[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.
____________________