 
aspirin. Shame, Congress. Shame.

  I have to say this. The administration is in left field on this. They 
are wrong. In America the people govern. I do not want those troops to 
be making arrests, I want them to join forces with the civilian law 
enforcement entity and let the drug cartels know that we are going to 
wage a real war.
  So I will offer my amendment today. I am going to ask my colleagues 
for support, and I want my colleagues to go beyond politics. There is 
nothing demeaning in this to Central American nations. There is no 
intent to demean any ethnic group. My God, every ethnic group in the 
cities has been decimated by narcotics. If we are going to have a 
program, by God, let us have one. And if this President is going to 
veto it for that, let him veto something with substance.
  We are too concerned about perception in the Congress of the United 
States, and we have not been doing the people's jobs. It took me 11 
years to change the burden of proof in a civil tax case because the 
White House did not want it, Treasury did not want it, IRS did not want 
it. But, my colleagues, the people wanted it. Thank God for the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bill Archer), and thank God for the 
Republicans.
  I have been working on this for 7, 8 years. Here is all I am saying. 
The American people do not want our soldiers cashing a check in Tokyo 
and going to the theater, cashing a check in Frankfurt and going to 
dinner. They want them to participate in securing our border. It is not 
a line between Pennsylvania and Ohio. It is time to do it.
  I will be offering that amendment today. I am hoping to have the 
support of this House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), the vice chairman of the committee of 
jurisdiction on drug enforcement, certainly a person who has spent a 
lot of time and certainly heartfelt effort in this.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert) for his leadership, and also the Speaker, who forced this 
on to the national agenda, because we actually are making some 
progress.
  I first want to make the point, because we are constantly hearing 
what else does Congress do; all they do down there is talk about sex. 
We have had over 30 hearings and sex never came up once. We have been 
in Hollywood talking about the drug problem. We have talked to the 
record industry. We have been all across this country, in the district 
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), in Dallas; down in Orlando 
with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), where the heroin has devastated our children. And 
among the things we have learned is it will take a concerted effort on 
both the interdiction and the demand reduction sides to do this. This 
bill in front of us deals with interdiction.
  A lot of people say this is a lot of money to spend on that. The fact 
is, when this President took over the government, he cut that budget. 
We saw an immediate increase in supply, reducing the price on the 
street and increasing the purity and potency of those drugs. It is no 
wonder we are seeing the problems we have right now in our country. If 
we cut drug use 50 percent among our young people right now, we will 
only be back to where it was when the President took office.

[[Page H7823]]

  We have to take these efforts. And we know where the drugs come from, 
as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) pointed out. In this bill is 
one provision that we have been battling for 3 years. There is a war 
going on in Colombia. I have the hat they gave me of Colonel Gallego, 
who was a Colombian patriot, who leads Dante, the antidrug division of 
the Colombian National Police. They are dying fighting the drug war to 
keep those drugs out of here.
  In Colombia, we not only have the number one source of cocaine and 
heroin that is pouring into our Nation, but they have seen the narco-
traffickers spill into the Darien Peninsula of Panama, putting 
potentially the canal at risk as we transfer power. They are near the 
Venezuelan border, our now number one source for oil. It is not the 
middle, it is Venezuela.
  We are looking at national security risks in Colombia and we have 
people dying to fight them, and we for 3 years have been trying to get 
Black Hawk helicopters so they can get into the high elevations to 
fight and we have been blocked by this administration. This bill will 
give six Black Hawk helicopters to the Colombian national police. It 
upgrades 50 Hueys. They have helicopters going up. They have had a base 
blown apart in the last month or two. They are constantly fighting with 
helicopters that do not work. We need to get upgrades.
  If we do not help the Colombian National Police, we will have our 
young men and women down there fighting the drug war, fighting to 
protect the canal, fighting to protect our oil interests. We should be 
helping the people who are willing to fight. It is not like Vietnam, 
where we did not see enough people. Look, here we have people fighting 
and dying. We need to get them the help. This has been silly. It has 
been downright silly.
  We also have aid going to Peru for crop substitution and eradication 
where they have a shoot-down policy, all of a sudden the cocaine 
growers cannot get their crops to market. And they are saying now, they 
did not want to before, but they are saying, hey, maybe we will plant 
something else. We need to encourage that.
  Same thing in Bolivia, where they have been aggressive. We have help. 
And in Mexico we have some assistance for them. The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and I have been to Colombia three times; we have 
been in Peru and Bolivia multiple times; Chile; Mexico; met with 
President Zedillo. We have also been over in Thailand. They have a 
problem over there with heroin spreading around the world from 
Afghanistan to Vietnam. The base of this bill has a training center for 
that.
  We, today, will also be dealing with the treatment programs, the 
prevention programs, and all the local crime enforcement. But in Fort 
Wayne, Indiana, and across this country, they cannot solve the problem 
if the cocaine and heroin is pouring in in great quantities, and with 
the purity, if it can be found anywhere.
  Number one, we have to get control of our borders, get control of 
what is coming in, help the governments that are willing to fight. And 
in South America and Central America and in Asia they are seeing what 
it is doing to their economies as well. It is our obligation to get it 
and support those while we can before it is too late.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to point out to my colleagues who several times there 
have been references to the Administration cutting interdiction money. 
Several points I think need to be made. Number one is those moneys were 
used for other drug policy purposes, such as demand reduction. We have 
even heard some of the speakers on the other side suggest that as much 
as we also need to deal with interdiction, and I agree with that, we 
also need to deal with demand reduction.
  Also the majority has had the opportunity since they took control at 
any time during that process, in the appropriation process, to rise to 
the level that they presently offer in this legislation today.
  So I would just caution that as some seek to make a point that may be 
perceived as political in nature, the policy reality is, is that we 
have voted on the budgets that have been passed, we have had 
opportunities through the appropriation process to increase 
interdiction moneys to the levels that we thought were appropriate, and 
we now have in this bill today a very significant increase in 
interdiction. Now, that is fitting and appropriate. But I also think it 
is important in terms of keeping this debate intellectually honest that 
in fact there was significant assistance given to demand reduction and 
agreed that this is not just a one-sided war, that there are multiple 
aspects, different fronts to this war and if we are to be successful, 
we need to be attacking all of those fronts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just speak to the 
gentleman from New Jersey and remind him that we have authorized money 
in our budget the last two years to do this very thing, and the 
Administration has yet to spend them.
  We should all be aware that our Nation's drug problem is a poison 
eating away at our country. It is invading our streets and our schools. 
Statistics show an ever increasing number of drug users within our 
Nation. Here is a startling fact. Heroin use alone has reached historic 
levels among 12 to 17-year-olds. Unfortunately these drugs are coming 
from our neighbors to the south. Now more than ever we need to focus 
more effort on source country eradication and interdiction to prevent 
drugs from entering the United States.
  To my dissatisfaction, the Clinton administration has resisted 
congressional attempts, as I said, to assist these source countries as 
they wage their war on drugs. In general, President Clinton has made 
our Nation's drug problem a very low priority. As I said, the money was 
in the budget but they refused to spend it. The good news is that we 
have drafted an effective drug elimination plan. H.R. 4300 would 
provide the necessary assistance to countries like Colombia, Peru and 
Bolivia to strengthen eradication and interdiction strategies and 
enhance alternative crop developments. As a member of the Committee on 
International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and the 
Speaker's drug task force, I have witnessed firsthand the ill-equipped 
police and military forces as they attempt to fight the war on drugs 
alone. Specifically I have traveled to Colombia on numerous occasions 
only to be saddened by their lack of support from the Nation that 
creates the highest demand for illegal drugs, the United States. I am 
most pleased that a provision in H.R. 4300 would produce 50 ``Super 
Huey'' helicopters for the Colombian National Police. These are rebuilt 
and cost roughly 10 percent of what a new one would. It is money well 
spent. It is that helicopter package that is essential to the 
Colombians' ability to fight the increasingly well-funded, well-armed 
narcoguerillas and to eradicate an increasing number of coca and poppy 
plants.
  Let us support a plan that embodies our role in the war on drugs and 
at the same time will assist in freeing us from the constricting hold 
drugs have on our Nation.
  I ask for support for H.R. 4300.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) for yielding time. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to state my concern 
with H.R. 4300, the so-called Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. 
I just really want to talk about a problem that I am aware of. I lived 
in Latin America in Colombia when I was a Peace Corps volunteer. A lot 
of Members do not realize that in 1991, we signed the Andean Trade 
Preference Act, ATPA. What we did in signing that act which President 
Bush brought to Congress where the act was intended to allow an 
alternative, a diversity of moving from growing coca and drug plants to 
growing flowers. Since that time, the Colombian and Andean trade pact 
countries have duty-free flowers coming into the United States. What 
has happened? They have now 70 percent of the American flower market. 
Who has been hurt by that? American

[[Page H7824]]

flower growers. I mean really hurt. This is a noncompetitive advantage 
that we have. Any other flowers that we import from Asia or import from 
Europe have to pay a tariff. It is only the Andean trade pact countries 
that do not.
  So my concern with the bill is we are authorizing in the bill $10 
million to urge Colombian farmers and others to stop growing crops that 
may be used to create illegal drugs. I think we need to deal with this 
issue that we have opened up in the Andean trade pact and not give them 
another $10 million until we have gotten something back like requiring 
them to pay tariffs on their imports. There is not an equal playing 
field here. I know this is not what the committee intends. I hope that 
we can in conference committee work these things out. Because frankly 
the American flower growers cannot be more adamant about the problems 
that have been created, the unintended consequences of the Andean trade 
pact on American growers.
  Frankly, the $10 million authorization is more than we are giving to 
the farmers in Texas and to the farmers in the Northeast and in the 
Midwest for all their droughts. Essentially we are helping farmers in 
foreign countries more than we are helping our own. I would hope that 
the committee would be sensitive to this so that we might be able to 
take a look at a quid pro quo in this bill that will equal the playing 
field and still result in the intended consequences of diversity away 
from coca crops. If the committee will look at that, I would appreciate 
it. I would urge my colleagues to be aware of that as this bill goes 
into conference.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who has been at the forefront of working with 
the Coast Guard and making sure that it is a viable force.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment about the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the noncompetitive nature of 
some of the deals that have been made in the past to find some 
alternative crop to grow in Latin America that we are keenly aware of 
those facets and we will continue to work to make sure that farmers in 
this country, whether they grow flowers or vegetables or chickens or 
whatever, are on a very level playing field with the international 
marketplace. We do not want to give anybody a particular advantage over 
another.
  I also want to emphasize that this is not a rush piece of 
legislation. The information that has gone into this legislation has 
come from various committees over two years. There was a two-year 
operation in the Caribbean called Frontier Shield in which the Coast 
Guard worked not only with the Defense Department and other various 
agencies of this government but they worked with the international 
community in the Caribbean and European countries. They showed very, 
very clearly that they could put a net around the island of Puerto Rico 
and reduce significantly the amount of drugs coming into that 
particular island. So what we want to do is expand this program.
  Just for a second, if people will in their mind imagine the United 
States and its coastal areas, the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Caribbean 
and the Gulf. This is a finite region. It is not infinite. We have 
without a doubt the expertise, the technology, the manpower to cut off 
drugs coming into this country. We can create a web, a steel web that 
will interdict these drugs before they reach our shores. We have the 
expertise, the technology, the manpower. This piece of legislation 
gives us the will. It is without a doubt a moral imperative for 
responsible adults to enter into this rather large program to reduce 
drug use in the United States.
  Do we need treatment? Yes. Do we need education? Yes. Do we need 
hospitals? Yes. Do we need drug interdiction? The answer is yes. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the legislation.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) certainly somebody who has been on the 
prosecutor side of this, very strident in trying to rid our country of 
drugs.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time that finally 
we are exerting the leadership in this Congress to get assistance to 
those heroic fighters for the interests not only of their own 
countries, the peoples of their own countries, in Colombia, in Peru and 
in Bolivia, but our young people here who are the victims of the poison 
that is coming in every day from South America. It is those Colombian 
National Police heroes as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) was 
talking about that we cannot even get helicopters to. The 
Administration has held them up even when we have financed them. So 
this bill does very important things in addition to trying in multiple 
ways to get to the core of the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I need to point out something that continues to be a 
reality. I have in my office on video a customs agent who is on the 
front lines every day fighting drugs. He says that over 50 percent of 
the cocaine that comes in through the Caribbean comes through or from 
Cuba. The Clinton administration continues to deny and ignore and thus 
cover up the Cuban dictatorship's participation in drug trafficking. 
Out of frustration, the U.S. Attorney in that office, the Southern 
District of Florida, leaked an indictment that is prepared, and it has 
been prepared since 1993 that charges the Cuban government as a 
racketeering enterprise for a 10-year conspiracy to send tons of 
Colombian cartel cocaine through Cuba to the United States.
  Now, that indictment has been put in a drawer due to an order from 
Washington. Out of frustration it was leaked to the press; as was 
leaked, also, an investigation of a drug dealer who in 1996 after 
having been arrested, agreed, due to the fact that he had had multiple 
drug dealings with the Cuban government, to go back in under 
surveillance and do another deal with the Cuban government, with the 
Cuban dictatorship. That continues to be covered up.
  So there is an inconsistency. There is an inconsistency between what 
the people on the front lines are saying and what the higher-ups are 
saying, even to us here in Congress, where I maintain, Mr. Chairman, we 
have been lied to and we continue to be lied to.
  The Clinton administration cannot continue this cover-up. We are 
going to continue investigating and pressing this issue, because the 
poison that is coming in to kill our young people in this country is 
not acceptable and a policy that covers up the importation of that 
policy is at the very least unconscionable as well as unacceptable.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a statement as it relates to 
one of the issues that we have consistently heard about and suggesting 
that the Administration has cut our overall drug efforts. In essence 
what we had here was a readjusted strategy. We found that the 
Administration through its fact-finding found that over the Mexican 
border, much more was coming through in terms of illicit drugs than 
from some of the Caribbean aspects, so it reallocated moneys to 
domestic law enforcement, and our overall budget remained the same. In 
the 1997 fiscal year, we are talking about 52 percent went to domestic 
law enforcement, because it understood the intention and the need to 
deal with what was coming over our border and it reallocated for that 
purpose. And then 12 percent went for interdiction and 35 percent went 
for demand. What we are doing, we are taking that 52 percent for 
domestic law enforcement which was geared at the border, the most 
porous place in which the ability to transverse drugs into the country 
was created and now here we are going to try to raise the interdiction 
part. There are many of us who support that. But we need to 
characterize it in the appropriate way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) who has been extremely active over many years in the House and 
former chair of what was a select committee on narcotics.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the 
floor to support this initiative.
  It did not come as a surprise to me that the first person I would see 
on the floor would be my old and dear friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr.

[[Page H7825]]

Gilman). It has been over a quarter of a century now that he and I 
recognize this threat to our Nation's national security. We have been 
around the world with the most bipartisan groups we would have in the 
Congress and in local government and law enforcement. We have been 
around the world talking with people, and more often than not in recent 
years we would look at each other and say, whether it was at the United 
Nations or in committees in this Congress, it looks like this is where 
we started.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason for it is that we all agree that demand is 
such an important part of this struggle where kids have to not just say 
no, but have hopes and dreams for the future so that addiction and 
crime and violence and jail is no longer an option for them, and we 
have to invest in education if we are going to get a handle on this. We 
need local law enforcement, of course, so that those who venture to 
make profit at the expense and misery of others would know that if they 
commit the crime, they do the time.
  We have to protect our borders against this poison that comes in, and 
we have to let every Nation know that those that venture out and 
traffick and use their countries for transshipment, that it violates 
everything that this country stands for, and that we are not going to 
tolerate that.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to talk about corruption, not that we do not 
have more than our share in this country, but we cannot tolerate it 
with the countries that we are sending resources to and find that it is 
not reaching those people that dedicate their lives each and every day 
to fighting the drug traffickers and those that support them.
  I remember the day so vividly when the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) and I were on the streets of Bogota and saw what amounted to 
their Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters with a big hole 
blasted into it as the drug traffickers sought to destroy the very 
institution of their government. How many funerals we have been to with 
Colombian law enforcement people; how many trust funds have we set up 
for their families?
  So some people say, well, we tried that, and it has not worked, and 
so give up. No, we cannot give up. This is not a problem that our great 
Nation can give up. This is the type of problem where there are no 
parties, there is no Republicans, there is no Democrats. It is our 
kids, it is our future. And we have to be able to say at the same time, 
the same way that we wrestled Communists to the ground, that we are 
going to wrestle this threat to our security to the ground.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this, I support the bipartisan nature in 
which we come to deal with this.
  This administration, be placed on notice, that from the time I came 
here we have engaged in each 4 years with a new war on drugs, and each 
time we have not even seen the bang of a flag out of a pop gun in terms 
of dealing with this tragic problem. I remember that we set up the drug 
czar, and that was supposed to coordinate all of the efforts. But in 
setting up the drug czar, we lost the voice of each and every 
Secretary, whether the Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Defense. All of 
these things are necessary when the Commander in Chief and President of 
the United States declares war.
  So let me congratulate the original authors of the bill, and let me 
say that regardless of which side of the aisle we are on, America will 
never be free and our legacy will never be clean until we say that on 
our watch we eliminated this threat to our national security.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the bipartisanship I was 
talking about, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman) chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, someone who has focused a lot of time of his work and 
efforts here in the Congress on the issue of combating drugs in our 
country.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this worthy legislation. It is 
intended to improve our Nation's fight against drugs at their source 
before they ever reach our shores to destroy our communities and our 
children.
  Yes, it is important we fight this battle on both reducing supply and 
reducing demand and doing it simultaneously, and this is an important 
aspect of reducing demand.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) our Drug Task Force chairman, for 
these outstanding efforts, bipartisan efforts, to turn around the 
serious source-nation neglect by this administration, neglect abroad, I 
might add, which is already having disastrous consequences at home and 
in rising drug use among our young, especially with Colombian heroin.
  And I am pleased that we are joined today in support of this bill by 
my good friend and a longtime drug fighter, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), who is still fighting the good fight. He chaired, and I 
recall we had an excellent House Select Committee on Narcotics that he 
chaired, and we worked together in a bipartisan effort to fight drugs 
both here and abroad.
  As my colleagues know, the fight has not changed one iota, and the 
problem has not changed. The war on drugs is not a partisan issue; it 
is, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) noted, it is about our 
children, and I am so pleased that we have a measure before us which 
can help substantially.
  The most recent drug use data reflects extensive damages. For 
example, for the first time heroin use is at an all time high: 171,000 
teens used heroin for the first time in 1996, the latest statistics we 
have available. It is way above the 1995 levels. Yes, we are in a 
crisis with drug use at home, especially heroin, in part due to our 
neglect abroad. In the last 5 years we witnessed a startling 875 
percent increase of heroin use by teenagers 12 through 17, and not long 
ago a poll of our Nation put the issue of stopping drugs from entering 
our Nation high atop our U.S. foreign policy goals. At a June 24 
Committee on International Relations hearing on the growing Colombian 
heroin crisis in our Nation, where a startling 75 percent of the heroin 
on the streets now originates, an FBI witness testified on the best way 
to tackle this crisis, and he stated and I quote:
  ``Eradication of the opium poppy in South America seems to be the 
logical point of attack in order to curb the increasing flow of 
Colombian heroin into the growing Northeast market.''
  This wise approach favored by the FBI to fight Colombian heroin was 
also shared by our DEA and by our Customs Service witnesses. Our front-
line Federal law enforcement agents know best how to fight drugs, and 
that is at the source.
  A recent Ocala, Florida Star-Banner editorial said it best when 
arguing for more efforts abroad to fight drugs in places like Colombia, 
and I quote: ``We face a choice. Pay a little now or a lot more 
later.''
  This bill before us starts the process. It authorizes better high-
performance helicopters for the Colombian National Police anti-drug 
unit which has an excellent record both fighting drugs and respecting 
human rights. And General Serrano, the incorruptible head of the CNP, 
has lost over 4,000 officers, 4,000 in the past 10 years in the 
Colombian eradication fight. The CNP was responsible for ridding the 
world of drug lords like Pablo Escobar. They deserve our support to 
halt the flow of drugs to our young people. I have long advocated these 
means to first take the fight against Colombian heroin to the high 
Andes where the opium poppy grows and eradicate it before it reaches 
our shores.
  In addition, this bill removes the outmoded limits on our DEA's 
ability to provide nonlethal and drug-related assistance like radios 
and transport vehicles to cooperative anti-drug police agencies abroad. 
Low cost, nonlethal, anti-drug aid would be provided more quickly by 
the DEA to their counterparts under this proposal.
  This bill also fixes a major problem with the State Department's 
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement inability to 
effectively process and expeditiously handle foreign military sales 
cases for counternarcotics-related military aid abroad.
  The bill also ends the need to create whole new files, hire 
additional officers and bureaucracy to handle FMS anti-drug related 
cases within the State Department and at local U.S. embassies.

[[Page H7826]]

 The Department of Defense will now process MFS cases after the order 
is negotiated by the State and the local security agents in their fight 
against drugs.
  This reform avoids duplication, it takes advantage of our military 
experience and know-how in promptly providing military aid for 
counternarcotics assistance related to the foreign police, to military 
and other security agencies.
  So in closing, let me say the long, bitter experience in Colombia, 
where inexperienced State Department officials cannot process and move 
along expeditiously vital counternarcotics aid under FMS in the middle 
of our raging narco-based war, should never be repeated.
  Mr. Chairman, these and many other excellent provisions of the source 
nation bill before us will improve the fight against drugs abroad and 
at their source as the American people want, expect, and have a right 
to from their Federal Government. Accordingly, in the interests of 
effectively fighting the drug war, I urge adoption of this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this open and fair rule for 
the House's consideration of H.R. 4300. My committee waived 
jurisdiction over H.R. 4300 ``The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination 
Act''. As this session nears conclusion, we are in a serious crisis on 
the drug front as a result of Administration's neglect in both source 
nation and interdiction efforts in the war on drugs. We need bold, 
broad and coordinated action, H.R. 4300 sets out to do this.
  The supply of pure, and low cost drugs from abroad increases daily, 
while corresponding demand and use rises here at home, especially 
heroin among our young people.
  A good case in point of this neglect is Colombia, which produces 80% 
of the world's cocaine, and most recently has captured the heroin 
market here in the U.S. (75% in fact).
  Our committee has held an extensive set of hearings on drugs in 
Colombia, and we also had the GAO report on the crisis there.
  We have conducted extensive analysis of the critical need for more 
and better assistance including high performance helicopters, and an 
overall reform of our war on drugs being waged abroad.
  Most recently, events turned for the worse in the fight against drugs 
at the source in Colombia. U.S. law enforcement is in agreement that 
the best place to fight drugs, is at the source in places like 
Colombia. The war on drugs is now on hold in Colombia. Without good 
helicopters, opium eradication has been cut 50% and the results in the 
U.S. from the influx of Colombia heroin are indeed frightening. In 
addition, the narco-guerillas' recently destroyed the Colombian 
National Police's forward drug fighting base in Miraflores. Fear of 
attack on their key anti-drug operations base at San Jose del Guaviare, 
forced the withdrawal of the CNP's few remaining operational Vietnam 
era Huey helicopters. Coca and cocaine lab destruction have also 
decreased.
  This de facto cessation of the war on drugs in the major source 
nation in our hemisphere is having impact here at home. More and more 
in the U.S., the price of hard drugs fall, while the purity rises. The 
most recent National Household Survey data released while we were on 
recess, showed 171,100 teens for the first time used heroin in 1996. 
Heroin use in the U.S. now exceeds the late 1960s, early 1970s historic 
levels, and the future is not bright. On the cocaine front, prices 
fall, as purity rises, with use on the rise. We are witnessing a major 
failed demand only driven drug fighting strategy, which will reverse 
all of the major Reagan/Bush gains in the war on drugs.
  H.R. 4300 is an excellent bill. it sets out a three-year plan to 
reverse this serious neglect at both the source, and in the area of 
drug interdiction.
  As this drug crisis threatens our youth, and nation, it requires our 
immediate action before the session adjourns. Accordingly, under these 
extraordinary circumstances, I am without prejudice to the Committee's 
ongoing jurisdiction over the subject matter, willing to waive 
jurisdiction on this bill so the full House can act on it. I urge the 
adoption of the rule. A vote yes, is a vote to fight drugs at the 
source.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just yield myself such time as I may 
consume very briefly, and then I will yield back.
  I think I want to echo comments of my colleague from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) which I think very vividly express the sentiments of those on 
this side of the aisle about our commitment to this fight, 
understanding that there are many aspects to this fight, many fronts to 
be fought on. Today we are focusing on one of those fronts, and 
appropriately, in an appropriate manner.
  But I just hope that my colleagues, in the ensuing debate that will 
take place on the amendments, will understand that in that process, as 
we deal with interdiction, which is an incredibly important element of 
this, we need not to forget demand reduction and we need not to forget 
about education and treatment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition 
to this bill, which attempts to implement various plans aimed at 
reducing the flow of illicit drugs into the United States through drug 
interdiction programs in North, Central, and South America, as well as 
the Caribbean.
  Although I cannot in good conscience support this bill, I applaud the 
effort because it serves as an acknowledgement that the war on drugs 
cannot be fought on our soil alone. It will take the efforts of the 
global community, working together, to defeat this scourge and leave a 
drug-free legacy for our posterity. For this recognition, I applaud the 
House leadership.
  However, there are certain principles that we as legislators must 
abide by when passing legislation. This bill violates many of them, and 
for that reason, I oppose the passage of this bill.
  This bill contains no human rights or anti-corruption conditionality 
on assistance, except in the case of Columbia, where the inclusion of 
that condition threatens the delicate balance of their peace process. 
As a Founder and Chairperson of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
will not allow federal funds to go to oppressive governments, 
especially when there is a good chance that those very funds could be 
used to dehumanize the people of their country.
  I also oppose this bill because it represents a failure of the 
deliberative process. Although the ranking members of several 
committees, including the Judiciary upon which I serve, requested H.R. 
4300, jurisdiction of the bill was waived by the respective Republican 
Chairperson, essentially blocking Democratic input until it reached the 
floor of the House this morning. There have been no hearings on this 
bill, and no markups. That means the bill was not subjected to the 
scrutiny of elected lawmakers. The representatives who were voted in by 
the people of the United States to protect their interests. I cannot be 
a party to that.
  Furthermore, the goals of this bill, while laudable, are unrealistic 
and unattainable, especially in light of the low amount of funds 
authorized for its implementation. For this reasons, the Office of 
National Drug Policy also opposes this bill.
  We all know that this bill will not be fully funded. Our 
appropriations for this year are gaunt, and this bill unfairly raises 
the expectations of the American people. I would love to see an 80-
percent reduction in drug trafficking, but I know that this goal is not 
attainable without the enactment of a truly comprehensive drug bill, 
wrought through the legislative process, and with due consideration for 
our long-standing foreign policy objectives.
  It is a fact that a tremendous amount of drugs cross our borders 
every year, and I acknowledge that it is a problem of enormous 
magnitude. But we cannot leave our common sense and legislative know-
how behind as we chase the holy grail of a drug-free America. I vow to 
remain vigilant in protecting our children the best way I know how, by 
passing effective legislation that can, realistically and not 
theoretically, win us the war on drugs.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4300, and 
commend the efforts of my colleagues to bring this bill to the floor.
  As chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I 
have urged the administration to take a more balanced approach to drug 
control by increasing Coast Guard drug interdiction resources.
  The reason that this is so important is simple: Aggressive 
interdiction of illegal drugs raises the street price for drug users.
  Raising the street price of illegal drugs deters casual drug users, 
especially teenagers, from using drugs.
  Research shows that if people do not use drugs as teenagers, they are 
unlikely to acquire a drug habit later in life.
  Sadly, the latest news on teenage drug use in this country is bleak.
  Last month, the administration released the findings of the most 
recent national household survey on drug abuse.
  For young people ages 12-17, the survey found a 32-percent increase 
in drug use, primarily marijuana, during the last year alone.
  We must act immediately to reduce drug use in this country by 
providing the resources necessary for law enforcement officials to 
fight the war on drugs.
  The drug interdiction funds authorized in H.R. 4300 will allow the 
Coast Guard to respond aggressively to drug smugglers before they reach 
our borders.
  Billions of dollars of television advertisements are no substitute 
for tough law enforcement to keep drugs off American streets and out of 
the hands of American children.

[[Page H7827]]

  I urge Members to support H.R. 4300.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
``Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act.'' As a cosponsor of this 
important legislation, I am proud to speak in favor of its provisions.
  I think we are all aware of the enormity of the drug problem.
  More than eleven million Americans buy illicit drugs and use them 
more than once a month, spending as much as $150 billion annually.
  Studies indicate that the addictive nature of drugs, their high cost 
and their illegality play a role in half of the street crime in the 
United States.
  And we all can attest to the debilitating effect drug use has on 
communities, neighborhoods and families.
  Measured in dollar value, at least four-fifths of all the illicit 
drugs consumed in the U.S. are of foreign origin, including virtually 
all the cocaine and heroin.
  But let's be honest with ourselves--there has never been a real war 
against drugs in this country. In fact, in recent years we have been 
waving the white flag of surrender. Drastic cuts to budget of the Drug 
Czar, reductions in military interdiction efforts, and removal of 
important radar sites around our borders have had real consequences.
  With a brief review of the basic economic doctrine of supply and 
demand, it is not hard to understand that the more drugs that enter 
this country, the cheaper the street price is, and the more likely that 
a young person--maybe a first-time user--will experiment with drugs.
  So what can we do to slow the flow of drugs?
  First, we must enhance our surveillance efforts to detect and monitor 
drug traffickers on the high seas or in the skies above. The Western 
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act accomplishes this by authorizing funds 
for source and transit country aircraft and improved radar coverage.
  Second, we must intensify eradication and interdiction in the primary 
source countries. The legislation at hand addresses this as well by 
authorizing funds for these activities in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.
  Third and finally, we must focus on international law enforcement 
training and making sure that our law enforcement agents have the tools 
they need to fight this war. The legislation before us today recognizes 
the importance of these resources: it funds three international law 
enforcement academies, a U.S. Coast Guard training vessel, and a joint 
maritime law enforcement training center.
  While the price tag on this package is significant, I believe it is 
time to get serious about our war on drugs. Halting the cultivation and 
transportation of these lethal substances deserves our strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close with one last thought. If a large quantity 
of anthrax was being transported from South America to the United 
States what would we do? Drugs are just as deadly. And we must be just 
as vigilant to protect all Americans from the scourge of drug abuse as 
we would any other national security threat.
  I urge adoption of this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
bill and would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Hastert for 
his hard work in expeditiously moving it to the floor. I would also 
like to thank him for his cooperation in accommodating our concerns 
with regard to those portions of the bill which fall within the 
jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee.
  I would like to speak specifically to the title III of the bill. This 
title of the bill authorizes a very innovative approach to tackling our 
drug problems in this country and across the world involving 
agricultural research. The phenomenal discoveries that USDA and the 
private sector have developed will be used to literally stop the 
production of drugs at the initial source by introducing diseases 
directly into the plants that produce these drugs.
  Earlier this year, we passed and the President signed into law a 
reauthorization of our agricultural research programs. This bill was 
the result of about a year of work in which Mr. Combest's subcommittee 
conducted thorough review of agricultural research programs and worked 
hard to increase efficiencies and improve the performance and results 
of our agricultural research programs. Within that debate a lot of 
discussion occurred regarding the vital importance of strong 
agricultural research to help American farmers and ranchers meet the 
increasing demands of an ever competitive world marketplace. 
Frustration was expressed about the lack of appreciation in most of our 
society for the benefits that we enjoy resulting from agricultural 
research. This project is a perfect example of agricultural research 
producing benefits for our everyday lives. Agricultural research will 
play an integral role in stemming the production of deadly drugs which 
have been such a detriment to our society.
  Also in title III of the bill is an authorization for work by USDA's 
Agricultural Research Service and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development to assist producers who have relied on the production of 
drug producing plants to support their families in switching to 
alternative crops. This is a vital aspect of this program which needs 
to be present to make the program successful. I would like to make it 
clear that the crops which will be encouraged as alternatives for these 
producers are not major, traditional crops which are widely grown in 
the United States. Examples of these alternative crops are calca, which 
is the bean which is used to produce chocolate, and bananas. Therefore, 
U.S. producers should not be concerned that this project will affect 
the supply on the world market for the crops that they produce.
  Again, I appreciate the work of Mr. Hastert and others in bringing 
this bill to the floor and I am glad to support its passage.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant 
opposition to this bill.
  I agree with the sponsors of this bill that we must do more to combat 
the trade in illegal drugs. We need to increase our interdiction 
efforts. We must step up our efforts to eradicate drugs at the source. 
We should increase our cooperation with other nations and assist them 
in proper training of law enforcement officers. I also support 
redoubling our crop substitution efforts.
  However, the substantial changes in U.S. policy made by this bill 
deserve proper consideration by the authorizing committees. This bill 
was initially referred to five committees, none of which held a hearing 
or a mark-up. This bill was re-drafted behind closed doors this week 
and was shared with Democrats only at the last minute.
  Seat-of-the-pants legislating may make for good politics in an 
election year, but it also makes bad law. For example, this bill 
authorizes new equipment purchases but fails to adequately fund its 
operation or maintenance. Oversights like this can be easily addressed 
by the authorizing committees if they are given the chance.
  Furthermore, I am opposed to the provisions in this bill which 
further reduce the role of the State Department in this growing 
international problem. Specifically, this bill will transfer the Bureau 
of International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs from the 
State Department to the Drug Enforcement Agency.
  It may be true, as the sponsors claim, that narcotics control 
assistance is better conducted by law enforcement agencies than by the 
State Department. But I do know that the State Department is better 
equipped to deal with issues of international stability and diplomacy. 
For example, this bill threatens a tentative peace by withholding 
assistance if the Colombian government agrees to a demilitarized zone 
with its insurgents. Disrupting the peace process will weaken the 
Colombian government and will hamper its ability to effectuate strong, 
sensible narcotics control programs. It is critical that the State 
Department retain its seat at the table if we are to adequately 
consider the effects that our drug control policy has on the stability 
of other nations and the ability of those nations to cooperate with us 
as partners in these efforts.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wonder about the timing of this bill. We 
always seem to consider major counter-narcotics authorization bills 
just prior to election day. I'm sure that it is merely coincidental, 
but I wonder why we've chosen to focus on these authorization bills 
when the real problem we face in narcotics control is that Congress 
fails to adequately fund existing programs. If no one proposed full 
funding of counter-narcotics programs when we considered the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Bill just six weeks ago, does anyone 
really think passing this bill will result in greater appropriations 
and greater counter-narcotics efforts?
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for not more than 3 hours.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, numbered 1, printed in 
the Congressional Record, is considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4300

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Western 
     Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and statement of policy.

[[Page H7828]]

         TITLE I--ENHANCED SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRY COVERAGE

Sec. 101. Expansion of aircraft coverage and operation in source and 
              transit countries.
Sec. 102. Expansion of maritime coverage and operation in source and 
              transit countries.
Sec. 103. Expansion of radar coverage and operation in source and 
              transit countries.

  TITLE II--ENHANCED ERADICATION AND INTERDICTION STRATEGY IN SOURCE 
                               COUNTRIES

Sec. 201. Additional eradication resources for Colombia.
Sec. 202. Additional eradication resources for Peru.
Sec. 203. Additional eradication resources for Bolivia.
Sec. 204. Additional eradication resources for Mexico.
Sec. 205. Miscellaneous additional eradication resources.
Sec. 206. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 
              Affairs.
Sec. 207. Report on transferring international narcotics assistance 
              activities to a United States law enforcement agency.

TITLE III--ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE CROP DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT IN SOURCE ZONE 
               AND MYCOHERBICIDE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 301. Alternative crop development support.
Sec. 302. Authorization of appropriations for Agricultural Research 
              Service counterdrug research and development activities.
Sec. 303. Master plan for mycoherbicides to control narcotic crops.

       TITLE IV--ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Sec. 401. Enhanced international law enforcement academy training.
Sec. 402. Enhanced United States drug enforcement international 
              training.
Sec. 403. Provision of nonlethal equipment to foreign law enforcement 
              organizations for cooperative illicit narcotics control 
              activities.

    TITLE V--ENHANCED DRUG TRANSIT AND SOURCE ZONE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                        OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT

Sec. 501. Increased funding for operations and equipment.
Sec. 502. Sense of Congress regarding priority of drug interdiction and 
              counterdrug activities.

                  TITLE VI--RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS

Sec. 601. Authorizations of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Teenage drug use in the United States has doubled since 
     1993.
       (2) The drug crisis facing the United States is a top 
     national security threat.
       (3) The spread of illicit drugs through United States 
     borders cannot be halted without an effective drug 
     interdiction strategy.
       (4) Effective drug interdiction efforts have been shown to 
     limit the availability of illicit narcotics, drive up the 
     street price, support demand reduction efforts, and decrease 
     overall drug trafficking and use.
       (5) A prerequisite for reducing youth drug use is 
     increasing the price of drugs. To increase price 
     substantially, at least 60 percent of drugs must be 
     interdicted.
       (6) In 1987, the national drug control budget maintained a 
     significant balance between demand and supply reduction 
     efforts, illustrated as follows:
       (A) 29 percent of the total drug control budget 
     expenditures for demand reduction programs.
       (B) 38 percent of the total drug control budget 
     expenditures for domestic law enforcement.
       (C) 33 percent of the total drug control budget 
     expenditures for international drug interdiction efforts.
       (7) In the late 1980's and early 1990's, counternarcotic 
     efforts were successful, specifically in protecting the 
     borders of the United States from penetration by illegal 
     narcotics through increased seizures by the United States 
     Coast Guard and other agencies, including a 302 percent 
     increase in pounds of cocaine seized between 1987 and 1991.
       (8) Limiting the availability of narcotics to drug 
     traffickers in the United States had a promising effect as 
     illustrated by the decline of illicit drug use between 1988 
     and 1991, through a--
       (A) 13 percent reduction in total drug use;
       (B) 35 percent drop in cocaine use; and
       (C) 16 percent decrease in marijuana use.
       (9) In 1993, drug interdiction efforts in the transit zones 
     were reduced due to an imbalance in the national drug control 
     strategy. This trend has continued through 1995 as shown by 
     the following figures:
       (A) 35 percent for demand reduction programs.
       (B) 53 percent for domestic law enforcement.
       (C) 12 percent for international drug interdiction efforts.
       (10) Supply reduction efforts became a lower priority for 
     the Administration and the seizures by the United States 
     Coast Guard and other agencies decreased as shown by a 68 
     percent decrease in the pounds of cocaine seized between 1991 
     and 1996.
       (11) Reductions in funding for comprehensive interdiction 
     operations like OPERATION GATEWAY and OPERATION STEELWEB, 
     initiatives that encompassed all areas of interdiction and 
     attempted to disrupt the operating methods of drug smugglers 
     along the entire United States border, have created 
     unprotected United States border areas which smugglers 
     exploit to move their product into the United States.
       (12) The result of this new imbalance in the national drug 
     control strategy caused the drug situation in the United 
     States to become a crisis with serious consequences 
     including--
       (A) doubling of drug-abuse-related arrests for minors 
     between 1992 and 1996;
       (B) 70 percent increase in overall drug use among children 
     aged 12 to 17;
       (C) 80 percent increase in drug use for graduating seniors 
     since 1992;
       (D) a sharp drop in the price of 1 pure gram of heroin from 
     $1,647 in 1992 to $966 in February 1996; and
       (E) a reduction in the street price of 1 gram of cocaine 
     from $123 to $104 between 1993 and 1994.
       (13) The percentage change in drug use since 1992, among 
     graduating high school students who used drugs in the past 12 
     months, has substantially increased--marijuana use is up 80 
     percent, cocaine use is up 80 percent, and heroin use is up 
     100 percent.
       (b) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States to--
       (1) reduce the supply of drugs and drug use through an 
     enhanced drug interdiction effort in the major drug transit 
     countries, as well support a comprehensive supply country 
     eradication and crop substitution program, because a 
     commitment of increased resources in international drug 
     interdiction efforts will create a balanced national drug 
     control strategy among demand reduction, law enforcement, and 
     international drug interdiction efforts; and
       (2) support policies and dedicate the resources necessary 
     to reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the United States by 
     not less than 80 percent by December 31, 2001.
         TITLE I--ENHANCED SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRY COVERAGE

     SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF AIRCRAFT COVERAGE AND OPERATION IN 
                   SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRIES.

       (a) Department of the Treasury.--Funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for fiscal 
     years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for the enhancement of air 
     coverage and operation for drug source and transit countries, 
     as follows:
       (1) For procurement of 10 P-3B Early Warning aircraft for 
     the United States Customs Service to enhance overhead air 
     coverage of drug source zone countries, the total amount of 
     $430,000,000.
       (2) For the procurement and deployment of 10 P-3B Slick 
     airplanes for the United States Customs Service to enhance 
     overhead air coverage of the drug source zone, the total 
     amount of $150,000,000.
       (3) For each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for operation 
     and maintenance of 10 P-3B Early Warning aircraft for the 
     United States Customs Service to enhance overhead air 
     coverage of drug source zone countries, $23,500,000.
       (4) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     personnel for the 10 P-3B Early Warning aircraft for the 
     United States Customs Service to enhance overhead air 
     coverage of drug source zone countries, $12,500,000.
       (5) For each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for operation 
     and maintenance of 10 P-3B Slick airplanes for the United 
     States Customs Service to enhance overhead coverage of the 
     drug source zone, $23,500,000.
       (6) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     personnel for the 10 P-3B Slick airplanes for the United 
     States Customs Service to enhance overhead air coverage of 
     drug source zone countries, $12,500,000.
       (7) For construction and furnishing of an additional 
     facility for the P-3B aircraft, 6,000,000.
       (8) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     operation and maintenance for overhead air coverage for 
     Colombia, $6,000,000.
       (9) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     operation and maintenance for overhead air coverage for 
     Bolivia, $2,000,000.
       (10) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     operation and maintenance for overhead air coverage for Peru, 
     $6,000,000.
       (11) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     operation and maintenance for overhead coverage for the 
     Caribbean and Eastern Pacific regions, $25,000,000.
       (12) For purchase and for operation and maintenance of 3 
     Schweizer RU-38A observation aircraft (to be piloted by 
     pilots under contract with the United States), the total 
     amount of $16,500,000, of which--
       (A) $13,500,000 is for procurement; and
       (B) $1,000,000 for each such fiscal year is for operation 
     and maintenance.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 31, 1999, the Secretary 
     of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and 
     the Director of Central Intelligence, shall submit to the 
     Committee on National Security, the Committee on 
     International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate a report examining the options available in the source 
     and transit zones to replace Howard Air Force Base in Panama 
     and specifying

[[Page H7829]]

     the requirements of the United States to establish an airbase 
     or airbases for use in support of counternarcotics operations 
     to optimize operational effectiveness in the source and 
     transit zones. The report shall identify the following:
       (1) The specific requirements necessary to support the 
     national drug control policy of the United States.
       (2) The estimated construction, operation, and maintenance 
     costs for a replacement counterdrug airbase or airbases in 
     the source and transit zones.
       (3) Possible interagency cost sharing arrangements for a 
     replacement airbase or airbases.
       (4) Any legal or treaty-related issues regarding the 
     replacement airbase or airbases.
       (5) A summary of completed alternative site surveys for the 
     airbase or airbases.
       (c) Transfer of Aircraft.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     transfer to the United States Customs Service--
       (1) ten currently retired and previously identified 
     heavyweight P-3B aircraft for modification into P-3 AEW&C 
     aircraft; and
       (2) ten currently retired and previously identified 
     heavyweight P-3B aircraft for modification into P-3 Slick 
     aircraft.

     SEC. 102. EXPANSION OF COAST GUARD DRUG INTERDICTION.

       (a) Operating Expenses.--For operating expenses of the 
     Coast Guard associated with expansion of drug interdiction 
     activities around Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, and other transit zone areas of operation, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation $129,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, and 2001. Such amounts shall include (but are not 
     limited to) amounts for the following:
       (1) For deployment of intelligent acoustic detection buoys 
     in the Florida Straits and Bahamas.
       (2) For a nonlethal technology program to enhance 
     countermeasures against the threat of transportation of drugs 
     by so-called Go-Fast boats.
       (b) Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement.--
       (1) In general.--For acquisition, construction, and 
     improvement of facilities and equipment to be used for 
     expansion of Coast Guard drug interdiction activities, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for fiscal year 1999 the following:
       (A) For maritime patrol aircraft, $66,000,000.
       (B) For acquisition of deployable pursuit boats, 
     $3,500,000.
       (C) For the acquisition and construction of 15 United 
     States Coast Guard 87-foot Coastal Patrol Boats, $71,000,000.
       (D) For the reactivation of 3 United States Coast Guard HU-
     25 Falcon jets, $7,500,000.
       (E) For acquisition of installed or deployable electronic 
     sensors and communications systems for Coast Guard Cutters, 
     $16,300,000.
       (F) For acquisition and construction of facilities and 
     equipment to support regional and international law 
     enforcement training and support in Puerto Rico, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, and Caribbean Basin, $4,000,000.
       (G) For acquisition or conversion of maritime patrol 
     aircraft, $17,000,000.
       (H) For acquisition or conversion of 2 vessels to be used 
     as Coast Guard Medium or High Endurance Cutters, $36,000,000.
       (I) For acquisition or conversion of 2 vessels to be used 
     as Coast Guard Cutters as support, command, and control 
     platforms for drug interdiction operations, $20,000,000.
       (J) For construction of 6 United States Code Coast Guard 
     medium endurance cutters, $289,000,000.
       (2) Continued availability.--Amounts appropriated under 
     this subsection may remain available until expended.
       (c) Requirement To Accept Patrol Craft From Department of 
     Defense.--The Secretary of Transportation shall accept, for 
     use by the Coast Guard for expanded drug interdiction 
     activities, 7 PC-170 patrol craft offered by the Department 
     of Defense.

     SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF RADAR COVERAGE AND OPERATION IN SOURCE 
                   AND TRANSIT COUNTRIES.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for 
     fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for the enhancement of 
     radar coverage in drug source and transit countries, as 
     follows:
       (1) For restoration of radar in the Bahamas, the total 
     amount of $13,500,000, of which--
       (A) the total amount of $4,500,000 is for procurement; and
       (B) $3,000,000 for each such fiscal year is for operation 
     and maintenance.
       (2) For each such fiscal year for operation and 
     maintenance, for establishment of ground-based radar coverage 
     at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, $300,000.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 31, 1999, the Secretary 
     of Defense, in conjunction with the Director of Central 
     Intelligence, shall submit to the Committee on National 
     Security and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed 
     Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate a report examining the options available to the United 
     States for improving Relocatable Over the Horizon (ROTHR) 
     capability to provide enhanced radar coverage of narcotics 
     source zone countries in South America and transit zones in 
     the Eastern Pacific. The report shall include--
       (1) a discussion of the need and costs associated with the 
     establishment of a proposed fourth ROTHR site located in the 
     source or transit zones; and
       (2) an assessment of the intelligence specific issues 
     raised if such a ROTHR facility were to be established in 
     conjunction with a foreign government.
  TITLE II--ENHANCED ERADICATION AND INTERDICTION STRATEGY IN SOURCE 
                               COUNTRIES

     SEC. 201. ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES FOR COLOMBIA.

       (a) Department of State.--Funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Department of State for fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, and 2001 for the enhancement of drug-related 
     eradication efforts in Colombia, as follows:
       (1) For each such fiscal year for sustaining support of the 
     helicopters and fixed wing fleet of the national police of 
     Colombia, $6,000,000.
       (2) For the purchase of DC-3 transport aircraft for the 
     national police of Colombia, the total amount of $2,000,000.
       (3) For acquisition of concertina wire and tunneling 
     detection systems at the La Picota prison of the national 
     police of Colombia, the total amount of $1,250,000.
       (4) For the purchase of minigun systems for the national 
     police of Colombia, the total amount of $6,000,000.
       (5) For the purchase of 6 UH-60L Black Hawk utility 
     helicopters for the national police of Colombia, the total 
     amount of $60,000,000 for procurement and an additional 
     amount of $12,000,000 for each such fiscal year for 
     operation, maintenance, and training.
       (6) For procurement, for upgrade of 50 UH-1H helicopters to 
     the Huey II configuration equipped with miniguns for the use 
     of the national police of Colombia, the total amount of 
     $70,000,000.
       (7) For the repair and rebuilding of the antinarcotics base 
     at Miraflores, $2,000,000.
       (8) For providing sufficient and adequate base and force 
     security for any rebuilt facility at Miraflores, and the 
     other forward operating antinarcotics bases of the Colombian 
     National Police antinarcotics unit, $6,000,000.
       (b) Counternarcotics Assistance.--United States 
     counternarcotics assistance may not be provided for the 
     Government of Colombia under this Act or under any other 
     provision of law on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act if the Government of Colombia negotiates or permits 
     the establishment of any demilitarized zone in which the 
     eradication and interdiction of drug production by the 
     security forces of Colombia, including the Colombian National 
     Police antinarcotics unit, is prohibited.

     SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES FOR PERU.

       (a) Department of State.--Funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Department of State for fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, and 2001 for the establishment of a third drug 
     interdiction site at Puerto Maldonado, Peru, to support air 
     bridge and riverine missions for enhancement of drug-related 
     eradication efforts in Peru, the total amount of $3,000,000, 
     and an additional amount of $1,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001 for operation and maintenance.
       (b) Department of Defense Study.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall conduct a study of Peruvian counternarcotics air 
     interdiction requirements and, not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a 
     report on the results of the study. The study shall include a 
     review of the Peruvian Air Force's current and future 
     requirements for counternarcotics air interdiction to 
     complement the Peruvian Air Force's A-37 capability.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES FOR BOLIVIA.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the Department 
     of State for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     enhancement of drug-related eradication efforts in Bolivia, 
     as follows:
       (1) For each such fiscal year for support of air operations 
     of the Red Devils of Bolivia, $1,000,000.
       (2) For each such fiscal year for support of riverine 
     operations of the Blue Devils of Bolivia, $1,000,000.
       (3) For each such fiscal year for support of coca 
     eradication programs, $1,000,000.
       (4) For the procurement of 2 mobile x-ray machines with 
     maintenance support for placement along the Chapare highway, 
     the total amount of $5,000,000 and an additional amount of 
     $1,000,000 for each such fiscal year for operation and 
     maintenance.

     SEC. 204. ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES FOR MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Authority to purchase helicopters.--Contingent on the 
     agreement of the Government of Mexico to approve full 
     diplomatic immunity for Drug Enforcement Administration 
     personnel serving in Mexico with privileges granted to United 
     States Government officials to carry weapons necessary for 
     the performance of their duties, the Secretary of State, 
     subject to the availability of appropriations, shall purchase 
     6 Bell 212 high altitude helicopters designated for opium 
     eradication programs in the Mexican states of Guerrero, 
     Jalisco, and Sinaloa, for enhancement of drug-related 
     eradication efforts in Mexico.

[[Page H7830]]

       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of State during the 
     period beginning on October 1, 1998, and on ending September 
     30, 2001, $18,000,000 to carry out paragraph (1).
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) all United States law enforcement personnel serving in 
     Mexico should be accredited the same status under the Vienna 
     Convention on Diplomatic Immunity as other diplomatic 
     personnel serving at United States posts in Mexico; and
       (2) all Mexican narcotics law enforcement personnel serving 
     in the United States should be accorded the same diplomatic 
     status as Drug Enforcement Administration personnel serving 
     in Mexico.

     SEC. 205. MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the Department 
     of State for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for enhanced 
     precursor chemical control projects, in the total amount of 
     $500,000.

     SEC. 206. BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS.

       (a) Qualifications for Service.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any individual serving in the position of 
     assistant secretary in any department or agency of the 
     Federal Government who has primary responsibility for 
     international narcotics control and law enforcement, and the 
     principal deputy of any such assistant secretary, shall have 
     substantial professional qualifications in the fields of--
       (1) management; and
       (2) Federal law enforcement, or intelligence.
       (b) Foreign Military Sales.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, upon the receipt by the Department of State of a formal 
     letter of request for any foreign military sales 
     counternarcotics-related assistance from the head of any 
     police, military, or other appropriate security agency 
     official, the implementation and processing of the 
     counternarcotics foreign military sales request shall be the 
     sole responsibility of the Department of Defense, which is 
     the traditional lead agency in providing military equipment 
     and supplies abroad.
       (2) Role of state department.--The Department of State 
     shall continue to have a consultative role with the 
     Department of Defense in the processing of the request 
     described in paragraph (1), after receipt of the letter of 
     request, for all counternarcotics-related foreign military 
     sales assistance.

     SEC. 207. REPORT ON TRANSFERRING INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS 
                   ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES TO A UNITED STATES LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the responsiveness and effectiveness of international 
     narcotics assistance activities under the Department of State 
     have been severely hampered due, in part, to the lack of law 
     enforcement expertise by responsible personnel in the 
     Department of State.
       (b) Report Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug Control 
     Policy shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees 
     a report, which shall evaluate the responsiveness and 
     effectiveness of international narcotics assistance 
     activities under the Department of State during the preceding 
     4 fiscal years.
       (2) Recommendation and explanation.--The study submitted 
     under paragraph (1) shall include the recommendation of the 
     Director and detailed explanatory statement regarding whether 
     the overseas activities of the Bureau of International 
     Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the Department of 
     State should be transferred to the Department of Justice.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Office on National Drug Control 
     Policy $100,000 to carry out the study under this section.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     committees'' means--
       (1) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, 
     Foreign Relations, and the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (2) the Committees on Appropriations, International 
     Relations, National Security, and the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives; and
       (3) the Select Committees on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.
TITLE III--ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE CROP DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT IN SOURCE ZONE

     SEC. 301. ALTERNATIVE CROP DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the United 
     States Agency for International Development for fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, and 2001 for alternative development programs, as 
     follows:
       (1) For startup costs of programs in the Guaviare, 
     Putumayo, and Caqueta regions in Colombia, the total amount 
     of $5,000,000 and an additional amount of $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for operation and maintenance 
     costs.
       (2) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     enhanced programs in the Ucayali, Apurimac, and Huallaga 
     Valley regions in Peru, $50,000,000.
       (3) For each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     enhanced programs in the Chapare and Yungas regions in 
     Bolivia, $5,000,000.

     SEC. 302. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL 
                   RESEARCH SERVICE COUNTERDRUG RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Agriculture for each of fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, and 2001, $23,000,000 to support the counternarcotics 
     research efforts of the Agricultural Research Service of the 
     Department of Agriculture. Of that amount, funds are 
     authorized as follows:
       (1) $5,000,000 shall be used for crop eradication 
     technologies.
       (2) $2,000,000 shall be used for narcotics plant 
     identification, chemistry, and biotechnology.
       (3) $1,000,000 shall be used for worldwide crop 
     identification, detection tagging, and production estimation 
     technology.
       (4) $5,000,000 shall be used for improving the disease 
     resistance, yield, and economic competitiveness of commercial 
     crops that can be promoted as alternatives to the production 
     of narcotics plants.
       (5) $10,000,000 to contract with entities meeting the 
     criteria described in subsection (b) for the product 
     development, environmental testing, registration, production, 
     aerial distribution system development, product effectiveness 
     monitoring, and modification of multiple mycoherbicides to 
     control narcotic crops (including coca, poppy, and cannabis) 
     in the United States and internationally.
       (b) Criteria for Eligible Entities.--An entity under this 
     subsection is an entity which possesses--
       (1) experience in diseases of narcotic crops;
       (2) intellectual property involving seed-borne dispersal 
     formulations;
       (3) the availability of state-of-the-art containment or 
     quarantine facilities;
       (4) country-specific mycoherbicide formulations;
       (5) specialized fungicide resistant formulations; or
       (6) special security arrangements.

     SEC. 303. MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES TO CONTROL NARCOTIC 
                   CROPS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall develop 
     a 10-year master plan for the use of mycoherbicides to 
     control narcotic crops (including coca, poppy, and cannabis) 
     in the United States and internationally .
       (b) Coordination.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in 
     coordination with--
       (1) the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
       (2) the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department 
     of Justice;
       (3) the Department of Defense;
       (4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (5) the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement Activities of the Department of State;
       (6) the United States Information Agency; and
       (7) other appropriate agencies.
       (c) Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     activities undertaken to carry out this section.
       TITLE IV--ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

     SEC. 401. ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) Enhanced International Law Enforcement Academy 
     Training.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Justice for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 
     for the establishment and operation of international law 
     enforcement academies to carry out law enforcement training 
     activities, as follows:
       (1) For the establishment and operation of an academy, 
     which shall serve Latin America and the Caribbean, the total 
     amount of $3,000,000 and an additional amount of $1,200,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for operation and 
     maintenance costs.
       (2) For the establishment and operation of an academy in 
     Bangkok, Thailand, which shall serve Asia, the total amount 
     of $2,000,000 and an additional amount of $1,200,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for operation and maintenance 
     costs.
       (3) For each such fiscal year for the establishment and 
     operation of an academy in South Africa, which shall serve 
     Africa, $1,200,000.
       (b) Maritime Law Enforcement Training Center.--Funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of 
     Transportation and the Department of the Treasury for fiscal 
     years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for the joint establishment, 
     operation, and maintenance in San Juan, Puerto Rico, of a 
     center for training law enforcement personnel of countries 
     located in the Latin American and Caribbean regions in 
     matters relating to maritime law enforcement, including 
     customs-related ports management matters, as follows:
       (1) For each such fiscal year for funding by the Department 
     of Transportation, $1,500,000.
       (2) For each such fiscal year for funding by the Department 
     of the Treasury, $1,500,000.
       (c) United States Coast Guard International Maritime 
     Training Vessel.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of Transportation for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 
     and 2001 for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of 
     maritime training vessels, as follows:
       (1) For a vessel for international maritime training, which 
     shall visit participating

[[Page H7831]]

     Latin American and Caribbean nations on a rotating schedule 
     in order to provide law enforcement training and to perform 
     maintenance on participating national assets, the total 
     amount of $7,500,000.
       (2) For each such fiscal year for support of the United 
     States Coast Guard Balsam Class Buoy Tender training vessel, 
     $2,500,000.

     SEC. 402. ENHANCED UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRAINING.

       (a) Mexico.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of Justice for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 
     2001 for substantial exchanges for Mexican judges, 
     prosecutors, and police, in the total amount of $2,000,000 
     for each such fiscal year.
       (b) Brazil.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of Justice for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 
     2001 for enhanced support for the Brazilian Federal Police 
     Training Center, in the total amount of $1,000,000 for each 
     such fiscal year.
       (c) Panama.--
       (1) In general.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Department of Transportation for fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, and 2001 for operation and maintenance, for locating 
     and operating Coast Guard assets so as to strengthen the 
     capability of the Coast Guard of Panama to patrol the 
     Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Panama for drug enforcement 
     and interdiction activities, in the total amount of 
     $1,000,000 for each such fiscal year.
       (2) Eligibility to receive training.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, members of the national police of 
     Panama shall be eligible to receive training through the 
     International Military Education Training program.
       (d) Venezuela.--There are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of Justice for each of fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, and 2001, $1,000,000 for operation and maintenance, for 
     support for the Venezuelan Judicial Technical Police 
     Counterdrug Intelligence Center.
       (e) Ecuador.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of Transportation and the Department of the 
     Treasury for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for 
     the buildup of local coast guard and port control in 
     Guayaquil and Esmeraldas, Ecuador, as follows:
       (1) For each such fiscal year for the Department of 
     Transportation, $500,000.
       (2) For each such fiscal year for the Department of the 
     Treasury, $500,000.
       (f) Haiti and the Dominican Republic.--Funds are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for 
     each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, $500,000 for the 
     buildup of local coast guard and port control in Haiti and 
     the Dominican Republic.
       (g) Central America.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for each of 
     fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, $12,000,000 for the 
     buildup of local coast guard and port control in Belize, 
     Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

     SEC. 403. PROVISION OF NONLETHAL EQUIPMENT TO FOREIGN LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS FOR COOPERATIVE 
                   ILLICIT NARCOTICS CONTROL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
     may transfer or lease each year nonlethal equipment, of which 
     each piece of equipment may be valued at not more than 
     $100,000, to foreign law enforcement organizations for the 
     purpose of establishing and carrying out cooperative illicit 
     narcotics control activities.
       (b) Additional Requirement.--The Administrator shall 
     provide for the maintenance and repair of any equipment 
     transferred or leased under subsection (a).
    TITLE V--ENHANCED DRUG TRANSIT AND SOURCE ZONE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                        OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT

     SEC. 501. INCREASED FUNDING FOR OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT; 
                   REPORT.

       (a) Drug Enforcement Administration.--Funds are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration 
     for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for enhancement of 
     counternarcotic operations in drug transit and source 
     countries, as follows:
       (1) For support of the Merlin program, the total amount of 
     $8,272,000.
       (2) For support of the intercept program, the total amount 
     of $4,500,000.
       (3) For support of the Narcotics Enforcement Data Retrieval 
     System, the total amount of $2,400,000.
       (4) For support of the Caribbean Initiative, the total 
     amount of $3,515,000.
       (5) For the hire of special agents, administrative and 
     investigative support personnel, and intelligence analysts 
     for overseas assignments in foreign posts, the total amount 
     of $40,213,000.
       (b) Department of State.--Funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Department of State for fiscal year 
     1999, 2000, and 2001 for the deployment of commercial 
     unclassified intelligence and imaging data and a Passive 
     Coherent Location System for counternarcotics and 
     interdiction purposes in the Western Hemisphere, the total 
     amount of $20,000,000.
       (c) Department of the Treasury.--Funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated for the United States Customs Service for fiscal 
     years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for enhancement of counternarcotic 
     operations in drug transit and source countries, as follows:
       (1) For refurbishment of 30 interceptor and Blue Water 
     Platform vessels in the Caribbean maritime fleet, the total 
     amount of $3,500,000.
       (2) For purchase of 9 new interceptor vessels in the 
     Caribbean maritime fleet, the total amount of $2,000,000.
       (3) For the hire and training of 25 special agents for 
     maritime operations in the Caribbean, the total amount of 
     $2,500,000.
       (4) For purchase of 60 automotive vehicles for ground use 
     in South Florida, $1,500,000.
       (5) For each such fiscal year for operation and maintenance 
     support for 10 United States Customs Service Citations 
     Aircraft to be dedicated for the source and transit zone, the 
     total amount of $10,000,000.
       (6) For purchase of 5 CTX-5000 x-ray machines to enhance 
     detection capabilities with respect to narcotics, explosives, 
     and currency, the total amount of $7,000,000.
       (d) Department of Defense Report.--Not later than January 
     31, 1999, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, shall 
     submit to the Committee on National Security and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services and the 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report 
     examining and proposing recommendations regarding any 
     organizational changes to optimize counterdrug activities, 
     including alternative cost-sharing arrangements regarding the 
     following facilities:
       (1) The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force, East, Key West, 
     Florida.
       (2) The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force, West, Alameda, 
     California.
       (3) The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force, South, Panama City, 
     Panama.
       (4) The Joint Task Force 6, El Paso, Texas.

     SEC. 502. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRIORITY OF DRUG 
                   INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
     should revise the Global Military Force Policy of the 
     Department of Defense in order--
       (1) to treat the international drug interdiction and 
     counter-drug activities of the Department as a military 
     operation other than war, thereby elevating the priority 
     given such activities under the Policy to the next priority 
     below the priority given to war under the Policy and to the 
     same priority as is given to peacekeeping operations under 
     the Policy; and
       (2) to allocate the assets of the Department to drug 
     interdiction and counter-drug activities in accordance with 
     the priority given those activities.
                  TITLE VI--RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS

     SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The funds authorized to be appropriated for any department 
     or agency of the Federal Government for fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, or 2001 by this Act are in addition to funds authorized 
     to be appropriated for that department or agency for fiscal 
     year 1999, 2000, or 2001 by any other provision of law.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Mc Collum

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. McCollum:
       Page 5, line 25, insert the following:
       (14) The Department of Defense has been called upon to 
     support counter-drug efforts of Federal law enforcement 
     agencies that are carried out in source countries and through 
     transit zone interdiction, but in recent years Department of 
     Defense assets critical to those counter-drug activities have 
     been consistently diverted to missions that the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     consider a higher priority;
       (15) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, through the Department of Defense policy 
     referred to as the Global Military Force Policy, has 
     established the priorities for the allocation of military 
     assets in the following order: (1) war, (2) military 
     operations other than war that might involve contact with 
     hostile forces (such as peacekeeping operations and 
     noncombatant evacuations), (3) exercises and training, and 
     (4) operational tasking other than those involving 
     hostilities (including counter-drug activities and 
     humanitarian assistance);
       (16) Use of Department of Defense assets is critical to the 
     success of efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs from 
     source countries and through transit zones to the United 
     States;

[[Page H7832]]

       (17) The placement of counter-drug activities in the fourth 
     and last priority of the Global Military Force Policy list of 
     priorities for the allocation of military assets has resulted 
     in a serious deficiency in assets vital to the success of 
     source country and transit zone efforts to stop the flow of 
     illegal drugs into the United States;
       (18) At present the United States faces few, if any, 
     threats from abroad greater than the threat posed to the 
     Nation's youth by illegal and dangerous drugs;
       (19) The conduct of counter-drug activities has the 
     potential for contact with hostile forces;
       (20) The Department of Defense counter-drug activities 
     mission should be near the top, not among the last, of the 
     priorities for the allocation of Department of Defense assets 
     after the first priority for those assets for the war-
     fighting mission of the Department of Defense.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak for a few minutes about 
the issue that we talked about briefly in the general debate on the 
priorities that are set by our Department of Defense. They have a 
particular terminology they use over there about global military force 
policy in the Department of Defense. It is not a legislative matter; it 
is a matter of how they do a lot of things that perhaps we do not need 
to discuss here today on the floor, but one of those things is to set 
some priorities for the allocation of assets, military assets, 
presumably equipment, everything else. Unfortunately, today the way 
this works, there are things that just simply are not right with 
respect to this in my judgment.
  The Department of Defense has a mission of anti-narcotics. But that 
anti-narcotics mission is way down the pipeline, and as a consequences 
of that, our Southern Command, which is in charge of all of our 
military forces in the Caribbean and Latin America principally 
concerned about the anti-narcotics effort, though there might be other 
defense measures and needs, our Southern Command is not able to provide 
the equipment and the manpower and the effort that Congress envisioned 
years ago when we designated a role for the military in the anti-
narcotics effort.
  Now I realize the Department of Defense budget has declined in real 
terms for 14 consecutive years, and I am one of the strong proponents 
of a tough and stronger military. I think we have let it deplete 
terribly. I think we have a problem with the absence of a ballistic 
missile defense system in this country. We should have deployed one a 
long time ago, and we should be deploying one today, especially in 
light of the Rumsfeld report where we know that there may be missile 
capabilities from some of our potential adversaries that can even reach 
our shores in the next 2 or 3 years with nuclear, chemical or 
biological weapons aboard.

                              {time}  1215

  I know that our young men and women are stretched beyond where they 
should be in deployments in far-reaching parts of the world today and 
peacekeeping missions like in Bosnia. The threat is certainly there for 
not only terrorism acts, but more serious matters even than that for 
our military with respect to the Middle East and Near East and so 
forth.
  It is a dangerous world we live in out there and we very badly need 
to readdress our defense strategy and our defense resource allocation 
by this Congress. It is desperately in need. I am a former JAG officer 
in the Navy and I spent 20 more years in the Reserves after that, and I 
am around a lot of folks who have been on active duty and are today, 
and I know the morale is not good, the maintenance stream is not good, 
and while we have the finest men and women we would ever want out there 
serving, we have a lot to do.
  So I can sympathize with the fact that DOD does not want to provide, 
because it does not think it has the resources, what it needs to, to 
SOUTHCOM in the antinarcotics efforts because it has a higher priority 
charge. But therein lies the problem.
  The priorities that are currently set out in this global military 
force policy set of priorities says that there is, indeed, a 4-pronged 
measuring rod of how we allocate. Number 1 is in case of war, nobody 
disputes that. Number 2, for military operations other than war that 
might involve contact with hostile forces such as peacekeeping 
operations, and training; and number 4, operational tasking other than 
those involving hostilities. So we have the exercises in training 
coming ahead of the number 4 one, and number 4 includes counterdrug 
activities and humanitarian assistance.
  The amendment I am offering today are findings to go along with the 
sense of the Congress that is already in this bill. We have expressed a 
sense of the Congress in this bill, in the last portion of it, which 
calls upon the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense and the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff to change these priorities, and to put the 
counterdrug activities up into the number 2 slot in priorities, not way 
down at the bottom along with humanitarian assistance. So that SOUTHCOM 
and our folks out there fighting the effort on the drug front can have 
what resources they need, at least competitively equal with those that 
are being sent to Bosnia or elsewhere for peacekeeping operations.
  We are losing young men and women every day to drugs in this country. 
We need to be engaged in a war on drugs, a true war on drugs. That does 
not necessarily mean invading another country, but it means going in 
and assisting in every way possible, with airplanes and with ships, 
with manpower, with training and things like that, that we are simply 
not doing today, and to have a higher priority that they have in some 
of the things they are engaged in today I just do not agree with, and I 
do not think this Congress should agree with. That is why the Sense of 
the Congress resolution in the bill calls for those changes in priority 
to be made, asks them to be made.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would put findings of 
fact into the Record to support that by stating in the Record, the 
first part of it, that the Department of Defense has been called upon 
to support the counterdrug efforts, which we have done legislatively in 
the past, and all of the bases for this, in fact.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the findings of fact involve, as I said, 
the statement of the fact that the Department of Defense has been 
called upon to support the counterdrug efforts; the fact that we have 
this global military force policy that has these 4 different provisions 
in it, in the order of priority with regard to asset allocation.
  The next one is that the use of the Department of Defense assets is 
critical to the success of efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs, 
and the next one is that the placement of counterdrug activities in the 
fourth and last list of priorities for the allocation of assets has 
resulted in the serious deficiency in assets vital to the success of 
source country and transit zone efforts to stop the flow.
  The next finding says that at present, the United States faces few, 
if any, threats from abroad greater than the threat posed to our 
Nation's youth, which I think is certainly true.
  The next finding says the conduct of counterdrug activities has the 
potential for contact with hostile forces.
  The final one says the Department of Defense counterdrug activities 
missions should be near the top, not among the last of the priorities, 
and that is what we do in the Sense of the Congress resolution.
  So my amendment is simply a finding of fact that supports the Sense 
of the Congress resolution and sets forth the argument so everybody can 
read it, hopefully the Secretary of Defense will read it and hopefully 
the President will read it, about why we need to see them reorganize 
their priorities and put counterdrug efforts much higher at the top.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime, to make the war on drugs a high priority at the Defense 
Department.
  Make no mistake about it. This is a war we are fighting, fighting 
with drugs. Mr. Chairman, 15,000 deaths annually, 12 million property 
crimes annually, 70 percent of our violent crime, drug-related. More 
than half of our prisons are filled with those who either

[[Page H7833]]

use, possess, or traffic in drugs. Clearly, U.S. national interest is 
at stake: fighting drugs which come from abroad and threaten our well-
being. One President after another has said that this is a national 
security risk.
  If Saddam Hussein was responsible for killing 15,000 Americans each 
and every year, we would clearly declare war on Iraq. I say it is time 
to declare a war on drugs and put our Defense Department on the front 
lines fighting this scourge.
  Our Nation produces no cocaine, we produce no heroin. All of these 
poisons come from abroad, and we need our hard-working and over-
extended law enforcement communities to have the full benefit, the full 
support and assistance of our outstanding military in doing their 
difficult tasks.
  Accordingly, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for 
his amendment in making our drug war a national priority, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.
  I want to make the comment that we have now received a few thoughts 
about what SOUTHCOM may need specifically, and we look forward to 
working with the Department of Defense in the coming year in the new 
Congress to develop even more new initiatives that may be helpful to 
them.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his support. This reorganizing of 
priorities, our effort to give them new resources will not do any good 
if they do not reorganize their priorities.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for focusing attention on this very 
critical problem.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the nature of the gentleman's concern and 
effort, but I am concerned about the potential consequences that he may 
unintentionally have by virtue of the amendment.
  In essence, the crux of the amendment is to make it very clear that 
the Department of Defense should change its priorities to raise the 
priority of, and therefore, the resource allocation to, counterdrug 
activities, and that is an admirable goal. However, it seems to me that 
when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, who I think are eminently better positioned to determine what in 
essence are the needs of the Nation's defense, they need to analyze 
risks to the national security of the United States, and it seems to me 
that they, not the Congress, are the individuals who ought to make this 
decision.
  In that respect, I am concerned. I look at the nature of the 
amendment, and the amendment talks about placing this as a priority 
above that established under the provisions of the global military 
force policy, which talks about missions of military operations other 
than war that might involve contact with hostile forces. Now, my 
understanding is that includes, for example, the efforts of the 
military under counterterrorism. We equally believe, obviously, that 
counterterrorism is an incredibly important function. Are we to say 
that using the military second only after war for drug intervention is 
more important than counterterrorism? I do not know. I do not think 
that we should be in that position.
  So I think the amendment is somewhat arbitrary. It is not based on 
any factual assessment of the Department of Defense's needs, nor does 
it take into consideration the Department of Defense's priorities that 
this policy would have.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we give flexibility, 
particularly in dealing with this grave threat, but I am not sure that 
we are in a position to analyze the threat to the national security at 
any given point in time better than those who have all of the 
intelligence resources and who have all of the readiness and 
understanding of what our military forces are capable of at any given 
moment.
  Our military confronts threats around the world, doing more with less 
as they confront increasingly sophisticated and complex enemies. It 
seems to me that the experts and the proven military leaders who we put 
our faith and trust in in terms of the Nation's defense need to make 
these assessments. I do not know that we can make those decisions from 
this chamber on where our troops are needed in terms of equipment and 
resources. It appears to me that our military leaders ought to do that.
  Now, certainly we want to be able to have the armed forces of the 
United States play a greater role in interdiction, but the amendment in 
essence says that it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of 
Defense should revise the priorities for the Department of Defense, and 
that this would be equal to or higher than the priority for the mission 
of military operations, other than war, that might involve contact with 
hostile forces. Well, if that includes counterterrorism, as I 
understand that it does, I am not sure that we can make those 
statements.
  We have seen the vulnerability that the United States has, or for 
that matter any country in the world: recently the bombings in Africa. 
I am not quite sure, while we want to make an important statement, that 
the goal of the gentleman is best achieved in the manner in which he 
has offered it, and I think that there are some serious concerns in 
that regard.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Narcotics is terrorism. Narcotics in America is the most serious 
terrorist threat we face. Narcotics coming across our border have 
basically not only challenged the spirit of American freedom, they have 
eroded not only our health and our youths' initiatives, but they have 
attacked us at the very fiber of our republic.
  Individual freedom is being all that we can possibly be. I support 
this amendment. The tragedy in Congress is that I believe we do not 
even go far enough.
  I will be offering an amendment that will, in fact, complement the 
McCollum amendment to ensure that at least the matter of narcotics is 
treated very seriously and at the highest levels of priority.
  I think it is time to recognize that we do not have to hold a gun to 
someone's head to simply destroy their life. Narcotics have certainly 
torn away of the fabric of the quality of life in America. They have 
destroyed literally communities. They have destroyed our youth, they 
have corrupted our youth, and we have not done everything we possibly 
can.
  So I think this is a mild measure, to a degree, but it is the 
beginning. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) works that way, 
and he is to be given credit for his legislative gains incrementally. I 
am glad to support it and I recommend a strong vote on behalf of the 
McCollum amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere 
Drug Elimination Act.
  Between 1992 and 1995, there has been an increase in teen drug use of 
105 percent. Now, let me repeat that staggering statistic. Mr. 
Chairman, a 105 percent increase in teen drug use in just 3 years. We 
can no longer just stand by and let this happen. It is our obligation 
to our children to address this issue.
  Florida, the State which I represent, is one of our main entries for 
drugs coming into our country. The children in Florida are standing at 
the front door of this crisis. This bill will cut off the supply of 
drugs coming into not just Florida, but into our whole country, which 
means there will be less drugs on the street and the price will 
increase dramatically.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simple economics. If the cost is outrageously 
high, then our youth will not be able to afford to purchase such drugs. 
We have to get serious about winning the war on drugs, and this bill 
does get us going in the right direction. By enhancing our interdiction 
efforts and through international eradication, we can win the war.
  I was recently in Colombia, Guatemala and Costa Rica, and I met with 
the Presidents of those countries, 2 of whom are brand-new. All 3 of 
these men are honest. They are committed to their country's efforts to 
stop the narcotrafficking.

[[Page H7834]]

                              {time}  1230

  But they need our assistance. They need further enhanced assistance 
from our country. This is truly a war, which if we lose, then it will 
cause a continued loss of thousands of our young people. We are losing 
14,000 to 15,000 a year now, and we need to stop this loss of life due 
to this gouge.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think of our American 
children's future and indeed the future of our country and support the 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, not only of this amendment, but in 
support of the direction that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
has taken on this issue. It just seems to me that, when we say 
Department of Defense, that we are talking about national security, we 
are talking about priority, we are talking about what threatens our 
Nation.
  No one can challenge the fact that this poison that has been pouring 
into the United States by the tons each day has been a threat to 
everything that our country stands for and especially the protection of 
our youth.
  Every President that I know, and more particularly President Reagan 
and President Bush, has made this a national foreign policy priority. 
Certainly the Department of Defense has no reason why they should not 
volunteer to make this a priority.
  Certainly the equipment that we have to protect the United States 
against foreign foes can be used to protect us against the flow of 
drugs into this country since we have such sophisticated equipment 
against drug traffickers that are using sophisticated equipment.
  I would like to say that, as we have this amendment that asks the 
Secretary of Defense to make this a priority, I would be supporting 
each and every amendment that would make this a priority with every 
Secretary of every branch of government.
  Why should not the Secretary of Education make drug control and 
reduction of demand a priority? Why should not the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services make drug treatment and drug prevention a priority? 
Why should not the Secretary of State as relates to dealing with 
foreign countries make this a priority? Why should not the Secretary of 
Transportation say that all of those that are involved in 
transportation should be drug free and have it as a priority?
  There is no question that the Secretary of Defense should mean 
exactly what the words say, defense of our great republic against any 
foes that could destroy her.
  So let me congratulate those that worked so hard on this bill and to 
be able to say that whatever resources we have in the military, no 
matter what branch of the military, and even the CIA should be involved 
in determining what can they do to make our country more safe against 
the scourge of drugs.
  So while I support this effort, I hope we continuously see in every 
committee, in every subcommittee, in every cabinet position, in every 
agency, in every department that we say this should be a priority. What 
is the good of a sound economic policy if our young people do not have 
the health in order to enjoy it?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today the chickens have come home to roost. I say that 
because I want to review with you just for a minute where we have been 
on this issue. I was active as a Senate staffer some years ago on this 
issue when the Reagan administration created most of the laws and took 
an active and strong stand towards the question of illegal narcotics.
  I say the chickens have come home to roost because we today see the 
results of a policy that has failed and that has put our Nation and our 
children at risk. We see a policy that was adopted by a President in 
1993 that put in place as the chief health officer of our Nation, the 
Surgeon General, an individual who said just say maybe to drugs.
  We have seen the destruction of the laws which we put on the books to 
certify drug producing countries and make a joke of them. We have seen 
the highest officer of the land say, if I had it to do all over again, 
I would inhale.
  Mr. Chairman, we see the chickens have come home to roost. Let me 
read a few of these statistics. Current Illicit Drug Use Among Our 
Nation's Youth Continues to Skyrocket. This is a report of August 21 of 
1998. Youth aged 12 to 17 using illegal drugs has more than doubled, 
120 percent, a 27 percent increase from 1996 to 1997.
  For kids 12 to 17, these are the latest statistics, first time heroin 
use, which is proven to kill, surged a whopping 875 percent from 1991 
to 1996. The overall number of past month heroin users increased 378 
percent from 1993 to 1997.
  I submit the chickens have come home to roost. When we have a policy 
and we have an administration from 1993 to 1995 that cut our 
interdiction programs, that decimated our source country programs, that 
reduced the military involvement in stopping drugs come into this 
country, which destroyed the Coast Guard's ability to protect our coast 
and areas like Puerto Rico, the chickens have come home to roost, and 
we see the results.
  This bill by my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
is the antidote. It is what the doctor has ordered. It directs our 
resources to the source countries. We know where the drugs are coming 
from, heroin and cocaine. They are coming from Colombia. They are 
coming from Peru. They are coming from Bolivia. And they are being 
transited through Mexico.
  This puts the resources to stop drugs at their source, the most cost 
effective means of stopping drugs. So we have got to put Humpty Dumpty 
back together again. He has fallen off the wall. He has been destroyed. 
But it is going to take this legislation and subsequent legislation 
that we will hear today and tomorrow by this country to refocus our 
energy to stop drugs at their source.
  I do not want to see another headline in my district with another 
teenager, a record number killed, dying a horrible death in central 
Florida, my peaceful central Florida that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum) shares with me. A fluent area, not a ghetto, not an 
urban blighted area, but the suburbs, the heart and core of this Nation 
has now been affected.
  So it is something that really is important that we pass this 
legislation, this cost effective measure that is produced, not only to 
stop drugs at their source by our efforts, but also training those who 
are involved in producing drugs at their source to help us interdict 
this death and destruction that is plaguing our streets and our 
children.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly support what the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum) is doing. One of the things is, we talk about terrorism 
and we talk about drug use. When one talks about 14,000-plus kids and 
other Americans dying on our street corners every year, that is some 
kind of terrorism. That is a terrorism that we face day in and day out.
  I have a brother who teaches in a middle school in Aurora, Illinois, 
who had children killed out of his classroom last year because of drugs 
and gang violence. That is certainly a terrorism that we face.
  In reality, when one looks at the international side, one cannot 
separate drugs and terrorism because the narcotraffickers of South 
America and especially Colombia today, who were once ideologues that 
believed in the fight for a political reason, today are using almost 
$100 million a month in revenue from drugs to be able to move their 
causes.
  So one cannot separate this type of terrorism of kidnapping and 
murder and things like that that goes on in Colombia and Bolivia from 
terrorism or drugs. They are intertwined. When one talks about bin 
Laden in the Middle East, there have been reports that there has been 
trafficking through Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries 
perpetrated by these folks and the profits that they made from drugs 
actually go for terrorism. So really we cannot separate terrorism and 
drugs because they are intertwined.
  We need to allow the armed services, as the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum) has done in his amendment, to weigh this evidence and 
try to make decisions that are good decisions,

[[Page H7835]]

decisions that protect Americans, decisions that stabilize peace and 
tranquility not only in this country but other nations, and I really 
salute the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for doing that.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a clarification, a comment for 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and anybody else here, and 
that is my amendment today is not affecting the actual bill. The 
underlying bill has the sense of the Congress resolution in it that 
says that the question of asset allocation to the Department of Defense 
should be given the same priority as is given to the peacekeeping 
operations just after war, but it does set forth the findings of fact 
that form that predicate. I think we need to state that.
  I think the gentleman has accurately and correctly stated the fact 
that we need to treat this on a wartime footing. It is the same as 
terrorism. It is our kids whose lives are being lost, and while if we 
were really at war against some nation, obviously we would be 
mobilizing and so forth, and that would be a little different and we do 
not ask that people put that over there at the Department of Defense on 
the same level but we are asking in the sense of the Congress that is 
in the bill and supporting it with this amendment findings of fact, 
that the Department of Defense recognize that it does have a high 
priority. It should be up there at least equal to those things they are 
doing elsewhere in the world that are short of war, and I think that is 
very justifiable.
  I was not going to earlier but eventually I intend to ask for a 
recorded vote on this so we can go on the record on it and make sure 
that it does work.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) for yielding to me.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a substitute motion, 
and I am not sure how we can proceed with other amendments if this 
motion is not voted on.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The larger amendment in the nature of a 
substitute pending is the original text under the rule. What was just 
postponed was a request for a vote on an amendment thereto.


                 amendment no. 2 offered by mr. hastert

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hastert:
       Strike section 303 and insert the following:

     SEC. 303. MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES TO CONTROL NARCOTIC 
                   CROPS.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy shall develop a 10-year master plan for 
     the use of mycoherbicides to control narcotic crops 
     (including coca, poppy, and cannabis) in the United States 
     and internationally.
       (b) Coordination.--The Director shall develop the plan in 
     coordination with--
       (1) the Department of Agriculture;
       (2) the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department 
     of Justice;
       (3) the Department of Defense;
       (4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (5) the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement Activities of the Department of State;
       (6) the United States Information Agency; and
       (7) other appropriate agencies.
       (c) Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the Director of 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to 
     Congress a report describing the activities undertaken to 
     carry out this section.

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple amendment. 
It is a technical amendment. It came at the request of the chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture, I think at the request of the Secretary 
of Agriculture. What we have done is asked the director of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy to develop a 10-year master plan for 
the use of mycoherbicides to control narcotic crops of coca, poppy and 
cannabis in the United States and internationally, that is, to do the 
research.
  Before, the original text of the bill asks the Department of 
Agriculture to do it. We think that this keeps it in more the focus of 
the ONDCP and it gives them authority to develop that 10-year plan for 
herbicides and we think that this is probably a correction and 
something that should be done in the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1245


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of title V add the following new section:

     SEC. 503. PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE BY THE ARMED FORCES TO THE 
                   IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND 
                   CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       The Secretary of Defense shall assist in keeping illegal 
     drugs out of the United States by assigning members of the 
     Armed Forces to assist--
       (1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
     preventing the entry of drug traffickers and narcotics 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.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, we just supported the McCollum 
amendment, and I congratulate the gentleman for incremental gains in 
securing America from illegal narcotics.
  International narcotics traffickers are international terrorists. 
Period. Our borders have been overwhelmed by tons and tons of 
narcotics. One hundred percent of all the heroin, 100 percent of all 
cocaine is a stone cold import coming across not only our Mexican 
border but, contrary to what is the popular thought around here, our 
Canadian border as well, that can be assured, and through our many 
ports of entry and other security check points.
  It has been pointed out that 14,000 kids die in America each year and 
the majority of them are victims of international narcotic traffickers 
who made available powerful drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, who speaks today for the youth of America with noses 
running, eyes watering, stomach cramps, bowels breaking loose, pain and 
suffering, because no one really has ever really waged a war on drugs, 
as far as I am concerned?
  There are some in the Congress that want to hand out free needles to 
make this destruction somewhat safer. Beam me up, literally. There is 
no intelligent life left here. Demand reduction is great. I would say 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) education is great. 
Treatment? Cops? More cops, great. Psychiatrists? Psychologists? 
Absolutely marvelous. Slogans? Slogans are good. I am for them. 
Counselors? Teachers? Yes, we can use more. Chemotherapy? Methadone, 
use of narcotics to blunt the effect of narcotics? It has its place. 
Halfway houses? Hospitals? Free clinics? All great, I support them. 
Task forces? How many more blue ribbon panels will we support? I 
support them. They are all good; they are not good enough.

[[Page H7836]]

  There was an amendment to the national security bill that the other 
body would not accept. It was abandoned, and I surely accepted that. It 
took 11 years to change the burden of proof in a civil tax case. 
Frankly, in my opinion there is not enough balsam in the United States 
Senate to do anything about this.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the House of Representatives has been right on 
target. We have troops receiving a check from Uncle Sam in Frankfurt, 
cashing that check, going to the dinner theater. All the Traficant 
amendment says is the Secretary of Defense shall assist in keeping 
illegal drugs out of the United States by assigning members to the 
respective divisions to give it a hand. Now, if that is earth 
shattering, so be it. But I am going to ask a for vote again.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not waging a war on drugs if we are continuing 
to treat addicts. It is time to deal with the supply side of this 
issue. The greater the supply, the lower the price. The lower the 
price, the younger the initiate. The younger the initiate, the greater 
the problem.
  We can rehabilitate a 40-year-old alcoholic. How do we rehabilitate a 
15-year-old heroin addict? It is not about rehabilitation, it is about 
habilitation. We are wrong. It is time to do something.
  I am glad to see that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) former 
chairman of the narcotics committee of the United States Congress, 
supports the initiative. I believe everybody with some common sense is 
beginning to recognize that all facets of our government have to assist 
with this tremendous problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Congress to once again stand up, 
the House of Representatives, and take the lead on straightening out 
this problem in our Nation.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment. 
It is very straightforward. It simply says the Department of Defense 
and the military shall assist, and the word is ``assist,'' no 
particular details to it, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
and Customs in their efforts at antinarcotics.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is extremely important, particularly with 
regard to the Customs question. In this bill what we are proposing to 
do is to, in essence, put into the hands of Customs the full force of 
the air control and surveillance that we want to have, not only at our 
direct border but also over the source country region and in the 
transit zone, in the sense that they would get 10 planes, specifically 
designed P-3s with AWACS-type radar on them, to be the eyes that can 
look down and survey the area of the waters, that before these planes 
that might be coming to the United States with drugs can get here in 
the air over the source countries of Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, to 
keep track of all these craft that might be coming our way by air or 
maybe even by sea, since those planes have some of that capability too.
  We are asking them to take care, Customs to take charge of all of 
this. We are giving them 10 more chase planes as well, a different form 
of the P-3 plane, adapted a little differently, asking them to go out 
and chase anybody that they find who is coming across with these drugs 
or coming our way from the source countries. They are not necessarily 
going to be as up to speed on doing all of the work in this regard as 
we would like them to be, because in the past, AWACS planes, the big 
radar planes, are and have been a military asset. They have been part 
of our Department of Defense inventory. Occasionally now, and in the 
past very often, but occasionally, like one-half a day a month I am 
told, an AWACS plane is on loan for our Southern Command to go down and 
take a little survey run to see if they can spot any of these planes 
flying around, trafficking in drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, what Customs is going to have is a fleet of planes. It 
is going to have the money in this bill to be able to man those planes 
and operate those planes 24 hours a day around the clock over the 
source countries of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru, in the region, in the 
Atlantic, in the Pacific, in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, 
wherever that is needed; to fly that region; to map every single small, 
private plane flying in the region and keep track of it at all times; 
to be able to identify those planes, and then be able to communicate 
with other intelligence that information needed by the source countries 
in order for them to be able to force down planes that are identified 
as drug trafficking planes and to give our Customs forces, their 
adjunct sister force, the ability to go chase any of those planes that 
are coming across open waters or coming across our borders.
  Now, that is an awesome task. In the past, to whatever extent that 
task has been performed, Customs has done some of it, but our 
Department of Defense has done a lot of it. So it is very appropriate 
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is offering this amendment 
today that says that the Department of Defense shall assist Customs in 
its effort at antinarcotics, because that assistance may well be 
training. It may well be helping them with the details of what they 
need to know and how to do these things. It may well be some minor, 
albeit not large and expensive, item of equipment that they need on an 
emergency basis for assistance.
  We do not know what it may be, but there needs to be in this bill, 
and I think the gentleman is making a great addition, an explicit 
direction to do this. This is different from the amendment we just took 
a vote on on the asset allocation reprioritization. That is very 
important too, that they make a policy change to do that so that there 
are assets available and other things that we do not know what 
equipment it might be, manpower or whatever of the Department of 
Defense itself. That priority needs to be changed so it cannot get lost 
down there somewhere.

  This is different. This is saying they shall go forward and assist in 
these ways so they have specific authorization, if it is not already 
clear in law, and I do not know that it is, that they will help Customs 
do these things and, to some extent, Immigration and Naturalization and 
Customs.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. I thank him for 
offering it. We need to wage a real war against drugs, and only if we 
have the Department of Defense at least involved in assisting can that 
be done.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, back when I was a freshman in this institution, we 
passed on the floor an amendment that I put forth, and that was to 
strike the provisions which prevented the military from getting 
involved in law enforcement, with a specific reference and specific 
thought towards what they have since contributed since we have modified 
the posse comitatus laws of this country. That is a giant step forward.
  Before we passed that particular amendment in this Congress, and the 
final passage was in the next Congress because we could not talk the 
Senate into such a radical position, can my colleagues imagine where we 
would be now without even the surveillance activity of the Armed Forces 
with the sophistication that the bad guys are using to bring drugs into 
this country?
  There is no question in my mind that any country in this world that 
protects or refuses to cooperate in harboring the drug dealers and the 
drug industry, whether they be growers or processors, they are 
terrorist nations by allowing these things to continue within their own 
borders.
  Actually, I would like to see at a future date, and I believe we will 
see at a future date, going further than what the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant) wants to do in this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
when we can go in and take out laboratories that are producing weapons 
of mass destruction, germ warfare, chemical warfare, all of these 
things, where we are going in and stopping the spread of it in Iraq or 
Libya, wherever we see it on the face of this globe. What is more 
terrifying to the future of this country or more destructive to our 
youth than the processing of drugs and then turning a blind eye as they 
come into our shores?
  I think it is a good amendment. Anything we can do to further the 
role of the military in this regard is to the advantage of our country 
and I would urge the acceptance of the amendment.

[[Page H7837]]

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of understanding the gentleman's 
amendment, I would ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for 
clarification. Can the gentleman tell me, is he proposing what he has 
proposed in the past, that the Secretary of Defense shall assist by 
placing troops on the border? What exactly did the gentleman have in 
mind?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, it does not specify exactly what that 
assistance is. It just makes in order the understanding that the 
Congress of the United States wants the Secretary of Defense and our 
military to be one of the participants in the effort and to assist 
where they can. It does not make specifications.
  It differs from the previous amendment, which called for specific 
training, specific activities when assigned; the training, the law 
enforcement aspect. This just calls for an assistance in a broad term 
and broad form, and a commitment to assist, and a direction and mandate 
of the Congress that the Defense Department shall assist where they can 
and where it is acceptable to do so.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to know is what is the 
procedure to amend the amendment to make sure that we are talking about 
assistance from the Department of Defense by way of what the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum) mentioned in terms of equipment, in terms 
of being able to track planes and those things, and specifically not 
troops on the border?

                              {time}  1300

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Traficant amendment is 
subject to amendment, so the gentleman from Texas would have to draft 
an amendment and, of course, send it to the desk.
  Mr. REYES. And Mr. Chairman, what is the time frame for that? Do I 
have to do it immediately?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time frame is very soon; during the 
debate of the amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
has offered, which is right now.
  Mr. REYES. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the gentleman for 
clarifying for me his amendment.
  Part of the concern that I have is we just recently settled with the 
family in Redford, Texas, $1.9 million for the death of their son, who 
died as a result of an incident along the U.S.-Mexican border which, 
unfortunately, was involved with specifically military units on the 
border patrolling in assistance to law enforcement.
  I have the background of 26\1/2\ years of Federal law enforcement on 
the U.S.-Mexican border. I am very concerned about periodically the 
attempts in this House, in the people's House, to put forth a policy, a 
law, a procedure, or a process where we would make such a situation 
where military troops would be on our border to help law enforcement.
  I am reminded of the analogy where we have a very rich dessert that 
looks good, it tastes good and it feels good. But although while we are 
eating it we think it is good for us, it does not have any nutritional 
value. It adds fat content to our body, and, ultimately is very 
detrimental to us. And that is exactly the point I want to make here 
this afternoon about putting troops on the border.
  If the amendment is to bring military assets, such as radar, such as 
being able to track airplanes, such as being able to assist law 
enforcement in identifying routes but specifically excluding military 
patrols on the border, then I do not have any objection to it. In fact, 
in the past it has been a very effective policy. I worked on the 
border. I worked in south Florida. I can attest to the fact that we do 
need that kind of capability.
  One other concern that I want to bring forth here is that we cannot 
possibly have it both ways. I just came here from a hearing where we 
listened to testimony from U.N. Inspector Scott Ritter about the 
situation in Iraq. Part of the concern and the testimony that we are 
hearing now is the readiness factor that we have right now and our 
inability at this point, and the concern from the national security 
perspective, that we would not be able to do a Gulf War type operation 
today.
  So we cannot have it both ways. We cannot continue to bring forth, 
because it sounds good, because it feels good, a proposal to have the 
military participate in the war on drugs and then expect them to do and 
carry out their mandates.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the gentleman's amendment. I have 
been working on this not as long as some, but the last 4 years, and we 
see in the eastern Pacific where cocaine would come up from Mexico or 
would come up from Colombia or would come up from Peru unfettered, 
unstopped. Why? Because we have not one ship, Navy ship, Coast Guard 
ship, or anything else in the eastern Pacific to stop trainloads of 
cocaine in the bottom of fishing boats and luxury liners and freighters 
and cargo containers. Even though we have the intelligence to do it, we 
cannot do it. The resources are not there.
  I have seen classified programs in the eastern Pacific and the 
Caribbean, both in the western Caribbean and the eastern Caribbean, 
dropped. They are not there. Why? We do not have the resources to do 
it. Meaning we have literally tons and tons, and hundreds of tons of 
cocaine and marijuana and, in some cases, heroin coming up through our 
island chains through the Bahamas, through Puerto Rico, through the 
Dominican Republic. Why? Because we do not have the resources.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who spoke before, talked 
about having an AWACS one-half a day a month. If there are 30 days in a 
month, round it off, and we have a half a day, that means that any 
narco-trafficker, moving narcotics by air or by sea from Mexico or 
Colombia or through the Mediterranean or through the eastern Pacific, 
has 59 out of 60 chances of success because we do not have the AWACS to 
do that.
  Now, do we need AWACS? No, all the AWACS are in the Middle East or 
they are up in Alaska. Fine. But we do have P-3s. I was in Monthan 
Davis Air Force Base last winter just to see what inventory we had 
there. We have P-3s by the score, with the radar domes and everything 
else we see sitting on the ground. They are there. The resources are 
there. Why not be able to use the resources that we already have to put 
eyes in the sky and stop the drugs?
  Finally, I have to address the problem that the gentleman just talked 
about. I was in Texas. I spent 4 long days in Del Rio and Eagle Pass; 
talked to a lot of people; talked to ranchers; talked to people who 
have kids in school. It was 115 degrees. And I tell my colleagues, that 
is a tough place to live. Walking out in that desert, and whatever else 
it is, there is something that will either scratch you, bite you or eat 
you. Unfortunately, we are losing scores of people who are dying in 
that desert, being brought across the border by what they call 
``coyotes,'' and are forced to swim and they are drowning. They are 
moving through that desert and they are dying, but a lot of those 
people are dying with backpacks on their back with illegal narcotics.
  Now, we can have observers helping law enforcement sitting there 
watching. I had ranchers tell me, a group of about 50 ranchers that 
came and sat and we had a long discussion one evening, it was in Del 
Rio, Texas, and they were saying, ``We do not understand.'' They feel 
the United States Government has abandoned them. Those were their 
words. They feel we do not care because we have taken the troops away 
from the border. And they are saying that they cannot leave a tractor 
sit out in their field, these ranchers right along the Rio Grande 
River, because people come over at night, steal the tractors, steal the 
parts, and they are gone.
  They talked about people shooting into their houses, into their 
ranches. And these are people that have been there for five and six 
generations and are losing the ability of having the

[[Page H7838]]

right of their land, the right of their homes, because there is nobody 
there to protect them.
  Now, what has happened, and this meeting was set up by the Border 
Patrol to sit down and be able to talk to these people, the same people 
the gentleman worked with over the years. And I am not sure if the 
outcome of the meeting was what the outcome of the meeting was 
intended, but this was the story that rolled out. These people feel 
that they are abandoned American citizens because there is nobody there 
to protect them. The Border Patrol can do some things, but they are 
rolling along. They are not sitting there and being observers hour 
after hour.
  We need the help. If the Secretary of Defense deems it necessary, if 
he deems it wise to do, we need to give people the options to do these 
things.


    Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                               Traficant

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reyes to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Traficant:
       On line 7, strike ``members of''.
       On line 14, add the following new sentence, ``Nothing in 
     this amendment shall be construed to authorize the deployment 
     of the Members of the Armed Forces in contravention of United 
     States law for the purposes of this amendment.''

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, in my 5 minutes I wish to 
address some of the comments my colleague from Illinois made.
  I just want to, first of all, tell my colleagues that one of the 
things we need to understand and remember here is that if the intent is 
to control and to stop the flow of narcotics into this country, then we 
have to realize that 90 percent of the drugs that flow across the U.S.-
Mexican border, 90 percent of the drugs that flow across the U.S.-
Mexican border, come through the ports of entry. Statistics show us 
that only 10 percent come in between the ports of entry, and have 
nothing to do with some of the concerns that the gentleman raises.
  That is point number one. Point number two is that we in this 
Congress, for the last several years, and for 2 or 3 years henceforth, 
have taken it upon ourselves to increase the number of resources 
specifically intended for the United States Border Patrol. We have 
doubled their force. By the year 2001, we are going to have a Border 
Patrol force that will exceed 10,000 officers.
  I am a cosponsor of a bill that was introduced, bipartisan bill 
introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that states 
that we want to take the Border Patrol up to 20,000. I think that if we 
will continue on that course, giving the United States Border Patrol 
the resources necessary to do the job, it does several things.
  First of all, we have trained, professional Federal law enforcement 
agents that understand and are recognized as being part of the law 
enforcement presence along the border. They understand the culture, 
they are bilingual, they are expected to be there, and it makes sense. 
That is part of what I think we ought to be about in terms of 
addressing the strategy in between the ports of entry.
  Second thing is that I am also a cosponsor of a bill that will give 
additional resources to Customs. We have to understand that in order to 
be successful at the ports of entry, we have to do two things. First of 
all, we have to send a strong law enforcement presence; and, secondly, 
we have to facilitate commerce. That has been part of the argument and 
part of the frustration that I have faced here, and other Members from 
the southern border, from the U.S.-Mexican border have faced here in 
this Congress, is that we want and expect people to settle for 
different rules between the United States and Mexico and between Canada 
and Mexico. That was the premise of the argument in section 110.
  So what we are trying to do is put forth some public policy and 
resources that, first of all, do the job; secondly, do not endanger 
border communities; and, third, have people understand that there is a 
better way of doing things.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the gentleman be addressing the amendment that the 
gentleman has offered as well?
  Mr. REYES. Yes, I will.


  Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes to the Amendment 
                        Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, at this point I want to ask unanimous 
consent to make a technical modification to my perfecting amendment to 
change the last word ``amendment'' to say ``section''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Modification offered by Mr. Reyes of Texas to his 
     amendment:
       Strike out the word ``amendment'' in both places that it 
     appears and insert in lieu thereof ``section''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, what is my remaining time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute of time 
remaining.
  Mr. REYES. Again, in summary, and again concluding as to the 
perfecting amendment that I have before this House, I hope that this 
body understands that there is a reasonable way to address the problems 
that we face against narcotics trafficking and against those that would 
perpetrate criminal acts against border residents.
  I understand. I spent 26\1/2\ years working the area. I understand 
what my colleague from Illinois is talking about. But I think that we 
have to respect a process that takes into account the fact that border 
residents are United States citizens also, and they deserve and should 
expect the same kinds of protections and the same kinds of rights and 
privileges that the rest of the country has.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the perfecting amendment, or 
the secondary amendment. Basically a couple of things. The gentleman 
from Texas said that 90 percent of all the drugs go through ports of 
entry. We are doing a better job quite frankly because we have given 
Customs better and more technical equipment and this bill does that, 
too. So we have a parallel interest here. But as you start to shut down 
the ports of entry and do a better job, especially in places like El 
Paso and Laredo and on and on down the line, the next place and the 
next porous area along the border is the Del Rios and the Eagle Passes 
and the place where there are no ports of entry, so these are the areas 
where they are coming through and it is tougher to do it. You do not 
bring it through by a truckload, you put it in backpacks on 20 people 
and have them march across the river, go through the desert to the next 
highway. That is what is happening. That is a fact. When they do that, 
they trample across people's property. They are outlaws in the first 
place. They are taking and shooting at people's homes, moving them out, 
terrorizing people along there.
  We are just saying, a simple fact, that if the Secretary of Defense 
is asked and has an option to put people down there to help observe and 
help the Border Patrol, it was interesting because my discussions with 
the Border Patrol and especially in Del Rio and Eagle Pass is that they 
thought they worked well with the military observers that were there.
  Mr. Chairman, I regretfully oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the Reyes perfecting 
amendment and in support of the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have lived in a land of ``maybe" for 5\1/2\ years 
now. We have lived in a land of we should do this and we should do that 
but we have not done this or that. Ladies and gentlemen, we have seen 
again the results, and I do not want to repeat them, but the results 
are devastating on our children and on the flow of drugs and illegal 
narcotics into this country.
  The question before us is, shall we use the military along our 
borders to protect our borders in the interest of national security? I 
strongly support the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Mr. Chairman, 
if this Nation has

[[Page H7839]]

ever been under attack, it is now. If you do not count 15,000 deaths 
per year and add up in the last 5\1/2\ years the number of innocent 
Americans and mostly young people who have died on the streets and in 
our neighborhoods and in our communities, you cannot say that is not 
war. The total is more than the casualties, the fatalities in the 
Vietnam War and the Korean War and in the Persian Gulf War. I submit 
that we have 2 million Americans in prison behind bars locked up at 
public expense. Any sheriff, any law enforcement officer will tell you 
that 70 percent of them are there because of use of illegal narcotics. 
If this is not a national security threat, if we have not seen enough 
lives destroyed in our communities, whether it is Plano, Texas; Los 
Angeles, Detroit or my central Florida, I do not know when we will 
recognize the problem. And here we are in our Nation's capital, the 
United States of America, Washington, the District of Columbia. I have 
been coming here for 18 years. And every week I have read the 
obituaries. Every year 3 to 400 young black Americans have been 
slaughtered in the streets here because people will not stand up and 
take a stand against illegal narcotics and trafficking. That is 
thousands of lives lost in this Nation. And here we are debating 
``shall'' or ``should.'' It is time to stop playing games. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is correct.
  Fifty percent of the drugs have come in from Mexico. Here are the 
reports, we have held hearing after hearing. Here are the reports. 
There are facts. The drugs are coming in across the borders. We must 
use every possible means to stop them. In this poll-driven city, 
everyone relies on polls. Here is a poll taken September 15, 1998, 60 
percent of Americans say the use of military patrols along the border 
to stop drugs is either an excellent or very good idea. So hide behind 
polls but do what we need to do, because if drug dealers were to lob 
missiles across our borders, they could not do any more damage than 
they have done to this Nation's capital, to the streets of America. So 
do not come up with these last-minute ``should,'' ``maybe'' or 
``possibly.'' This is a time for action. We need to defeat the Reyes 
amendment. We need to support our colleague on the other side of the 
aisle and let us go forward and stop this travesty on our youth and 
this Nation.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. That was a very passionate speech. Let me just talk about the 
fact that we do have a real serious problem in this country, but part 
of that seriousness is taking an obligation that we also have a problem 
in this country, in this country in terms of what exists in our area 
and providing that assistance to those individuals. I would ask to 
those individuals who stand up here and talk to also inquire how many 
times they are willing to fund those programs that are out there and 
those youngsters that are in need of those programs to be able to 
respond to some of their concerns and some of the problems that they 
have.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on National Security and a 
member representing communities along the U.S. border, I represent two 
counties right on the border in the Rio Grande. I oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman that would allow the troops to go in there and 
I support the amendment, the substitute that is being submitted by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). An increase of U.S. troops on the 
border with Mexico is a dangerous proposal that would put border 
residents in danger and reduce military readiness. I would repeat that 
again. It is going to reduce military readiness. Our military is the 
world's best trained fighting force. They are not police officers. They 
are not Border Patrol agents. They are trained to fight. We put our own 
citizens at risk by deploying them on American soil. I represent two 
counties, as I indicated, right on the Mexican border. In the town hall 
meetings that I have had during the month of August, I had 11 town hall 
meetings during the month of August, not once did anyone raise that 
this is a key issue that we need to do. In fact most of my constituents 
do not approve putting troops on the border. We do have existing troops 
that are working there now that are working directly with the Border 
Patrol, that are working there directly with the Customs. Those 
individuals are doing a tremendous job. But to put them in the way that 
we have had them in the past that has created problems is not the way 
that we should approach this.
  Again I would indicate to the gentleman that spoke before, it is fine 
to scapegoat other countries, but we have a responsibility to take and 
fight it here at home, also, because our citizens are the ones that are 
also choosing to also take those drugs. Border residents just like 
everyone else want to stop the influx of illegal drugs. They believe in 
stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants. But the solution they 
support is more Border Patrol that are well qualified, more Customs 
Service agents which we have failed to put enough money to assure that 
we have those Customs individuals. The Customs Service is the one that 
opens those trunks, is the one that looks into those cars. Those are 
the individuals that we should be supporting. Those are the individuals 
that we should be increasing their budgets. That is where the trade has 
increased and doubled and tripled in the last few years, but we have 
failed to put enough resources for the Customs where it is needed.
  In the last two years, an 18-year-old young man, an American citizen, 
was shot to death by a Marine on the border in Redford, Texas. That 
particular case after it came out, and this was a tragic incident that 
highlights the complexity of this issue, and places our soldiers on the 
border and the potential harm to other residents. The military itself 
has come back after the settlement, has indicated that it was a very 
serious mistake to even put those Marines there on the border. They 
were there in camouflage as they worked the border. They shot this 
innocent young man who was in high school and he was out there herding 
his goats. They shot him. They indicated there after the settlement, 
and it is no wonder, that the Department of Defense and the Department 
of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, all of them, 
oppose this process. The Border Patrol, they have nearly 8,000 agents 
patrolling the national borders. Congress has authorized an additional 
1,000 agents up to the year 2001. We are going to have an additional 
1,000 agents on the border. Last year the San Antonio Express-News 
pointed out that the Redford incident may be isolated but the warning 
against deploying soldiers into an area lawfully and peacefully used by 
private citizens needs to be seriously looked at.
  Mr. Chairman, again let me inform my colleagues that I serve on the 
Subcommittee on Military Readiness of the Committee on National 
Security. At the time when readiness concerns are at their highest and 
with troops sent for extended periods to Bosnia and elsewhere, we 
cannot afford to pull additional men and women away from their posts to 
do work that Border Patrol agents should be doing. It is unfair to our 
fighting men and women and it does harm to our national interests.
  I ask that we support the Reyes alternative.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when this issue last came before the House in May, I 
said it was a wrongheaded measure. My sentiments have not changed, not 
one iota in the intervening months. As I said when I spoke at that 
time, all of our budgets are tight. I certainly have been trying to 
find precious dollars for items that I deem of much higher priority 
than this, items such as funding higher education, programs which are 
badly needed throughout the country.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I can 
vouch for that. Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is 
proposing asking us to fork over tens of millions of dollars for a 
program that is not only costly but unnecessary. Putting troops on our 
borders is simply a bad use of government resources and taxpayer 
dollars. These funds could better be used for training our armed forces 
for military readiness, not performing the jobs of Border Patrol 
agents.
  This country already benefits from the work of highly qualified, 
highly trained Border Patrol agents who courageously and skillfully 
enforce our Nation's laws and protect our borders on a daily basis. I 
have said it before

[[Page H7840]]

and I will say it again, to replace these INS agents with military 
troops is simply a bad idea.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote 
against the Traficant amendment today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the things that 
my colleagues will recall, Mr. Chairman, I started out by asking my 
colleague from Ohio specifically what he intended or what the intent of 
his amendment was. Based on that conversation, I offered my perfecting 
amendment. The issue here, and this should be of concern to all of us, 
are those that think that we here in this body should adhere to a quick 
fix at any price. We have already seen one young man killed on the 
Texas-Mexico border as a result of military troops on the border. I 
would ask my colleagues that are so intent on protecting the 
neighborhoods, does that mean that they are willing to deploy United 
States military resources to the neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. and 
Florida and Kansas and Illinois and the areas that they represent? I 
think not. We cannot afford it. We should not subject neighborhoods to 
that kind of military presence. Yet that is the very thing that they 
are proposing in the context of the amendment that is offered that they 
are opposed to a perfecting amendment that would preclude border 
neighborhoods from seeing and having to deal with troops on our 
borders.
  Part of the process of understanding those that want that quick fix, 
because of what we need to clarify here is that it is not 
inconsequential that those of us who represent border communities are 
opposed to military troops in our communities and along our borders, 
the areas that we serve, the areas that we represent. No one should be 
enamored with a quick fix. No one should say, it is okay to put U.S. 
soldiers in jeopardy both professionally, legally and personally by 
deploying them to the border to do counterdrug operations.

                              {time}  1330

  That is not what they were trained for, that is not what they want, 
that is not what anyone wants that is involved in drug enforcement. INS 
does not support it, the Attorney General does not support it, the 
administration does not support it. Those of us that know and 
understand and have worked, not have gone for 3 or 4 days and suffered 
115 degree heat and the bites of insects and everything else, those of 
us that have worked that area, in my case 26\1/2\ years, and in the 
cases of America's finest law enforcement officers that are serving us 
very well today, day in day out, 24 hours a day, they do not want 
troops on the border to complicate an already complicated and 
controversial part of the legacy of this country.
  We should understand that there are no quick fixes. Quick fixes come 
with a tremendous cost. It has already cost the life of an 18-year-old 
high school student in Redford, Texas. I would submit that those of us 
that are so concerned about the deaths in this country throughout the 
neighborhood should take that into account.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to propound a question to the author of 
the main amendment, if he would be willing to respond. He and I have 
discussed this on many, many occasions, and I understand the 
seriousness of the problem that we are dealing with here, and I support 
the gentleman's amendment, as I have in the past on other times, that 
we have this debate before us.
  But I listened to the debate of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), 
and I would have to tell my colleagues that I have tremendous respect 
for him, I have listened to his debates at great length, not only today 
but at previous times. He and I have the privilege of serving together 
on the Board of Visitors at the Air Force Academy, and his 
presentations are always very well thought out, very sincere, and his 
questions are right on target.
  But today I have this question, I want to confirm this. It is my 
understanding that the Traficant amendment does not specify that there 
would be U.S. troops placed on the border.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman if he would respond to 
that.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment does not mandate 
troops on the border but does not limit any action taken by the 
Secretary of Defense and our military to assist in drugs crossing our 
border.
  So under the Traficant amendment, if the administration had so 
chosen, it has the option of using every asset they have to combat this 
problem. Under the Reyes amendment, they would limit it and take away 
the assignation of troops, if they would wish to assign to our borders, 
and I believe it is a killing amendment, I believe it is designed to 
simply kill the total flexibility of the Pentagon to aid in the matter.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
response, and I maintain my support for the gentleman's amendment and 
in opposition to the amendment to his amendment.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that as I read the 
bill and as I read some of the substitutes and some of the amendments 
that will be offered, there are quite a few references to the 
Department of Defense, the transfer of assets and the distribution of 
authorizing funds from a Defense Department account to a nonDefense 
Department account. And I just wanted to make the case to my colleagues 
that yesterday we appointed conferees to go to work with the Senate on 
the defense appropriations bill, and as we talk about any legislation 
that authorizes additional spending, we need to know that as we go to 
conference with the Senate now, we are approximately $5 billion apart 
between the two houses, and we do have, as my colleagues know, a cap 
that was set by the budget agreement of last year. And so we need to be 
very careful about what types of mandated Defense Department spending 
that we deal with here.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Committee on National Security, 
and I do not know how many of my colleagues have had a chance to look 
at the military report that came out just recently. A military report 
earlier this month found that the marines involved in the fatal 
shooting on the border were not adequately trained for anti-drug 
operations that place combat-ready troops amongst civilians. The report 
found that the mission appears to have been viewed at every level of 
Marine Corps command as more of a training opportunity than a real 
world deployment. The failure to appreciate the difference has tragic 
consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, I not only served in the military, I was in law 
enforcement for 14 years, and there is a difference being sheriff, with 
all due respect to my good friend, we both were sheriffs, in middle 
America than being a sheriff in a district that is very, very close to 
Mexico.
  We talk about drug trafficking, we talk about illegal aliens coming 
into this country. What have we done about consumption? If we do not 
have consumption, and it is not only the United States, other countries 
are beginning to experience, and at one point they were considering 
only as being transshipment points. But it has changed now. Now 
Columbia, Costa Rica and other countries are beginning to have problems 
with consumption as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is something that we are going to have to work on 
together.
  So, I have a lot of respect for my good friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) but I do not think that the answer is putting 
troops on the border, even at the discretion of the Secretary of 
Defense.
  So at this time I would just ask my colleagues to look back and see 
what has happened. Read the military report and see what it says. The 
training, my colleagues, is totally different.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it was an 
unfortunate situation, tragic situation, that happened in Redford, 
Texas. I do not think anybody debates that. But we have tragic 
situations all over this country in my district, in my colleagues' 
districts, everywhere we are where kids

[[Page H7841]]

are getting killed either by gang violence tied with drugs or by drugs 
themselves. So the teenager in Redford, Texas, who actually shot three 
times at the servicemen who were doing observations there, that was 
unfortunate. But there was three shots fired at those troops.
  But let us look at and talk about this. What this allows is JTF-6 has 
basically suspended intelligence operations along the border. Last year 
they did 350 surveillance operations in conjunction with the Border 
Patrol and Customs and everybody else that made this system work, and 
now that action is largely suspended.
  And if we talk about education, we should spend dollars for 
education, we can spend a lot of dollars for education, but as long as 
those kids have drugs in the classroom and those schools are in 
jeopardy of being shot up, I will tell my colleagues all the dollars in 
education does not do any good, at least where my brother teaches, in 
Aurora, Illinois.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, in the time that I have remaining, I would 
like to underscore what the gentleman from Illinois said in opposition 
to the amendment to the Traficant amendment.
  We have technical equipment out there, sophisticated defense-oriented 
equipment out there, that really needs the people in the Defense 
Department, our troops, to be able to monitor them and to operate and 
to be able to work in concert with law enforcement officials. And there 
is nothing that says that we cannot train some of our military 
personnel in law enforcement. We do it all the time with our military 
police. There is no reason we cannot cross-train these people.
  The Traficant amendment does not mandate troops to the border; let us 
get this out of the way. But if my colleagues want to mandate that we 
can not in any way use our troops along the border, then support the 
amendment to the Traficant amendment which, as the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant) says, is a killer amendment. It is a poison pill to the 
Traficant amendment, and I think it would certainly kill this amendment 
which is well thought out, when it is put in place. It does not mandate 
the placement of troops, and I would hope that we would defeat the 
amendment to the Traficant amendment and then support the Traficant 
amendment.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes) in supporting his amendment to the Traficant amendment. I know 
my colleague, my other colleague from Texas who is here, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), was a former sheriff like my colleague from 
Ohio is a former sheriff; but the background that I know of Congressman 
Reyes, and I knew of him long before he decided to run for Congress, he 
was an INS officer not only in the El Paso district, but also in south 
Texas a few years ago, and he showed us how we can handle the problem 
with illegal immigration.
  He created the hold-the-line program that now INS is doing in 
California, and they are doing in south Texas and the Rio Grande Valley 
without military presence. He showed us how to do it, and that is why 
it is so important that we listen to his expertise in law enforcement 
and not necessarily even my colleague from Texas or my colleague from 
Ohio, because as my colleague from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) mentioned, it is 
different to be a sheriff in middle America or even a sheriff in Texas 
than it is to be a law enforcement officer charged with the border 
protection that the INS does.
  The hold-the-line was successful without military personnel. We have 
military personnel now on the border, and we know the tragedy that 
happened. That was just one tragedy, and one tragedy is too many, 
particularly the incident. And I know I heard from my colleagues that 
that young man took a couple of shots at somebody that was following.
  Well, I also know, coming from Texas, the difference between a 22 
rifle that a young man a 16-, 17-, 18-year-old may be using and someone 
carrying an M-16. So we know the difference between a 22 shell that 
does not have the velocity or the threat that maybe a bigger weapon 
does.
  The concern I have is that we already have them for detection. They 
need to have more oversight there, more civilian cooperation, but that 
is why I support the Reyes amendment. We have the way that can be done, 
the success that can be done, and this Congress has passed every 
session more INS agents to go to the border and to institute hold-the-
line from the Rio Grande all the way out to the Pacific Ocean. We just 
have to put the resources there and not bring our military to have to 
guard our borders.
  The United States has a great tradition of military only being used 
in national emergencies. Now I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) will make that case, and I have some constituents who are 
concerned about illegal immigration, but we have a way to solve it 
using civilian personnel without using the military.
  And one last thing before I yield to my colleague from Texas. We also 
have a concern that our military is being overutilized or used in 
functions that they should not be done, not only around the world, but 
I think this is another case that we may be over-extending the military 
commitment that our country needs in using it to be a border patrol, 
and we can do that with civilian authority and keep our military highly 
trained to protect our Nation from terrorists and from foreign enemies 
and not just do civilian police work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from San 
Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to add, I think of anyone 
here I think I am probably the only one that has worked as a case 
worker. I had a caseload of over 60 heroin addicts, and I worked for 
about 3 years with them. I worked about 2 years with adolescent 
substance abuse, and we do have a very serious problem. And one of 
those areas is in our backyard where we really need to come down, and I 
am going to give my colleagues one example:
  In Bexar County during the 1970s, it was occasionally, every time the 
D.A. came up for reelection, most of my addicts were picked up, in all 
honesty, and those were some of the individuals that, yes, they might 
have been selling and, yes, they might have been using. But they were 
the ones that were fixing, they were not the ones who had the money, 
they were not the ones making the big profits.
  There is a need for us to really look at our own backyards and go 
after those individuals that are making those millions. When that money 
comes in, there is someone there that is capable of dishing out several 
million dollars to get involved. Those are the ones that we need to get 
after, those are the ones that we need to make sure that we go after.
  The other thing that I wanted to share with my colleagues, I think 
there has been some discussion talked about the fact that the military 
can provide assistance, and they are. They are doing a great job there 
with the Customs, they are doing a great job there in the form of 
assistance, but not in the form of troops.
  We have a real serious situation with the budget, and it is time, as 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) has indicated, and I am also in 
the Committee on National Security, and we recognize the importance of 
the fact that we are real tight when it comes to the budget. But 
putting troops on our border is extremely costly and is a bad use of 
our scarce resources, and I would ask for support.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Reyes amendment and in 
support of the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 3400, the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act. However, I do with some disappointment over how the 
bill was handled.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, our 
subcommittee did not have the normal opportunity to hold hearings on 
this bill or to spend some time discussing the various provisions of 
the bill. That being said, I am still cosponsoring this legislation.
  I certainly support any effort we can make to enhance our fight 
against illegal narcotics. I do not know of any

[[Page H7842]]

Member in this body who would be opposed to making resources available 
for this effort. H.R. 3400 aims to reduce the drug flow into the United 
States by 80 percent over the next 3 years. This legislation is vital 
if we are going to stem the flow of drugs into our country and to 
protect our citizens.
  This bill is plain and simple. It provides increased resources for 
international interdiction and eradication programs of the 
antinarcotics effort. This bill provides increased funding for 
alternative development programs which must be provided to convince 
coca growers that they can make a livelihood by producing other 
products.
  Finally, the bill provides much-needed assistance to primary source 
nations such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia to help them fight drugs. 
Demand reduction and domestic law enforcement are important parts of 
our anti-drug strategy, but we can no longer allow eradication and 
interdiction to lag behind.
  We need to get back on track with a balanced anti-drug program that 
makes attacking drugs at their source and stopping their shipments a 
top priority.
  This legislation will clearly help make a dent in the fight on drugs, 
and I urge its support.
  Now, despite my strong support for this effort, there is one 
provision in this legislation which I am very uncomfortable with and 
one which I would have preferred further discussion on, at least before 
it was included in the McCollum substitute.
  I believe this is one of those provisions which slipped into the 
legislation precisely because there was no committee consideration of 
the bill. That provision is found in section 201 regarding aid to 
Colombia. This provision, which may border on interference in 
Colombia's internal affairs, stipulates that if the Colombian 
government negotiates certain agreements in its attempt to end the 
bloody civil war which has engulfed the nation for the past 40 years, 
then we will cut off all antinarcotics assistance to that nation.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I agree that we do not want to see any peace 
agreement in Colombia which gives the guerrillas a free hand to 
continue to produce and ship lethal drugs into this country. But I do 
not believe we should be instructing or threatening the president of 
Colombia in a bill such as this in what the provisions of their peace 
agreement should be.
  President Pastrana has only been in office now for 1 month, Mr. 
Chairman. He was elected with a mandate to end the civil war. He has 
made this his top priority. His job is a very difficult one. But for us 
now in this bill to threaten to tie one arm behind his back could 
jeopardize the peace negotiations before they even begin. This 
provision is premature. We have a very tough certification process, and 
if the Colombian government does negotiate a treaty which includes 
provisions which we cannot accept because they impact on the war on 
drugs, then Colombia could face decertification and their funds would 
be cut off. But let us give the new president of Colombia a chance. Let 
us not threaten or try to dictate what he should do to end the civil 
war.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I support the overall thrust of this bill. I 
applaud its authors; I am a cosponsor. But I would have preferred that 
this bill have gone through the regular order and the committees of 
jurisdiction have the opportunity to work on the provisions of the bill 
in more detail. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the 
bill.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about those who would portray the debate 
as some who would be softer on fighting the interdiction of drugs into 
this country and others who would be tougher, and who can outtough who? 
The fact of the matter is that for those of us who are supporting this 
bill, as myself, we want to take a very tough stand on the question of 
interdiction.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) raises a serious concern. Now, I 
have heard the language that has been used with reference to the 
Traficant amendment, but the language that has been used is not the 
words of his amendment. I have heard here about observers. Fine. I have 
heard here about AWACS, fine. I have heard about helicopters. Fine. I 
have heard about surveillance. Fine. I have heard about intelligence. 
Fine. All of those things are fine. But to suggest that this amendment 
does not specify the use of troops on the border is not to read the 
amendment at least the way I read it.
  What does it say? The Secretary of Defense shall assist in keeping 
illegal drugs out of the United States, by doing what? By assigning 
members of the armed forces, by assigning members of the armed forces 
to do what? To assist the INS in preventing the entry of drug 
traffickers into the United States. Where is that? Along the ports and 
borders. And the United States Customs Service and inspection of cargo 
vehicles and aircraft, at what? At points of entry into the United 
States.
  Therefore, although one can say in debate that this does not mean 
that troops will go at the border, the amendment says the Secretary of 
Defense shall assist in how? By assigning members of the armed forces. 
And where? At the points of entry to the United States. That means U.S. 
troops on the borders.
  Now, I asked my colleagues. I have heard those who are involved in 
the Committee on National Security, which I am not. I have listened to 
them and their expertise. I asked my colleagues. We have passed bills 
over the last several years for 1,000 new border patrol every year for 
the next 10 years. That means 10,000 new border patrols on the borders 
of the United States. I voted for that. I support that. But now, in 
addition to those 10,000 border patrols, we are talking about placing 
armed forces of the United States at the border.
  No one has suggested, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) did 
not offer in his amendment nonlethal forces, which is what everybody 
talks about, but that is not what the amendment provides for. We could 
have provided for nonlethal forces so that we could have the 
surveillance, the intelligence, the helicopters, the AWACS and all of 
that, but that is not what is being provided for here.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues who do, in fact, have a 
sense of what the national security of the United States is in the 
context of the number of troops that we need across the world, what are 
we doing? We have troops in Bosnia. We have troops in Macedonia. We 
have troops in Kosovo. We have troops in the Gulf, in north and south. 
We have troops in South Korea. We see the need to respond to terrorism 
in the recent attacks that took place in Afghanistan. We do not know 
where the next threat comes from, and we need to have the ability to 
respond to those threats.
  Now, does anybody here want to fight drugs more than the next? No. My 
2 children, I am concerned about them, as my colleagues are for their 
children and the children of the district my colleagues represent. But 
let us be honest. The fact of the matter is that we have a finite set 
of resources. Mr. Chairman, 52 percent of all of our monies right now 
are being used in domestic police protection along the borders. We are 
going to add to that another 1,000 border patrol a year for the next 10 
years, 10,000 more.

  Yes, we can have the ancillary services of the armed forces to assist 
that effort. But should we now take from all of the other efforts we 
need throughout the world, from our counterterrorism efforts that only 
have to increase because we are all the more susceptible, should we now 
take those troops and put them in lethal positions on the borders of 
the United States? That is what the legitimacy of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes)'s point is.
  We can support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) in the context of saying that the ancillary forces of the 
nonlethal aspects should be in fact used, but we should support the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) in the context that lethal forces with 
our troops are already stretched throughout the world and the necessity 
to respond in what I have heard Members here speak so many times of 2 
different theaters in the world in which our troops need to be able to 
respond.
  Mr. Chairman, look what we are asking them to do: Respond in 2 
different places in the world at the same time. All of the peacekeeping 
missions we

[[Page H7843]]

have, all of the places we want them to support, all of the 
antiterrorism efforts we want to address, and in addition to all of 
that, we want to put them on the borders of the United States. We do 
want to fight drugs, but let us be intelligent about the way that we do 
it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  We are not sheriffs today, we are lawmakers. I support the bill and 
the tremendous effort of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and 
the process that was developed to eliminate drugs in the Western 
Hemisphere. That is the bill.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). He 
is a most capable leader on our side of the aisle, and certainly 
advancing himself up the ladder.
  I want to talk about the Reyes amendment.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). I 
support his bill to amplify and increase Customs. I support the bill of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to increase border patrol. 
Increased border patrol, increased Customs is not going to eliminate 
drugs from the Western Hemisphere.
  Let us talk about what the Traficant amendment would do. The 
Traficant amendment would allow the Secretary of Defense, after 
consultation with the White House and the administration and 
congressional leaders, to do everything in their power to mitigate and 
eliminate narcotics from our country. The Reyes amendment would limit 
the White House and the Secretary of Defense if they chose to take a 
specific course and allow for troops on our border.
  The tragedy of Esequiel Hernandez cannot be overlooked. FBI agents 
have been killed in wrongful death shootings. American soldiers have 
been shot by their own company men. Do we throw out the army? Do we 
defund the FBI?
  We are today targeting narcotics. The Traficant amendment is not 
targeting immigration.
  Now, we have had that whole sphere constantly brought into this 
matter. We have painted anyone who takes this stand as having some 
sinister ethnic bias. That is very foolish. Very, very foolish.
  I support every initiative on our borders to be fair, but I will say 
this to Members of Congress. We have not really engaged in a war on 
drugs. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) knows that; the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica) knows that. We all know that. We are now 
debating the politics of how the Pentagon can assist us.
  The Reyes amendment says, even if we want to, we cannot. The 
Traficant amendment says, we do not have to do anything but assist, but 
we want you to assist and we do not limit you in any way.
  Now, I want to talk about 14-year-olds in Youngstown, Ohio who buy 
brown Mexican heroin every day. If, and I say this to the Committee on 
National Security, if 5 tons of heroin can be brought across our 
border, is it not a fact that a nuclear warhead can come across our 
border?

                              {time}  1400

  I am asking that question today. Our border is a national security 
checkpoint. It should be treated as such. We should not limit the 
Secretary of Defense in any of his capacities.
  So if we vote for the Reyes amendment, we vote technically to put a 
limitation on what we do and how we do it as a Nation. I think it is 
time to take the shackles off. I think it is time to let our Nation 
truly engage in the battle against drugs. We need the help like the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said of all of our departments.
  I do not mandate it. But let it be well known the Traficant amendment 
allows for every military asset to be used if so chosen by our 
administration and our leadership because the Congress is allowing them 
to do so. In America, the people govern. We are not out-toughing one 
another. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is awfully tough. We 
might differ; but on this, he would kill our efforts.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious debate about a very 
serious issue that can potentially have very serious consequences on 
communities along the border.
  Again, let us one by one separate fact from fiction. My colleague, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) talks about 5 tons of heroin 
coming across the border and asked the rhetorical question: If 5 tons 
of heroin can come across the border, cannot a nuclear weapon come 
across the border? Yes. Absolutely.
  But I can tell my colleague from Ohio, there has never been one 
incident on the U.S.-Mexican border where 5 tons of heroin have come 
across the border. There has never been one single incident where 1 ton 
of Mexican brown heroin has come across the border. I know because I 
worked it, I lived it, I did it. I fought the war on drugs.
  Part of what we need to understand here is to get a grip on what the 
facts are and what all the rhetoric is and separate these two things. 
First of all, heroin is introduced into this country in very small 
quantities because it is a very valuable commodity, and drug smuggling 
organizations do not want to risk millions of dollars on one 
intercepted package.
  Secondly, fact from fiction. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
talks about my perfecting amendment limiting the power and the 
authority of the White House, the President of the United States. I 
want to tell this body and I want to tell my colleague, the gentleman 
from Ohio, that if there is a national emergency, the President already 
has that authority. He can deploy every single soldier wherever he 
wants if there is a national emergency. So I think the argument about 
my perfecting amendment limiting us in the war on drugs is ludicrous.
  Fact from fiction. I mentioned earlier let us separate our ability 
for instant gratification and for that all-satisfying quick fix. There 
is no quick fix. I made mention that there are currently two bills that 
will increase the resources of customs, that will increase the 
resources of the United States border patrol; and, conceivably, we will 
have a United States border patrol of as many as 20,000 agents, 
trained, profession, bilingual officers that work on the border, that 
are expected to be on the border, and would never confront an 18 year 
old by shooting at him. Those are the facts. Those are the kinds of 
things that repeatedly get ignored here.
  I listened to my colleagues, and they all say they have a tremendous 
amount of respect and all of the nice things that they say about me in 
the context of the job that I did for 26\1/2\ years. But that is not 
what this is about.
  What this is about is listening, listening and understanding the 
impact that a proposal like this would make on communities along the 
border. Again, I ask this House to consider, is it not strange that all 
those that propose and support this kind of an effort, that want to 
sound tough on the war on drugs, that want to sound like they want to 
protect communities all across this country do not live nor do they 
represent the border? I find that kind of strange.
  All of us that represent border communities understand the 
implications. All of us understand the consequences. All of us 
understand and live with constituents that do not want the danger. They 
do not want this kind of proposal coming out of the people's House.
  Listen to the argument. Listen to the consequences, and then 
understand that the military is not a solution. The military trains for 
warfare. We need the military to be ready to defend us in a completely 
different context, not patrolling the border, not in our border 
communities, and not jeopardizing the residents that live along that 
border. They have an expectation to have the same kinds of protections 
that the rest of the communities along this great country have.
  Those are the issues. Those are the facts. Ultimately, if this thing 
passes, and ultimately, time and time again, as we argue and debate 
this thing, ultimately if it passes, those are going to be the 
consequences. Yes, we are going to be talking about settling with 
families whose children have been killed, settling with communities 
that are not understanding why this body would put troops in their 
communities.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H7844]]

  Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the Reyes amendment and against 
the Traficant amendment, and I would start by reading something. ``El 
Paso, August 11. The federal government will pay $1.9 million to the 
family of a teenager who was killed by a Marine patrolling the U.S.-
Mexico border,'' according to the family's attorney. ``The controversy 
over the May 27, 1997, shooting led to the suspension of military 
patrols along the Rio Grande. Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., 18'' years of 
age ``was killed while herding goats near Redford, Texas, 200 miles 
southeast of El Paso, by Marines who said the youth fired on them.''
  ``After a long battle over what happened, the Hernandez family has 
signed a settlement agreement with the Justice Department and the 
Navy.''
  ``The settlement is `one more piece of evidence that there was total 
wrongdoing in this case by various arms of the government,' said the 
Reverend Melvin LaFollette, a Redford activist. `Innocent parties don't 
pass out millions gratuitously.' ''.
  We did that last year because this Congress told the armed forces to 
send troops to the border. One of the first things that happened was an 
American citizen lost his life, an 18-year-old American citizen.
  The Traficant amendment says not only shall we go back to that failed 
policy but we will require that the Department of Defense do it, not in 
its discretion do it but require that we do it.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) says that if we pass the 
Reyes amendment and not his amendment we are going to throw out the 
Army, we are going to defund the FBI and that the Reyes amendment would 
put a limitation on our Nation's ability to fight drugs.
  Let me read what the Reyes amendment says and see if any of that can 
be found. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the 
deployment of the members of the armed forces in contravention of 
United States law for the purpose of this section.
  The only thing the Reyes amendment says is, let us continue to follow 
the law that says that we will not have various forces, military and 
quasi-military forces, doing the job that is not assigned to them. That 
is the only thing the Reyes amendment says.
  Now, what does the Traficant amendment say? It says the Secretary of 
Defense shall, shall assist, in keeping illegal drugs out of the United 
States by assigning the armed forces to assist the INS and the Customs 
Service; shall.

  I want to make a note. ``Shall'' is written in by hand. Stricken 
right below it in type, the original form of the amendment was 
``should,'' ``should assist,'' which is what the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant) has been saying; discretion.
  The Traficant amendment originally did provide the Department of 
Defense, the President of the United States and Congress with 
discretion to proceed. Someone struck that, I suspect it had to be the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), it is his amendment, and now it is 
``shall.''
  So contrary to what the author of the amendment, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is saying, this provides no discretion to the 
President, no discretion to the Secretary of Defense, no discretion to 
the Secretaries of the Army, Navy or Marines. They must do this. That 
is what ``shall'' means. It is not ``may'' or ``should.''
  We can stand here and talk all about this, but the only person who 
really has a right to tell us what really is best for the border is the 
gentleman who spoke earlier, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who 
spent more than 20 years of his life doing exactly that, patrolling the 
border. Many of us could continue to talk and we will.
  I shudder to think what the men and women who actually are on the 
border, carrying the guns, doing the surveillance, having to stop 
drugs, having to stop people from coming into this country illegally, 
are saying as they listen to this debate; we must not be very good 
officers, they must be thinking, that they believe that now we must 
send down the troops to help them do their job. Not give them more 
resources to hire more INS officers and Customs officers to do the job, 
but, no, send the armed forces, which is trained not to surveil, not to 
guard, not to interdict but to kill.
  What a statement we are sending to the men and women who day after 
day put their lives on the line trying to do what we say we need to 
have the Army do. If one really believes we need to put more on the 
border, and we do, then give the INS Border Patrol, give the Customs 
agency more resources to hire people who are trained to do exactly 
that. Do not try to have our men and women who are trained to do 
something different in the armed forces all of a sudden go into a 
foreign atmosphere and now try to do the work, because when you do, 
what happens? Folks like Esequiel Hernandez are killed. And what else? 
The taxpayers are told, give me $2 million because we have to pay off 
this family for having killed people like Esequiel Hernandez.
  Are we destined to travel down that same path? Are we destined to 
repeat history? I urge my colleagues to vote for the Reyes amendment 
and against the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been a couple of misrepresentations here and 
I would like to clarify them. With the legislative intent by the author 
of those provisions, the Secretary of Defense shall assist in keeping 
illegal drugs out of the United States by assigning members of the 
armed forces to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
the United States Customs Service. It does not limit the assistance but 
it does not say it must be patrolled, either. It is at the discretion 
of the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with what I had assumed to 
be the brain trust of our country.
  Let me just close out and make this statement: American troops, as we 
speak, are guarding borders all over the world. The only border our 
military is not guarding is the United States of America border. We 
have a civilian law enforcement service that is doing a respectable 
job, but we are guarding foreign borders, we are not guarding our own.
  Second of all, one other thing, I think it is time to stand up for 
number one, and I do not apologize for wanting to bring in every asset 
that the Pentagon has to have us keep illegal drugs out of the country.
  So I want to close by saying, the first vote evidently in this series 
will probably be the vote on the McCollum amendment. Then the second 
vote would be the Reyes substitute.
  Let there be no mistake, the Reyes substitute strikes the use of 
members of the armed services for patrols. That, it does. The Traficant 
amendment allows for it and allows for the Secretary of Defense to do 
everything in his power to help us with the problem.
  With that, I would hope that the Members would vote for McCollum, 
defeat Reyes, and give me a vote on my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The question 
is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes), to 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.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, further 
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1415


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Shaw

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H7845]]


       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Shaw: At the end of the bill 
     add the following new title:

        TITLE VII--CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON PORT EMPLOYEES

     SEC. 701. BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       Upon the request of any State, county, port authority, or 
     other local jurisdiction of a State, the Attorney General 
     shall grant to such State, county, port authority, or other 
     local jurisdiction access to information collected by the 
     Attorney General pursuant to section 534 of title 28, United 
     States Code, for the purpose of allowing such State, county,
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 
4300. This amendment would allow local and State governments the 
ability to access Department of Justice information for the purpose of 
doing criminal background checks on port employees or applicants to 
become port employees. I had previously introduced this amendment as a 
bill entitled the ``Drug-Free Ports Act,'' H.R. 3975.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment because of the 
increasingly high incidence of collusion between drug traffickers and 
port employees. These ``internal conspiracies'' at ports are becoming a 
major avenue for bringing illegal drugs into the United States. To 
lessen the chance of future internal conspiracies, my amendment would 
simply allow the local governing body to conduct Federal criminal 
background checks at their discretion on port employees and applicants 
to become port employees.
  The subject of this amendment was discussed at length at a hearing of 
the House Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and 
Criminal Justice last year which I attended on an ex-officio basis.
  Internal conspiracies are clever in the way they help smugglers. They 
have been known to ``innocently'' swing a container in front of a 
surveillance camera in order to allow another container filled with 
drugs to pass through undetected. They also have been known to tip off 
smugglers regarding the routines of Customs officials to maximize the 
chance of success in bringing in the illegal contraband.
  According to James Milford, a former head of the DEA in Miami, 
Florida, ``Longshoremen are a source of frustration for us, 
particularly in South Florida. One of the things that concerns us is 
the ability of longshoremen to be utilized successfully in pulling 
cocaine shipments out of cargo and moving it out of the port with 
impunity.''
  In response to the reports about internal conspiracies at Florida's 
ports in the press, I requested that the Customs Service do a random 
sample of arrest records of longshoremen at the Port of Miami and the 
Port Everglades in the Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood area. The results are 
quite disturbing.
  Of a random sample of 50 Port of Miami longshoremen, 36 had arrest 
records. Of these 36 arrest records, they had a total of 213 arrests, 
including 68 on drug charges. In a random sample of 38 Port Everglades 
longshoremen, 19 had arrest records. Of these 19, they had a total of 
73 arrests, including 14 drug arrests.
  Mr. Chairman, consider the arrest records from the following two 
subjects: Subject 1, from the Port of Miami: Arrested for robbery, 
assault and battery, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a 
firearm by a convicted felon, aggravated assault, possession of heroin 
with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, 
possession of heroin with intent to sell, grand theft, petty theft, 
uttering a forged instrument, forgery of a U.S. Treasury check, 
possession of cocaine, simple battery, aggravated battery, and petty 
theft. This is one person.
  Subject 2, from Port Everglades: Arrested for robbery, assault with 
intent to commit murder, breaking and entering, disorderly conduct, 
shoplifting, burglary, dealing in stolen property, possession of 
cocaine, sale of cocaine, and domestic violence.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1993, the Waterfront Commission of New York 
Harbor had been conducting criminal background checks on certain 
employees and their system has worked well. I believe that that 
particular port is in the jurisdiction, or in the district of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  This is a federally chartered port and these ports have access to 
Federal records. Considering the torrent of drugs and other contraband 
that moves in and out of our ports, I do not consider it unreasonable 
for the local government, or a port authority, to require clean records 
for the people who work on the docks, the people who are actually on 
the front lines, the people that are handling the cargo.
  For that reason, I would urge support of this amendment. Quite 
frankly, all we are asking is to have the same privilege, that the 
ports in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey already have, in 
the Port of Miami, Port Everglades, the Port of Boston, Norfolk, New 
Orleans, Charleston, all over this country. It has worked in New York 
and New Jersey and it will work elsewhere.
  The incidence of drugs coming into this country through ports is 
increasing tremendously. We need to cut this off and it is only common 
sense that we do not have criminals or do not have the foxes guarding 
the hen house.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the intentions of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw). I want to express, however, some reservations.
  Port employees overwhelmingly are hard-working and honest people who 
have a strong commitment to doing their jobs and serving their Nation. 
Also not only in terms of moving the trade that we always talk about in 
this Chamber, 95 percent of all the Nation's commerce moves through 
ports like the ones that I represent, but also in their efforts to 
eradicate illegal drug importation.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the largest port in the Eastern seaboard. I 
clearly understand the need to fight the entry of illegal drugs through 
the ports of entry. In fact, port workers cooperate with the Customs 
Department in a program that they work together called the ``Dock 
Workers Against Drugs Initiative.'' They are not coerced or force to do 
this. Rather, they participate voluntarily.
  Now, this bill imposes a Federal mandate in an area where local 
efforts are already underway. Criminal background check records of the 
Port of New York and New Jersey workers, including ancillary workers, 
are already examined thoroughly. The port already does what this 
amendment offers. The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor did this 
without a mandate from the Federal Government.
  My concern is the extent in which the amendment is written. It says 
upon the request of any State, county, port authority, or other local 
jurisdiction of a State, the Attorney General shall grant to that 
entity all of these rights to have criminal background checks on 
employees or applicants for employment at any point under the 
jurisdiction of that otherwise State, county, port authority, or other 
local jurisdiction.
  Now, my sense is I am not quite sure whether by ``local 
jurisdiction'' we mean port authorities or what is the extent of that 
entity. I am concerned that the extent, the broad net that is being 
cast here, provides no safeguards to prevent the distribution of 
sensitive information to those with no connection to port operations.
  This amendment provides no limits to the information that can be 
collected and records can be released to a wide variety of entities, as 
I think are described here, that may not in essence accomplish our 
goals. The protection of the integrity of our borders and stopping the 
entry of illegal drugs is a worthy goal. The gentleman from Florida 
clearly has a worthy goal.
  The workers at our ports I know, and I have spoken before the 
International Longshoremen's Association, I have heard from them their 
efforts and their commitment. These are working men and women who 
clearly understand the consequences to their families and to the 
communities in which they live.
  But I am concerned, and I just raise the caution and concern here in 
terms of the potential overbreadth of the way that this amendment has 
been written. In that context, I raise those concerns and hope that we 
can, as this bill moves, seek to make sure that the purposes of the 
gentleman from Florida can be tailored in such a way that we reach his 
goals, but provide certain protections.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H7846]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I am not an expert on longshoremen. 
I live in the corn fields of Illinois and we see the products that are 
moved through our ports. It happens in our schools and our towns and 
our villages and the little country towns where those narcotics are 
available.
  We know that most of those narcotics come across the Southwest 
border, something we have just talked about. We also know that about 40 
percent of those narcotics come through our ports of entry into this 
country, our seaports and airports. It is pretty important, I think 
just common sense, it is pretty important that the people who handle 
the luggage, the people who handle the containers, the people who load 
the boats, who onload the ships, who load the trucks, who maneuver 
cargo through the railroads, those people need to be trusted. They need 
to be screened.
  It would surely be wonderful if it was always voluntary, but we 
understand those people who have been able to infiltrate, and it 
happens in this country and it is rampant throughout this country. They 
are not law-abiding citizens. They would hide the fact.
  Mr. Chairman, I just think we ought to be able to screen them. The 
facts show themselves. Out of the scores of people that were finally 
arrested, and we found that we had 200 to 300 arrests for that score of 
people, we ought to do that screening. If we are going to protect our 
children, if we are going to protect our families and we are going to 
protect our communities against drugs, we need to be able to make sure 
that the ports of entry, those people handling cargo and those poisons 
coming from across the oceans, that they are people that we can trust 
and that we have faith in and that will do the right job.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following letters for printing in the 
Record:
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker. I understand that it is the desire of the 
     Leadership to take H.R. 4300, the ``Western Hemisphere Drug 
     Elimination Act,'' and H.R. 4550, the ``Drug Demand Reduction 
     Act,'' to the floor without this committee reporting these 
     bills.
       In the interest of the Leadership's desire to move 
     expeditiously on these bills, I will agree to Judiciary 
     Committee's being discharged from further consideration of 
     these bills. However, this should not be construed as a 
     relinquishment of the Committee's jurisdiction as to these 
     matters generally, or as to any further amendments relating 
     to them. I also request that the Committee's rights to have 
     our Members named to any conference committee on these bills 
     or any similar bill be protected.
           Sincerely,
     Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                               Washington, DC, September 11, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: On July 22, 1998 the bill H.R. 4300, the 
     ``Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998,'' was 
     introduced in the House. Amendments made to this bill fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture.
       Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation, 
     the Committee on Agriculture will agree to waive jurisdiction 
     and will not seek a sequential referral in order to speed its 
     consideration of the floor. In so doing, the Committee on 
     Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim 
     over this or similar measures. Furthermore, the Committee 
     reserves the right to seek appropriate representation in the 
     event the measure should go to conference.
       Thank you very much for your courtesy in this matter and I 
     look forward to continuing to work with you on this important 
     project.
           Sincerely,
     Robert F. (Bob) Smith, Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                               Committee on National Security,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     The Speaker,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: In recognition of the desire to expedite 
     floor consideration of H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere Drug 
     Elimination Act, the Committee on National Security agrees to 
     waive its right to consider this legislation. As you know, 
     H.R. 4300, as introduced, addresses subject matter that falls 
     within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     National Security pursuant to House Rule X.
       The Committee on National Security's waiver of its right 
     for further consideration is taken with the explicit 
     understanding that the text H.R. 4300 will be modified on the 
     floor by a manager's amendment incorporating changes agreed 
     to between the Committee and sponsors of the legislation. 
     Further, this action is taken with the understanding that the 
     Committee on National Security's jurisdiction over the 
     provisions in question is no way diminished or altered, and 
     that the Committee's right to appointment of conferees during 
     any conference on the bill remains intact.
       Finally, while I commend and appreciate the willingness of 
     the sponsors of the legislation to work with the Committee to 
     address the various jurisdictional concerns associated with 
     the introduced bill, I still hold reservations over portions 
     of the legislation that express the need to alter the Global 
     Military Force Policy of the Department of Defense. This 
     fundamental policy question deserves careful and thorough 
     consideration as it has the potential to alter how limited 
     defense resources are allocated among the many worthy and 
     critical national security priorities, including the 
     Department's counterdrug efforts. Further, this matter is 
     currently being negotiated with the Senate as part of the 
     conference on H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1999 which I hope to bring back to the 
     House within days. As the likely conference outcome on this 
     issue differs from the text contained in H.R. 4300, I believe 
     this matter will require further consideration in conference 
     or any subsequent consideration of this legislation.
       With warm personal regards, I am
           Sincerely,
     Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
                                  ____

         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                               Washington, DC, September 11, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: One of the bills scheduled for 
     consideration before the Committee on Rules next week, H.R. 
     4300, the Western hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, was 
     referred to several Committees, including the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. I strongly support H.R. 
     4300, and, in order to expedite its passage, do not object to 
     the Rules Committee granting a rule for Floor consideration 
     next week. This should not be deemed to be a waiver of this 
     Committee's jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in 
     H.R. 4300, or our right to be appointed as conferees should 
     this bill go to conference with the Senate.
       The problem of drug use among teenagers in this country has 
     reached crisis proportions. H.R. 4300 will authorize funds to 
     allow the Coast Guard to aggressively pursue drug smugglers 
     and protect our country's borders from illegal contraband. We 
     must act now to provide the funds necessary to deter 
     America's teenagers from using illegal drugs.
       Although I agree that time does not allow us to proceed 
     through the normal Committee process for this legislation, in 
     the future, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure will continue to exercise its jurisdictional 
     responsibilities over all Coast Guard drug interdiction 
     issues, and all related legislation.
       With kind personal regards, I am
           Sincerely,
     Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     The Speaker,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing concerning consideration of 
     H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. 
     Sections 101(a) and 501(e) contain authorizations for 
     appropriations for the U.S. Customs Service for drug 
     interdiction and, as such, fall within the jurisdiction of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means.
       As you know, the House recently passed, by an overwhelming 
     margin, H.R. 3809, the Drug Free Borders Act. This bill 
     greatly increased authorization levels for the U.S. Customs 
     Service for drug interdiction, particularly along the 
     southwest border.
       I have long been concerned that Customs have adequate 
     resources to fulfill its responsibilities for drug 
     interdiction, particularly along the southwest border, as 
     well as the facilitation of legitimate trade, and these 
     priorities have been reflected in H.R. 3809. I understand 
     that since the passage of H.R. 3809, certain serious needs 
     have come to light for which you seek additional 
     authorizations for the U.S. Customs Service in H.R. 4300. I 
     understand, however, that you fully support the funding 
     priorities authorized in H.R. 3809. I further understand that 
     you do not seek in any way to diminish those funding levels 
     by the new authorizations in H.R. 4300 but that you intend to 
     seek supplemental appropriations to fund the bill.
       In order to expedite the consideration of this important 
     legislation, I do not believe that a markup of H.R. 4300 by 
     the Committee on Ways and means will be necessary. However, 
     this is being done only with the understanding, first, that 
     this does not in any way

[[Page H7847]]

     prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on this 
     measure or any similar legislation; second, that it should 
     not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters 
     of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means 
     in the future; and, third, that you will support the funding 
     priorities and levels in H.R. 3809.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           With best personal regards,
     Bill Archer, Chairman.
                                  ____

        U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on International 
                                                        Relations,
                                Washington, DC, September 9, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: It is my intention to waive committee 
     jurisdiction over H.R. 4300 ``The Western Hemisphere Drug 
     Elimination Act''. As this session nears conclusion, we are 
     in a serious crisis on the drug front as a result of 
     Administration's neglect in both source nation and 
     interdiction efforts in the war on drugs. The supply of pure, 
     and low cost drugs from abroad increases daily, while 
     corresponding demand and use rises here at home, especially 
     among our young people.
       A good case in point of this neglect is Colombia, which 
     produces 80% of the world's cocaine, and most recently has 
     also captured the heroin market here in the U.S. (75%). Our 
     committee has held an extensive hearings on drugs in 
     Colombia, and we also had the GAO report on the crisis there. 
     We have conducted extensive analysis of the critical need for 
     more and better assistance including high performance 
     helicopters, and overall reform of our war on drugs.
       Most recently, events turned for the worse in the fight 
     against drugs at the source in Colombia. U.S. law enforcement 
     is in agreement that the best place to fight drugs is at the 
     source. The war on drugs is now on hold in Colombia. Without 
     good helicopters, opium eradication has been cut 50%, and the 
     results in the U.S. from the influx of Colombia heroin are 
     indeed frightening. In addition, the narco-guerrillas' 
     recently destroyed the Colombian National Police's forward 
     drug fighting base in Miraflores. Fear of attack on their key 
     anti-drug operations base at San Jose del Guaviare, forced 
     the withdraw of its remaining few operational Vietnam era 
     Huey helicopters, so coca and cocaine lab destruction are 
     also down.
       The results from this de factor cessation of the war on 
     drugs in the major source nation in our hemisphere are 
     becoming more and more evident in the U.S. as the price of 
     hard drugs fall while they purity rises. Most recent National 
     Household Survey data released while we were on recess, 
     showed 171,100 teens for the first time used heroin in 1996. 
     Heroin use in the U.S. now exceeds the late 1960s, early 
     1970s historic levels, and the future is not bright. On the 
     cocaine front, prices fall, as purity rises, with use on the 
     rise. We are witnessing a major failed demand only driven 
     drug fighting strategy, which will reverse all of the major 
     Reagan/Bush gains in the war on drugs.
       H.R. 4300 sets out a three-year plan to reverse this 
     serious neglect at both the source and in the area of 
     interdiction. The bill provides vital anti-drug assistance 
     like high performance helicopters for the excellent and 
     effective Colombian National Police to help eradicate opium 
     and coca, as well as take down and destroy the production 
     laboratories making these drugs for the U.S. market. It also 
     increases aid to other drug producing nations in the region, 
     and increases our interdiction capacity to prevent these 
     drugs from every reaching our shores.
       As this drug crisis threatens our youth, and nation, it 
     also requires our action before the session adjourns. 
     Accordingly, under these extraordinary circumstances, I am 
     without prejudice to the Committee's ongoing jurisdiction 
     over the subject matter, willing to waive jurisdiction on 
     this bill so the full House can act on it.
       With best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                               Benjamin A. Gilman,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, in the minute that is left I would like to 
say that I think that I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) that I do believe without question that the language is 
sufficiently tight. What we are talking about, people who are either 
working in ports or apply for positions in ports, are going to get 
their background checked. I think the language is very clear that only 
the jurisdiction controlling the port can pull up this information and 
pull it up on these particular people.
  Right now, they can pull up the State records as in Broward County, 
they passed a county ordinance that required this. In Dade County, they 
have done the same. But now they can only get to the State records. We 
should have the same privilege that the Port of New York has and the 
Port of New Jersey, and that is to be able to tap into the Federal 
records. That is all this does.
  It certainly makes sense to have the honest people be the ones that 
are handling the cargo. They have the greatest opportunity to assist 
the drug smugglers and assist the drugs smuggled into this country, and 
we know that drugs are a huge problem. Mr. Chairman, I ask the approval 
of the amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the Shaw 
amendment to H.R. 4300. The amendment would allow any state, county, 
port authority or any local government entity to utilize information 
collected by the U.S. Justice Department about working men and women at 
our nation's ports. This draconian measure was introduced in response 
to drug smuggling activities of a few longshore workers in the State of 
Florida.
  The longshore and port workers in my district work hard. They are a 
proud lot. They are proud of their affiliation with the International 
Longshore and Warehouse Union--a union dedicated to democracy, economic 
security for all workers and a peaceful world.
  The Shaw legislation is a dagger in the heart of these patriotic 
Americans. Port workers perceive this legislation as questioning their 
character and honesty. The legislation would affect workers on the West 
Coast involved in the international drug trade. It is blatantly 
offensive to single these workers out because of a few bad apples in 
one state. The Constitutional right to privacy is cherished by the 
American people, and there are no extraordinary circumstances that 
would warrant local government officials rifling through FBI and 
Justice Department files on a select group of individuals.
  There are no safeguards in the Shaw amendment to prevent the 
dissemination of sensitive information on individuals to use material 
for selfish political ends, blackmail, or any other nefarious activity. 
Surely, there is a better way to fight drugs than to invade the privacy 
of a proud group of workers.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us labels a whole 
class of workers guilty until proven innocent. I rise to express my 
strong opposition to this amendment. It automatically considers any 
worker at a port suspect, and it only targets port workers. Port 
employees are hard-working and honest people who have a strong 
commitment to doing their jobs and serving their nation in its efforts 
to eradicate illegal drug importation. This amendment does not account 
for those facts.
  Let me emphasize that I represent the largest port in the eastern 
seaboard. I understand the need to fight the entry of illegal drugs at 
our ports of entry. There's no doubt we need to continue in those 
efforts.
  The U.S. Customs Service with other government agencies does a 
valiant job in trying to seize narcotics at New Jersey's ports. They 
could not accomplish this without the assistance of the Port's workers. 
Here are some examples: in July 1998 under Operation Brass Ring the 
U.S. Customs Service seized 700 pounds of cocaine at Port Newark/Port 
Elizabeth, New Jersey; and in June 1998 the Customs Service seized 
1,300 pounds of cocaine concealed in a shipment at Port Newark/Port 
Elizabeth. I cite these examples to demonstrate ongoing narcotics 
fighting efforts at the Port; efforts which the Port's workers aided.
  Port workers have their own initiatives to fight illegal drugs with 
programs like the Dock Workers Against Drugs initiative. They are not 
coerced or forced to do this; rather they participate voluntarily.
  This amendment imposes a federal mandate in an area where local 
efforts are already underway. The criminal background records of the 
Port of New York and New Jersey's workers, including ancillary workers, 
are already examined thoroughly. The ports of New Jersey and New York 
already do what this amendment offers. But the Waterfront Commission of 
New York Harbor did this without a mandate from the Federal government.
  This amendment violates workers' privacy. It does not provide any 
safeguards to prevent the distribution of sensitive information to 
those with no connection to port operations. This amendment provides no 
limits to the information that can be collected, and records could be 
released that date back years and have no relation to the work of port 
employees. The information could be used in inappropriate ways.
  Protecting the integrity of our borders and stopping the entry of 
illegal drugs is a worthy goal and the workers at our ports support 
this effort wholeheartedly. Mr. Chairman, we need to fight the entry of 
illegal drugs coming into our ports. In New Jersey we have established 
rigid background checks to ensure our workers can function in the port 
environment, but we did it without a mandate from the Federal 
government. We shouldn't use this bill as a means to violate the 
privacy rights of our workers. The International Longshoremen's

[[Page H7848]]

Association, the AFL-CIO, and the International Longshore and Warehouse 
Union all oppose this amendment. We should use this bill as an 
opportunity to provide the resources to stop illegal drugs at their 
source.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
       Strike section 201.
       Strike section 204(a).
       In section 204(b), strike ``(b) Sense of Congress.--''.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for working with me to accommodate me and 
give me the opportunity to get this amendment up, who happens to be the 
chair of the Republican Drug Task Force.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida for the work 
that he has put into this legislation. I do have some concerns that 
this legislation did not travel the traditional course and have the 
oversight of all of the committees that should have seen it. However, I 
am one of the cosponsors on the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that, I would like to make it absolutely 
clear that one of the priorities of the Congressional Black Caucus is 
the eradication of illegal drugs in our country. The Congressional 
Black Caucus, in formulating its agenda at the beginning of the 105th 
Congress, made this a priority simply because we were tired of sitting 
around and waiting for someone else to make this happen.
  We have put millions of dollars into the eradication of illegal drugs 
in our society. We have had presidents and elected officials for years 
now talking about the eradication of drugs, and to tell the truth, 
those drugs continue to show up in our communities.

                              {time}  1430

  And the gentleman is absolutely correct; too many lives are lost, too 
many families are destroyed, too many dreams and hopes unrealized 
because, in fact, these drugs continue to flow.
  And let me tell the gentleman what a lot of the young people say. 
They say, ``Ms. Waters, we don't have any planes, and we don't have any 
boats, and we don't have the money to go out and buy huge shipments of 
drugs to bring them into our community. Why don't you go and get the 
big boys? Why don't you do something about interdiction? Why don't you 
do something to stop the flow of drugs into the communities?'' And this 
bill attempts to do something of that nature.
  This amendment is simple, direct and crucial, and I join with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do something about the 
eradication. However, I am simply asking that we strike two provisions 
that currently give direct military aid to the Colombian National 
Police and army as well as the Mexican military. I believe this is a 
crucial amendment due to the disturbing and most recent revelations 
about the involvement of the Colombian and Mexican military and police 
in drug trafficking.
  The first part of the amendment strikes section 201, which gives 
additional eradication resources for the army and national police of 
Colombia, the section which gives $165 million of direct military aid 
to these forces at a time when they are being alleged to have ties and 
providing protection for Colombian drug cartels.
  The second part of the amendment strikes section 204 that gives 
direct military aid to Mexican military forces at a time when they are 
being implicated for their ties to drug cartels. In fact, just today in 
The New York Times, we have reports that elite Mexican drug officers 
are said to be tied to traffickers. The Washington Post ran an article 
last week on reports of those supposedly incorruptible anti-narcotics 
police who were taking suitcases full of cocaine and walking around the 
drug-sniffing dogs in Mexico City's airport and then placing the 
suitcases back on the luggage racks for the cartel agents to pick up.
  Other similar revelations have surfaced regarding the Colombian 
military. A June 22 New York Times editorial wrote of the ties between 
the paramilitaries in Colombia and drug cartels. Colombia's 
investigative police say Carlos Castano, a top paramilitary leader, 
heads a drug cartel. According to reliable sources, his paramilitary 
drug cartel is also receiving protection from Colombian police and 
security forces.
  In fact, the Colombian military and anti-narcotics police units based 
in Guaviare have been recently implicated in supporting Carlos Castano 
and his paramilitary when they carried out a massacre that took place 
from October 18 through October 20, the day before our own General 
Barry McCaffrey landed at the capital at San Jose del Guaviare.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support on this amendment to make sure we 
stop dumping our dollars, our taxpayer dollars, into corrupt police 
officers who are part of the drug problem in Mexico and Colombia.
                                                 October 29, 1997.
     Hon. Madeleine Albright,
     Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Albright: We are writing to you regarding 
     the human rights situation in Colombia. We have just received 
     credible information that military and anti-narcotics police 
     units based in Miraflores, Guaviare actively supported a 
     paramilitary massacre that took place from October 18 through 
     October 20, the day before Gen. (ret.) Barry McCaffrey landed 
     at the capital at San Jose del Guaviare.
       According to the Public Ombudsman's office, on October 18, 
     heavily armed men calling themselves the Autodefensas del Sur 
     (Southern Self-Defense Group) entered Miraflores and executed 
     four men, identified in press reports as Jose John Gordillo 
     Daza, Pablo Quejoa Menza, Silvano Batioja Castro, and 
     Florentino Torres. Apparently the paramilitaries had a list 
     of names that they used to search out their victims. In the 
     formal complaint, witnesses said that they overheard the men 
     say, ``Who said we couldn't come to this town? From here on, 
     we give the orders here.'' Over the course of three days, at 
     least six people were reported executed.
       Miraflores has the permanent presence of three security 
     force units: the army's ``Joaquin Paros'' Battalion, the 
     navy, and the anti-narcotics police. Although the surrounding 
     countryside is controlled by guerrillas, the town itself is 
     heavily militarized.
       Eyewitnesses reported that security force personnel did not 
     leave their barracks until 45 minutes after the first three 
     people had been killed. Then, their only activity was to 
     collect the bodies left in the street. According to our 
     information, they did nothing to apprehend the 
     paramilitaries, who were still in town searching for more 
     people on their list. One more person was killed that day and 
     two more on October 20.
       On the afternoon of October 18, our information indicates 
     that army soldiers provided an escort for two of the gunmen 
     to the army-controlled airstrip. Eyewitnesses also claim that 
     soldiers summoned a private airplane with an army radio, 
     which arrived shortly thereafter, boarded the gunmen, and 
     left. Subsequently, Miraflores mayor Edgar Emilio Lozano and 
     many other residents fled Miraflores out of fear.
       We are also concerned because the security forces have not 
     impeded this paramilitary group's free movement in the region 
     using a DC-3 airplane. According to local residents, 
     Autodefensas del Sur landings are frequent and notorious. The 
     group is also implicated in the October 16 killings of Jorge 
     Puerto and his mother, Maroa, near the town of Puerto 
     Trujillo, Meta.
       Paramilitaries led by Carlos Castano publicly identified 
     the department of Guaviare as a military objective a year 
     ago. Like the attack in Mapiripon, Meta in July, which left 
     seven confirmed dead, the Miraflores massacre appears to be 
     part of a paramilitary plan to expand their operations into 
     areas historically dominated by guerrillas. Although the role 
     of the security forces in the Mapiripon massacre is not 
     clear, eyewitnesses have provided compelling testimony about 
     the role of Colombian units in the Miraflores attack.
       We know you must share our dismay at the apparent role 
     played by the Colombian military and anti-narcotics police in 
     the Miraflores massacre. If confirmed, security force 
     assistance in the massacre would constitute a serious human 
     rights violation. It would also challenge the United States 
     decision to permit anti-narcotics aid to be sent to units 
     operating in the department of Guaviare, according to the 
     August end-use monitoring agreement.
       We ask you to carry out an immediate inquiry of the 
     Miraflores massacre, and particularly the reported 
     involvement of the Colombian military and anti-narcotics 
     police. We also request that U.S. intelligence relevant to 
     the incident be shared with the Fiscaloa and Procuraduroa, to 
     aid them in their on-going investigation. Finally, we urge 
     you to ensure that appropriate action is taken with regards 
     to the provision of U.S. assistance to units operating in 
     Guaviare and Meta under the guidelines laid out in the Leahy 
     amendment.

[[Page H7849]]

       Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
           Sincerely,
     Jose Miguel Vivanco,
                                               Executive Director,
                                      Human Rights Watch/Americas.
     Coletta Youngers,
                                                 Senior Associate,
                               Washington Office on Latin America.
     George Vickers,
                                               Executive Director,
                               Washington Office on Latin America.
     Jamie Fellner,
                                                Associate Counsel,
     Human Rights Watch.
                                  ____


             [From the New York Times, September 16, 1998]

       Elite Mexican Drug Officers Said To Be Tied To Traffickers

                            (By Tim Golden)

       Washington.--An ambitious effort to overhaul Mexico's 
     corrupt law-enforcement system has been thrown into turmoil 
     by the disclosure that top investigators of an elite 
     American-trained police unit may have ties to drug 
     traffickers, American officials say.
       The disclosure emerged after recent lie-detector tests 
     administered, at Mexican authorities' request, to Mexican 
     police agents by American Government experts.
       Officials said at least some of those investigators whose 
     tests indicated collusion with traffickers had been chosen 
     for their posts after elaborate screening devised by 
     Americans.
       American officials said they were just beginning to assess 
     the damage that corrupt investigators might have wrought, a 
     task that will take weeks. Most senior officials in the unit 
     were implicated by the lie-detector tests.
       Officials said they feared that much of the sensitive 
     information that American law-enforcement agents had shared 
     with the Mexican unit during the last year might have been 
     compromised.
       ``You have to assume that everything we've been giving them 
     has ended up in the hands of the traffickers,'' said a senior 
     United States law-enforcement official who, as did others, 
     insisted on anonymity.
       ``It's a disaster.''
       Other officials were more cautious about the significance 
     of the tests. But they said they expected that American 
     collaboration with the unit to be suspended until the Mexican 
     Attorney General's office undertook an investigation of the 
     case.
       A senior Mexican law-enforcement official said tonight that 
     the accusations were serious, but did not necessarily mean 
     that senior investigators had been working for traffickers. 
     He said, though, that an administrative inquiry was under way 
     and that one senior investigator had been reassigned.
       ``This vetting process was not the one we agreed to; the 
     questions were not clear and they were not the ones we 
     authorized,'' the official, who insisted on anonymity, said 
     of the American conclusions.
       ``Failing a polygraph does not mean that these people 
     committed crimes or took money, and there may be a lot of 
     reasons why they did not tell the truth, he said, in a 
     telephone interview from Mexico City. ``But the law is 
     very clear. To work in this unit you have to pass the 
     polygraph.''
       The possible penetration of the unit, apparently by 
     powerful drug gangs, in the latest in a series of such 
     calamities.
       Last week The Washington Post reported that Mexican 
     officials were investigating allegations of corruption 
     against dozens of army soldiers who had been stationed at the 
     Mexico City airport as part of the armed forces' American-
     supported involvement in the fight against drugs.
       For 10 years, as successive Administrations in Washington 
     have sought to work more closely with the Mexican 
     authorities, both to fight the flow of illegal drugs to the 
     United States and to strengthen the rule of law in a 
     strategically vital neighbor, American officials have 
     publicly embraced senior Mexican prosecutors, police 
     commanders and other officials who have later been revealed, 
     one after another, to have taken bribes from major drug 
     smugglers.
       In the most serious case, the Mexican Government announced 
     early last year that its drug-enforcement chief was in fact 
     working secretly with the man then considered the biggest 
     cocaine trafficker in the country, Amado Carrillo Fuentes. 
     Days earlier the official, Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, had 
     been basking in the praise of the Clinton Administration's 
     drug-policy director, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey.
       General McCaffrey and other Administration officials vowed 
     that such a debacle would not occur again. They pressed for a 
     sweeping reorganization of how the United States gathers and 
     disseminates intelligence about trafficking. The 
     reorganization plans have run into wide opposition among 
     Mexican law-enforcement officials.
       But more important for Mexico, American law-enforcement 
     officials also provided extensive help in writing a new law 
     against organized crime, in setting up an investigative unit 
     to enforce the law and in screening hundreds of other police 
     agents assigned to drug enforcement.
       Prospective members of the Organized Crime Unit were 
     submitted to extensive background and financial checks, lie-
     detector tests and psychological evaluations. Most of those 
     chosen also received training from the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration or both.
       But after a year and a half, in which the team of more than 
     200 investigators, prosecutors and intelligence analysts has 
     been responsible for investigating many of the most important 
     drug-trafficking and kidnapping cases, its record is mixed.
       Mexican and American officials praise the unit for what 
     they say was its role in the arrests of a handful of 
     important smugglers and the dismantling of a kidnapping ring 
     that terrorized central Mexico while receiving protection 
     from state officials.
       In particular Dr. Samuel Gonzalez Ruiz, 37, a former law 
     professor who heads the unit, has won wide respect from 
     American officials for what they say is honesty and courage. 
     Dr. Gonzalez Ruiz was one of three top unit officials who 
     were said to have passed the lie-detector tests.
       Increasingly, though, American officials have grown 
     critical of the unit for the same basic failing of the 
     special forces that came before it. Despite issuing dozens of 
     arrest warrants, the squad has been unable to capture leaders 
     of the biggest trafficking gangs, despite having access to 
     some of the most sensitive intelligence that Washington has 
     ever given the Mexican Government.
       As part of the law on organized crime that went into effect 
     in November 1996, the unit has pioneered the use of protected 
     witnesses and plea bargaining in criminal cases. Among other 
     actions, Dr. Gonzalez Ruiz arranged this year for testimony 
     before a Federal grand jury in Houston by a former Mexican 
     federal police chief who agreed to cooperate with authorities 
     in return for a reduced prison sentence on corruption 
     charges.
       But the unit's handling of its witnesses has sometimes left 
     a lot to be desired. A highly valued informer who implicated 
     senior military officials in drug corruption, Tomas Colsa 
     McGregor, was murdered last year after having left the 
     custody of the unit, American officials said.
       Another informer, a former federal highway police officer, 
     Jaime Jose Olvera, was kidnapped from a street in Mexico City 
     on Thursday, after having been in the protective custody of 
     the unit. He was found dead on Friday.
       American officials said Officer Olvera had provided crucial 
     information about the most important drug gang, which he had 
     once worked for, providing security.
       Three officials said the lie-detector tests were partly a 
     response to informers. But other experts said Americans 
     screened agents in countries like Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and 
     Thailand.
       According to two officials, the testing, led by the F.B.I. 
     and the Drug Enforcement Administration, focused in part on 
     whether senior investigators had passed information to drug 
     traffickers.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  I understood the rule to say that preprinted amendments have a 
preference. I also understood the gentlewoman from California to stand 
up and ask to strike section 201.
  I think what has happened is there is a combination of two amendments 
here. I just want to know what rule are we going under? Has there been 
a change in the amendments? Because I did not hear a unanimous consent 
request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The rule 
allows for any sections of the bill to be stricken by amendment because 
the bill is open to amendment at any point, and the gentlewoman's 
amendment has, in fact, done that.
  Mr. HASTERT. My question, Mr. Chairman, was based, and I understand 
we are going to hear these amendments, but there are independent issues 
on each side of this bill, or these two pieces of legislation. The 
preprinted amendments, which was the rule, asked that those amendments 
have preference.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman's amendment is in order. It 
is the Chair's understanding that the gentlewoman's amendment is one 
amendment, as reported by the Clerk.
  Mr. HASTERT. I am just trying to get straight what we are debating 
here. My understanding is the preprinted amendments, which were the 
rule and as the rule was passed, had two different provisions, two 
different amendments. And now we are going from preprinted preference 
to rules that are just reported by the Clerk. I do not quite 
understand.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair's understanding of the rule was 
that the preprinted amendments received discretionary preference on 
their order. The rule did not require that all amendments be preprinted 
to be offered.
  Mr. HASTERT. So would we not have to offer the two preprinted 
amendments first?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair's understanding is that the 
gentlewoman from California chose not to offer the preprinted 
amendments.

[[Page H7850]]

  Mr. HASTERT. I thank the Chair. I would just say to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) I misunderstood that. If she is to take 
both these together, it is a little more complex issue when she 
combines them.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's time on his inquiry has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  What this combined amendment asks is basically to do a couple of 
things. First of all, what the text of the bill says is that our law 
enforcement agencies that work in Mexico ought to have the protections 
that anybody who works in an embassy should have. And in exchange, 
people who work in Mexican law enforcement, who have duties in this 
country, ought to have those same types of privileges.
  Also, the black tar Mexican heroin that is now coming into our street 
corners in Los Angeles and Chicago and New York, some of the cities in 
New Jersey, and certainly Denver and other places, comes from the high 
mountains in Mexico. The only way that we can eradicate that black tar 
heroin is from helicopters that have the ability to reach high 
altitudes.
  Now, we need to be able to provide, in cooperation with explicit 
actions from the Mexican Government that we require, we need to be able 
to provide those helicopters. We need to have our agencies and agents 
in Mexico to have the same protections that other people in our 
embassies have, and that is basically, on the Mexican side of this 
issue, that is that part of the amendment. That is what we afford. Why 
should we take that away from our people, law enforcement agents that 
work in Mexico?
  The second part of this deals with Colombia. The law enforcement 
agency in Colombia that is in charge of drugs, that we have worked 
with, is the Colombian National Police. They have an extraordinary 
record on human rights. And as a matter of fact, the 18 people that got 
killed, that the gentlewoman from California talked about, right before 
General McCaffrey was there, were Colombia National Policemen. They 
were ambushed and killed. As a matter of fact, there has been 400 
Colombian National Policemen killed in the last year; 4,000 over the 
last 10 years. These are people who have fought and struggled to stop 
drugs being produced in Colombia and have given a lot of their life and 
talents, for those people who have been wounded and others, to try to 
fight this battle.
  They need help. That country is at the brink, absolute brink of 
chaos. If they do not have help, if they do not have the ability to 
fight within their own country, we will see Colombia being the first 
Democratic nation in the southern part of this Western Hemisphere 
become a narco-state. That is the danger that we are in, my colleagues.
  Both of these amendments, combined, first strike at our ability to 
work with Mexico, which has been, at times, a difficult country to work 
with; and also try to get things straight with the ability to move this 
process and to stop narcotics flowing into our neighborhoods from 
Colombia. We need to have the helicopters, we need the eradication, we 
need to be able to do the job with the Colombian National Police who 
are vetted and who have wonderful human rights' records. Why destroy 
that? Why take that ability to deal with those folks away?
  I just question why are we doing this in this amendment? I strongly 
oppose these amendments and would ask other Members of this body to 
vote ``no''.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment to cut off aid 
to Colombia.
  Let the record reflect the aid in this bill for Colombia primarily 
goes to the Colombian National Police to fight drugs at their source. 
General Jose Rosso Serrano is the director general of that outstanding 
organization. His Colombian National Police antidrug unit, the Danti, 
is the recipient of most of the drug fighting funds for Colombia.
  In March of this year, our House passed H. Res. 398 to provide 
Blackhawks for the Colombian National Police. It was passed out of our 
House Committee on International Relations with bipartisan support. 
There was no major opposition to that resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Gilman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hastert was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
let me read some parts of that resolution:

       Whereas the Colombian National Police is led by the 
     legendary and incorruptible General Jose Serrano, who has 
     dedicated his life to fighting drugs, and whereas the elite 
     anti-narcotics union of the Colombian National Police, the 
     Danti, is one of the best and most effective anti-narcotics 
     police forces in the region and the world.

  That was the preamble to that measure. The CNP have had 4,000 police 
officers killed over the last 10 years fighting drugs in Colombia, 
before they reach our streets and before they kill our children. They 
destroyed the Cali and Medellin cartels, and killed the violent 
notorious drug dealer Pablo Escobar in a shoot-out. So let us 
understand who we are giving funds to and who deserve it.
  There is no corruption in the CNP antidrug unit nor is there any 
history of human rights' abuses by the Danti antidrug unit. In fact, 
the Ambassador to Colombia, Myles Furchette, told our committee staff 
of the Congress not long ago that in the 10 years of providing U.S. 
assistance to General Serrano's antidrug unit, there have been no 
allegations of human rights' abuse.
  The amendment to delete antidrug aid to Colombia and especially the 
Colombian antidrug police is ill-founded and lacks merit. Accordingly, 
I request our colleagues to defeat the Waters amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  First of all, I want to say I have a great deal of respect for the 
gentlewoman and particularly for her concerns about the corrupt 
activities that take place in Mexico and in Colombia, particularly with 
reference to the narcotics trade. And I think it is a legitimate 
concern. We have concerns about human rights' abuses, but most 
particularly by the military aspects of those countries, and it is a 
legitimate concern. But I must respectfully and strongly oppose her 
amendment.
  The fact of the matter is that I would suspect that we would have all 
of the end use monitoring that we have had under what is known as the 
Leahy amendment, and that we would continue to have that. The fact of 
the matter is that it is in the national interest of the United States 
and the national security interest of the United States to assist these 
countries because, ultimately, assisting these legitimate efforts helps 
us in the interdiction and eradication of those drugs that would 
transverse our borders into our country, into our communities and, 
ultimately, to our children and those who are the most susceptible.

                              {time}  1445

  So, in fact, as someone who traveled last year to Colombia with the 
Committee on International Relations and who boarded a helicopter in 
the jungles of Colombia and who went with the Colombian National Police 
in the jungle to see their eradication and who in the process ended up 
catching, in the very fields of the jungles a laboratory which refined 
these products and saw all of the work and the risk that was engaged 
and who talked to members of the Colombian National Police who were 
harmed and injured, and to their leadership which our own U.S. 
ambassador in Colombia has talked about time and time again, both in 
our visit there and as the chairman of the full committee has just 
suggested before the committee in terms of the degree of integrity that 
they have, not to suggest that for so long as there are human beings in 
any entity there is not a risk, but ultimately when we focus on the 
Colombian National Police, for example, we are more likely than not to 
have the type of resources flowing to an entity that is legitimately 
dedicated to combating narcotics trafficking. So it makes a lot of 
sense to have these provisions.
  If we without any limitation go ahead and strike these provisions, 
then

[[Page H7851]]

Colombia and Mexico clearly will not have the wherewithal, particularly 
in Colombia, will not have the wherewithal to go ahead and be able to 
have any enforcement efforts. You also have to understand that in 
Colombia, we have very difficult consequences. We have guerillas who 
seem to lack any ideological perspective, but you have guerillas who 
use the narcotraffickers as their enforcement and the narcotraffickers 
use the guerrillas to fuel economically their efforts. So the bottom 
line is you have a synergistic relationship, none of them ultimately 
for any good purposes, and obviously for purposes that are incredibly 
detrimental to the interests of the United States and the national 
security of the United States in our efforts to combat drugs.
  I share the gentlewoman's concerns on the questions of corruption and 
human rights. But this broad swath of cutting I think would not meet 
our interests.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say, Mr. 
Chairman, we are being laughed at. I want to call my colleagues' 
attention to when our drug czar went down to Mexico and wrapped his 
arms around Drug Czar Gutierrez Rebollo, a week before it was revealed 
that he was on the payroll of the Juarez cartel.
  I want to draw my colleagues' attention to Colombia, when people were 
saying that the National Police were clean. I will tell you what 
happened to Pablo Escobar. They were supporting him until we put so 
much heat on them, and they tried to make it look as if they were 
better, they killed him. But these are the same National Police that we 
are talking about putting more money in their hands. This is above and 
beyond the current appropriations.
  I am simply saying, we need money to fight drugs in this country. We 
need good interdiction. What we do not need is to keep talking about 
giving our money to dope dealers under the banner of their police. Our 
own officers that we send down there to train them are disgusted and 
they are saying we are the laughingstock. I know that we need to get up 
in those mountains, but I think we need to go up there ourselves and 
stop giving our money.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, I simply will say that I understand 
the gentlewoman's concerns, but unless we are going to send armed 
forces into another sovereign country which has all other types of 
ramifications, I think it is very, very dangerous and I would urge a 
``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. First off I know the gentlewoman shares a deep concern about the 
heroin and cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles and in Fort Wayne in 
my hometown, but she maligned the name of the National Police.
  This hat belongs to Colonel Gallego who personally took down Pablo 
Escobar. He did not take him down because he was in on some kind of 
drug deal. They were trying to take out the Medellin cartel and then 
the Cali cartel. It has been difficult. You cannot make just random 
allegations about individuals.
  There are problems in Colombia. We know there are problems in 
Colombia. None of us are going to stand here and defend Mexico. She 
mentioned it. But she is failing to distinguish between the Colombian 
National Police and their defense units.
  General Wilhelm, the head of SouthCom, said that in Colombia, it is 
the number one priority in his command. I outlined earlier this 
afternoon the importance not only directly in Colombia but to the oil 
from Venezuela and the Panama Canal.
  DEA Administrator Tom Constantine said after his visit that General 
Serrano and the Colombian National Police are the first line of defense 
in the war on drugs. He called these policemen heroes.
  I know that while I may have a general reputation as a conservative 
among many people, I am still viewed in many places as kind of a 
liberal, open-minded guy. For example, Ambassador Frechette when I was 
in Colombia in particular asked me if I would go over and meet with the 
Human Rights Watch people and the people who had the concerns about the 
Colombian National Police and the Defense Department. In going through 
the particulars, they had no complaints on record, this was not this 
year but last year, with the Colombian National Police narcotics unit 
in particular but they do have them with the military. That is why this 
bill specifies specifically that the Black Hawks go to the Colombian 
National Police and the 50 Hueys go to the National Police.
  The incident that she referred to earlier, there is a difference 
between the Danti, the Colombian antinarcotics group, and the National 
Police as a whole. It is on this hat. It says antinarcotics. You are 
accusing Colonel Gallego of not participating in the takedown of a 
paramilitary organization when he only has jurisdiction over antidrug 
issues and was in an antidrug raid at the time. You cannot mix apples 
and oranges and that is an incorrect statement on the House floor.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I will let you get additional time when I am done with my 
points.
  Ms. WATERS. We have documentation.
  Mr. SOUDER. You have documentation that he did not participate, not 
that he participated and took somebody down.
  I want to illustrate what is at stake here. We have Huey helicopters 
that we would not allow Americans to ride in. Our only line of defense 
now in Colombia to keep the cocaine and heroin from our streets are 
these helicopters that are grounded. I personally visited in the 
hospital in Colombia some of the people in some of these Huey 
helicopters that have crashed. It is a tragedy that we are putting 
these old junkers out right now that will not work and we are trying to 
say that this is the only way we are going to protect our kids and 
families in America? If we do not make sure that the National Police 
have these helicopters and the ability to get up to the higher 
elevations with the Black Hawks and the Black Hawks can carry larger 
loads of people to protect the people who are trying to eradicate the 
drugs, let me assure you, if we do not do this, my son and daughter and 
your sons and daughters are going to be down there in Colombia trying 
to fight this war directly.
  We have people out there, Colonel Gallego has a multimillion-dollar 
price on his head and his family is in hiding. General Serrano has even 
more millions of dollars' price on his head. If they are with the drug 
dealers, why are they trying to kill them? Why have they killed the 
equivalent of 30,000 American police officers in the last few years 
trying to fight this? These people are dying. These people deserve our 
praise and credit. I understand and am concerned about the corruption, 
too, and that is specifically why we are not allowing these funds to go 
into places where we are concerned they are going to be misused. But if 
we do not stand with those people who are fighting this war, we are 
going to have to fight it because our national security is at stake and 
our kids' lives are at stake.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern.
  I have here a letter from the very people that he referred to in the 
Human Rights campaign. Jose Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director, Human 
Rights Watch; Coletta Youngers, Senior Associate, Washington Office on 
Latin America; George Vickers, Executive Director, Washington Office on 
Latin America; and Jamie Fellner, Associate Counsel, Human Rights 
Watch, raising these questions about the National Police.
  I have great sympathy for the fact that you have a relationship and 
that you certainly are pointing to someone who lost their life. Yes, a 
lot of people have lost their lives; however, we cannot stop them from 
dumping these drugs in our country.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The time of 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)

[[Page H7852]]

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the point here is that the gentlewoman 
alludes to allegations. There is one specific point, it is well known 
publicly, that is, that the National Police antinarcotics unit did not 
participate in stopping a paramilitary group. That is different than 
alleging human rights abuses.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment 
because I know the gentlewoman from California, a colleague of mine, 
does fight in every way she can to remove drugs from the streets. I 
think her heart is in the right position on this particular amendment. 
I do see it a little bit differently and I would like to go through why 
we have those differences.
  Almost every family in this country has been affected negatively by 
drugs one way or another, including my own, not only from usage but 
sale of drugs. I want to tell you how disappointing, how hurtful it is 
and how damaging it is to the family. It is not easy to deal with those 
kinds of things. We have had a lot of activity, President Reagan, 
President Bush, President Clinton. I think President Reagan and 
President Bush made more of a dent in antidrugs than many of the other 
Presidents, but we have never really had a war, a real war on drugs. 
That is what it is going to take. It is across the lot of broad fronts. 
Is it education? Absolutely. Interdiction. Border control where most of 
it is coming from. The cargo containers. That is why one of the reasons 
we did not want Long Beach Naval Shipyard to fall to the Communist 
Chinese because they have been known to sell drugs along with AK-47s 
and the rest of it. Diplomatic, trade agreements ought to include these 
things and be real tough, and also penalties. Many times we come to the 
floor to penalize the people that are really selling these poisons to 
our neighborhoods and many people feel differently, that we should not 
do that.
  Mr. Chairman, you remember a man named Enrique Camerino, a Border 
Patrol guy just east of my district and the district of gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter). He was buried alive after being tortured by 
Mexican officials. Yes, Mexico does have a problem. But I want to tell 
my colleagues, I live down on the border. There are citizens in Mexico 
that feel the same as we do, they are fed up, they are exasperated. 
They want drugs out of their country and they do not want drugs being 
sold to other countries. There are law enforcement agents in Mexico 
that feel the same that we do. There are politicians that feel the 
same.
  Are there problems? Yes. But I would say to the gentlewoman, if we 
are going to have this war, first of all we need to make sure that the 
resources go to where it is going to do the good and not pilfered. But 
if we take away those resources with the gentlewoman's amendment to 
people that we think are really fighting this war, then we are going to 
have problems. Because there are people in every one of those countries 
that are good citizens, whether they are law enforcement, politicians 
or just citizens.
  I would remind my colleagues, it was right here in the House when we 
closed the Post Office, there were members, not Members of Congress but 
there were individuals selling cocaine right here in the Capitol of the 
United States. We have the Mayor of Washington D.C. that went to jail 
for cocaine.
  Does it affect a lot of people? Is it in the political world? Is it 
individual? Every Member is being affected. I would say with the most 
humility, the gentlewoman's heart is in the right place in this 
amendment. I just happen to disagree with the amendment itself.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition that the 
gentleman has for the concern of the Congressional Black Caucus and 
myself as we try and deal with the issue of drugs and he is right. It 
has touched an awful lot of lives. But as a fiscal conservative, I know 
that you would not throw your money away time and time again. You talk 
about, for example, the war on poverty and you make the case, well, 
what do we have to show for our money, you say?
  I can show you more there than you can show me in terms of 
advancements that we have had, given the money we have been throwing 
down this rathole. I am saying to you as a fiscal conservative, you 
should not want to keep doing the same old thing. You have got to try 
something new. When you find time and time again and you have an 
article even in today's newspaper that says once again, these are the 
very people that we are funding to help fight the war on drugs are the 
drug dealers themselves and they are protecting those who are 
trafficking in drugs. You ought to want to change. You should not want 
to keep on doing the same old thing.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, I am a strong fiscal 
conservative. That is where the disagreement is. We feel that to fight 
this war and give it to the people that are very effective is the best 
that we can do, because it saves a lot of money in our own country and 
other countries fighting this. I think that is where the difference is, 
that we feel that there are people in Mexico and Colombia that are 
fighting this war effectively. If we accept the gentlewoman's 
amendment, then we lessen that war.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) for supporting this bill. She has been a strong proponent of 
H.R. 4300, been an original sponsor of it, and I am very pleased that 
she joined in it. With all due respect, I do disagree with her over her 
amendments. I am only going to briefly remark on those because they 
have been discussed considerably here, but one point I do want to make 
is that the only aid to Mexico in this bill would be in the form of six 
helicopters, if this were adopted, this bill were adopted, and that is 
contingent upon granting Mexico, granting our Drug Enforcement 
Administration the same diplomatic immunity that we have for the FBI 
and the same right to carry arms, which they have been very reluctant 
to do because of the incidents surrounding some drug enforcement 
agents. But we think that is terribly important, those helicopters are 
important, but nobody would deny the Mexicans, and currently the 
Mexican Government is embroiled in considerable problems with respect 
to the people down there who are running their operation, and we are 
all disturbed by that.
  Columbia, as has been stated, is a different scenario completely. The 
Columbian National Police are extraordinary folks. All of the money in 
here, all of the equipment in here, goes strictly for their purposes, 
not to the Columbian military as such. In the 10 years the United 
States has been assisting the Columbian National Police in their 
efforts against narcotics, they have sustained 4,000 casualties. The 
Columbian National Police have given up 4,000 lives to try to destroy 
the drug operations in that country. General Serrano, when he came to 
office in taking charge of this group, purged 7,000 of his police 
officers because of human rights violations, and an incredible 
screening operation has gone on since then.
  So I, with all due respect, must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment 
in that regard.
  I also want to point out, though, in the closing moments of the 
debate here, as we get near the end of the bill, the very important 
bill itself that the gentlewoman supports, this bill is to provide some 
direction in conformance with what our people in Bolivia, Columbia, 
Peru, and in our military at the lower levels in SouthCom who are on 
the front lines of the effort against narcotics have told us that they 
need, that they want; and if they have it, that they could produce, 
with the cooperation of the three key governments involved, and our own 
government, of course, at the highest leadership levels, they could 
produce a reduction in the flow of drugs out of those three countries 
into the United States by 80 percent within 3 years.
  That would be truly remarkable. When we consider the fact we have had 
double the teen drug use in this country in the last 6 years since 1992 
and the fact that the administration's drug plan calls for a 10-year 
plan to simply

[[Page H7853]]

reduce drug use and drugs imported into this country by 50 percent in 
10 years, this is a very, very significant thing we are trying to do in 
this bill, and we very much need to come to a closure on giving them 
the resources. That is, the planes; there are a lot of planes in here 
that go to Customs, new planes so we get the radar we need to be able 
to see down. We need to have the Coast Guard equipment, we need to have 
the resources that are here. Most of all, we need to do what this 
administration has not done, and that is to fight a real war against 
drugs and to end all of this now that we need to be doing.
  So I urge in the strongest of terms the adoption of this bill at the 
conclusion of the amendment process and, of course, the defeat of this 
amendment.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and all the different Members who have spent 
so much time working on this. Let me commend all the Members in the 
Democratic Party who have been active on this issue and who know that 
drugs have been a disaster for this country, who know that a great deal 
of the violence we are now facing is violence that either comes 
directly from the use of drugs or comes from drug dealers or from 
people fighting over drug territory.
  Since 1992, we have seen an 80 percent increase in marijuana use 
among high school seniors. Since 1992 we have seen an 80 percent 
increase in cocaine use among high school seniors. Since 1992 we have 
seen a 100 percent increase in heroin use among high school seniors. 
For kids 12 to 17, first-time heroin use has surged 875 percent from 
1991 to 1996. Heroin is killing kids in Texas, in New York, in Florida, 
in California.
  And make no mistake about it. Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, are not 
problems of the inner city, they are not problems of minorities, they 
are not problems of the poor; these are problems that affect every 
American in every town in this country.
  To stand in Iowa and be told that one of the two biggest issues in 
Iowa this fall is methamphetamines and the traffic coming in from 
Mexico and coming up the interstate in the smallest towns in Iowa, 
clearly that is a problem. What makes it a tragic problem is not only 
that it destroys young people, that it ruins their lives, but that it 
is avoidable.
  From 1980 to 1992, we had a dramatic decline in drug use in the 
United States. It is very important to understand that. From 1980 to 
1992, drug use kept coming down. It is ironic to me that we have living 
proof, as an historian, occasionally these things happen, and we kind 
of wonder how did we get there.
  As an historian, I know that in the summer of 1992, by any reasonable 
standard, we were winning the war on drugs. Cocaine use in that period 
was down dramatically, marijuana use in that period was down 
dramatically, heroin use in that period was down dramatically, I think 
largely for two very different reasons, both of which this bill seeks 
to work on.
  First because, led by Nancy Reagan, there was a just-say-no program 
that the experts laughed at but the American people listened to, and it 
turned out that when 7,- 8,- 9,- 10-, 11-year-olds hear just say no, 
when they hear it on television and advertising, when they hear it in 
school, when they hear it at church or synagogue or mosque, when they 
hear it from their parents, when they hear it from authority figures 
they respect such as President Reagan, they say, I guess that is right. 
And they said no, and we saw a dramatic impact over a 12-year period. 
And drug use was declining, and it was reasonable to project in the 
summer of 1992 that we were going to win the war on drugs. Literally 
win the war. We were on the way.
  Then for a variety of reasons, and I do not want to go into the 
partisan background, and I am not going to make any partisan attacks 
here, for a variety of reasons, the war on drugs got off track and drug 
use went back up over the following 6 years.
  So here we are in 1998. This is not the bill I wish we were passing. 
The bill I wish we were passing would have been written by General 
McCaffrey with the total support of the Pentagon, with the strong 
support of the State Department, with the strong support of the Justice 
Department, with the strong support of the Treasury Department, with 
the open hand of the Office of Management and Budget, and with the 
enthusiastic public speeches by the President and the Vice President. 
That is the bill I wish we had here.
  That bill does not exist. General McCaffrey is not given the 
authority to write that bill, the Pentagon will not cooperate in 
writing it, the State Department will not pay attention in writing it, 
the Treasury Department will not think through the problems of our 
border, the Justice Department is itself busy, and the Office of 
Management and Budget will not approve the funds.
  So the Congress is writing a bill.
  I just talked to General McCaffrey a few minutes ago, and I assured 
him that when this bill passes the House and when it passes the Senate 
and when we meet in conference, we will be glad to sit down with him 
and work out any practical details he is concerned about. But what we 
will not do in this Congress is have the administration fail to show 
leadership, fail to provide a successful plan, fail to provide the 
resources.
  For example, there are no ships in the eastern Pacific. That is not 
the Congress's fault. So to be told we do not solve all their problems, 
which by the way they do not solve either, is a nonstarter. Why are 
there no ships in the eastern Pacific? Because this administration did 
not think it was a high enough priority. To be told, on the one hand, 
we do not have the airplanes today and, on the other hand, under our 
bill they will not get them for 2 years, so that 2 years from now we 
will have the airplanes; but if we do not pass our bill, 2 years from 
now they will not have the airplanes and they will say, well, they will 
not get them for 2 years.
  So the answer all too often downtown has been, let us not talk about 
it, let us not address it, let us not solve it, let us not pay for it, 
let us not do it, let us not plan it. And then our children use drugs. 
And our children die.
  This bill is a step in the right direction. It is a step on 
prevention, it is a step on rehabilitation, it is a step on 
interdiction. All three steps need to be taken simultaneously.
  It is a good bill, it is an important bill, and it says in the right 
direction we are going to do what it takes to win the War on Drugs.
  And let me just say one closing thing. I see the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations is here. We have Members from 
every committee that deals with this, from the Committee on 
Appropriations, from the Committee on Ways and Means, from the 
Committee on the Judiciary, from the Committee on Government Reform. 
Every committee that has a piece of this action is involved, because we 
think saving our children is important enough to transcend the 
bureaucracies and transcend the territorialities and get the job done.
  I commend in particular the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who 
has led the task force that has brought everyone together. And we stand 
ready, as soon as this is done, to go right to the administration, to 
sit down with every part of the bureaucracy that needs to be involved, 
to work in good faith in our children's behalf and to make sure that we 
get the best possible bill to dramatically strengthen our ability to 
tell the kids not to do it, where the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
has been such a great leader, to help rehabilitate those who are doing 
it, and to help interdict those who would come and destroy our 
children.
  I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on final passage.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman 
is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and really I thank the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) for the leadership as well as those others, the

[[Page H7854]]

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) and others who have supported this substitute offered by Mr. 
McCollum.
  But sections 201 and 204, striking them would not do violence to what 
the Speaker has just talked about. I even applaud his work in this 
area. But I would remind the Speaker, as he decried the fact that the 
administration has not been as supportive as he would like on these 
issues, I would remind him that the administration is also supporting 
using the surplus for Social Security, and the other side would like to 
use it for tax cuts, and that has not stopped the other side from 
pushing a tax cut bill.
  The Speaker has spoken so eloquently about education over the past 
several months. He has decried efforts in the public arena to educate 
kids. That did not stop him from pushing a voucher program because he 
thought that our public schools were not educating our kids. We have 
evidence, ample evidence, that much of the money that we are spending 
in these areas is not actually being used to fight drug trafficking. 
All of us on this side support all efforts, interdiction and domestic 
efforts, to fight at every point of entry in this Nation, every point 
of entry in all of our communities and neighborhoods. But we cannot 
continue going down a path where we are getting a door slammed in our 
face. It is clear that moneys we are spending now are being used by 
drug traffickers. It is clear that what we are doing now, moneys are 
being spent with agencies who are apparently purportedly out to attack 
drug traffickers who are actually complicit in working with drug 
traffickers.
  Let us do the right thing, strike 201 and 204, and let us pass this 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and do something positive.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time for consideration of amendments in 
this bill having expired, the Chair must now put the question on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1515


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 537, proceedings will now resume on those amendments 
on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order: 
Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum); 
the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant); the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Mc Collum

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 362, 
noes 61, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 438]

                               AYES--362

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     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
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     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-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--61

     Allen
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Klink
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     McDermott
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Engel
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Schumer
     Smith, Linda
     Towns

[[Page H7855]]



                              {time}  1538

  Messrs. MINGE, VISCLOSKY, DOOLEY of California, VENTO, BROWN of 
California and MATSUI changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. DANNER, and 
Messrs. HINOJOSA, COYNE, BERRY, ABERCROMBIE, BECERRA and MATSUI changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 357, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by 
electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair 
has postponed for further proceedings.
  The Chair also intends to put the question on the Traficant amendment 
immediately after the vote on the Reyes amendment to the Traficant 
amendment. If a recorded vote is ordered on the Traficant amendment, it 
will be taken immediately, and it will also be a 5-minute vote.


 Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Reyes to the Amendment Offered 
                            by Mr. Traficant

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 256, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 439]

                               AYES--167

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--256

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Engel
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Schumer
     Smith, Linda
     Towns

                              {time}  1548

  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 291, 
noes 133, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 440]

                               AYES--291

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     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
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)

[[Page H7856]]


     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--133

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Porter
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Gonzalez
     Goss
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Schumer
     Smith, Linda
     Towns

                              {time}  1558

  Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The pending 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 67, 
noes 354, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 441]

                                AYES--67

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (WI)
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     DeFazio
     Doggett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Hamilton
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--354

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     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
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H7857]]



                             NOT VOTING--13

     Conyers
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Kaptur
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Schumer
     Smith, Linda
     Towns

                              {time}  1607

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall 
vote 441. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The question 
is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Dreier) having assumed the chair, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, 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. 
4300) to support enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the major 
transit countries and support a comprehensive supply eradication and 
crop substitution program in source countries, pursuant to House 
Resolution 537, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the 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 the 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 384, 
noes 39, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 442]

                               AYES--384

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--39

     Bonior
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Hamilton
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     McDermott
     Miller (CA)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Reyes
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Horn
     Martinez
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Schumer
     Smith, Linda
     Towns

                              {time}  1628

  Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________