[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3274-H3278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4205.
{time} 1636
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gutknecht (Chairman pro tempore)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, a demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 106-621 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Luther) had been postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in House
Report 106-621.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. 20 printed in House Report 106-621 offered by
Mr. Traficant:
At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 324, after line
11), insert the following new section:
SEC. __. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS TO ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.
(a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter
18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 374 the following new section:
``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol
and control
``(a) Assignment Authorized.--Upon submission of a request
consistent with subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may
assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
to assist--
``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
preventing the entry of terrorists and drug traffickers 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 to prevent the entry of weapons of mass
destruction, components of weapons of mass destruction,
prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other terrorist or drug
trafficking items.
``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members
under subsection (a) may occur only if--
``(1) the assignment is at the request of the Attorney
General, in the case of an assignment to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in
the case of an assignment to the United States Customs
Service; and
``(2) the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary
of the Treasury (as the case may be) is accompanied by a
certification by the President that the assignment of members
pursuant to the request is necessary to respond to a threat
to national security posed by the entry into the United
States of terrorists or drug traffickers.
``(c) Training Program Required.--The Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together
with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training
program to ensure that members receive general instruction
regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the border
areas in which the members may perform duties under an
assignment under subsection (a). A member may not be deployed
at a border location pursuant to an assignment under
subsection (a) until the member has successfully completed
the training program.
[[Page H3275]]
``(d) Conditions on Use.--(1) Whenever a member who is
assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Immigration and
Naturalization Service or the United States Customs Service
is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the
assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the
agency concerned shall accompany the member.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to
conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement
activity or to make an arrest; and
``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known
as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
``(e) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall
notify the Governor of the State in which members are to be
deployed pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a), and
local governments in the deployment area, of the deployment
of the members to assist the Immigration and Naturalization
Service or the United States Customs Service (as the case may
be) and the types of tasks to be performed by the members.
``(f) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title
shall apply in the case of members assigned under subsection
(a).
``(g) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made
or continued under subsection (a) after September 30,
2002.''.
(b) Commencement of Training Program.--The training program
required by subsection (b) of section 374a of title 10,
United States Code, shall be established as soon as
practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 374 the following new item:
``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, a great Georgetown basketball player not too far away,
now in the NBA for the Miami Heat, was just named the most valuable
defensive player in the National Basketball Association. He got that
award because he did not allow anyone with bad intentions to come into
his territory.
The Traficant amendment does not deal with immigration, it deals
strictly with terrorism and with narcoterrorists. I submit that someone
can actually send across the border the components of a nuclear
missile, assemble it in Arizona, and launch it at American cities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I have found in my short tenure in Congress that every
year we celebrate the holiday season, we celebrate Easter with an
Easter egg roll, we celebrate the Fourth of July, and we every year
debate this ridiculous amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is ill-advised. Every year it is ill-
timed. It has the ability or the potential to put our men and women in
uniform in jeopardy. I would hope that my colleagues would join me in
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I can remember when a Member stood up when I offered to
change the burden of proof in a civil tax case and change judicial
consent, forcing the IRS to go to a judge before they could seize a
home, and I heard a colleague say the same thing: Every year we do
this, we did it for 10 years.
Last year it became law. In 1997, we had 10,037 seizures of homes, I
would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). In 1999, there were
only 161 seized. Sometimes it takes time to pass good legislation.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this, a Nation that does not secure its
borders has no national security. A bill that does not debate the fact
that only three out of 100 trucks are even inspected and our borders
are wide open, and we are asking civilians to match the firepower of
terrorists who literally have those bad intentions, it makes no sense,
the argument that I am hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio, if this amendment were to become law, then that would mean that
this country would be in serious trouble, because what this amendment
does, it advocates the equivalent of martial law for communities along
the border, the equivalent of martial law, where whole regions of this
country who are already suffering from lack of infrastructure, lack of
support, lack of money, many, many different needs that we have along
our border communities would, in a very disparate way, be affected by
the utilization of the military, under the guise of terrorism.
My friend speaks about good legislation sometimes taking many years.
A bad idea I think does not deserve its time and its place, and
certainly this amendment does not deserve to be considered by this
body.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very moderate amendment. There are many
people in America who would say it does not go far enough. We hear a
lot about what our responsibilities are in the Federal government, but
if we read the Constitution, Article 4 specifically says that the
Federal government's responsibility is to defend our neighborhoods from
outside invasion.
We have a drug war supposedly going on, and the American people are
paying to send troops all over the world to defend everybody else's
neighborhoods, but Members of Congress who are sworn to uphold the
Constitution will not even authorize the President to use troops if
necessary to defend our children from the scourge of drugs.
The gentleman from Ohio is not saying put them there, he says at
least be brave enough to say that if this is what it takes, we are
willing to stand by our citizens, our children, and our Constitution
that says our obligation constitutionally is not to defend other
countries but to defend our own children in their neighborhoods.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to understand, this is a
moderate proposal being presented. If Members will not even authorize
the executive branch to use what resources are available to defend our
children, resources that are used for other children all around the
world, I ask Members, who do Members defend if they are not going to
defend their children and their own constitutional responsibilities?
Check it out, Article 4, the responsibility of the Federal government
to stop foreign invasion. Our country is being invaded by drugs. I do
not want anyone to stand up and point fingers at other countries, that
they are not doing enough about fighting the drug war, when they will
not stand up and execute the minimum of constitutional responsibilities
of this Congress.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I have fought the drug war. I have served in
the military. I, in the same way, want to enforce and obey the
Constitution of this United States, but we need to do it in a very
responsible manner.
How many Members have had a chance to go visit and learn the needs of
the border? Just last week, Mr. Chairman, we had five Federal judicial
judges from the border States who carried 24 percent, in five
districts, carried 24 percent of the workload in the United States.
{time} 1645
We put soldiers on the border. Where are we going to keep them when
we arrest them? What about the judges that are needed? What about the
prosecutors that are needed? We have to provide, my friends. The
infrastructure is not there. I have fought the war on drugs. I have
talked to the judges about the needs that they have. If we do it in a
responsible manner, yes, let us do it.
Let me say something else, when you are in the military, the training
is totally different from the training that
[[Page H3276]]
people on the Border Patrol, who serve in the Border Patrol, have. We
are dealing with human beings. We are dealing with people who are
destitute, who are looking for a job. Yes, we need to enforce our
borders and strengthen our borders, but let us do it in a responsible
way.
Mr. Chairman, my friends from Ohio know, both of them, how much
respect I have for both of them, but if we do not have the
infrastructure, please tell me where we are going to house them? Who is
going to try them?
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this, if we are worried about where we are
going to house them, just let the narcotics people keep coming in. Tons
of cocaine and heroin, we are debating how are we going to prosecute
them, where are we going to keep them. Our borders are overflowing with
narcotics. We have no war on drugs in America. It is hypocrisy.
My amendment does not deal with immigration, but it says they must be
trained. They cannot make arrests. They must always be in the presence
of civilian law enforcement officers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I will defer, I will close. I am the last
speaker on this segment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment calls for the training of regular and
reserved troops. It prohibits making arrests. They are not involved
with illegal immigration. Their purpose is to support preventing
terrorists from entering our Nation, and if there is one threat that we
face more than anywhere else, is not a sophisticated battle somewhere
overseas, it is terroristic and continued attempt to impregnate our
Nation and blow up our Federal buildings.
In addition, if this is a war on drugs, then I am Woody Allen,
because we have none, and we have two border patrol agents for every
mile of border. I say if the Secretary of the Treasurer or the Attorney
General requests it, they are allowed to do it. It does not mandate it.
I want to know the program, because there is no program, our Nation is
overrun by narcotics.
The weight of this problem falls right on Congress who sits back with
people in the White House that have done nothing. This group has done
nothing. If we need more judges, hire them. If we need more
prosecutors, hire them and do that in another bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, in deference to my friend, Woody, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), I would like to close by saying
that the Department of Defense does have, the authority does have a
plan. I want to enter into the Record a copy of a report that was just
filed this week.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from it, and it says, I quote,
``in emergencies, the DOD will respond to requests for support as
required. It is not in the DOD's military interests to require training
in search and seizure of arrest or use of force against civilian
citizens,'' what my colleague is advocating. ``This type of training
has minimal military value and detracts from the training with war-
fighting equipment for which we are trained in war-fighting missions.
It will lead to decreased military training, which reduces unit
readiness levels and overall combat effectiveness of the armed
forces.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant), this is not what the military is trained to do. We already
stretched our troops all around the world in many different types of
missions. I strongly ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, as I stated before, I am for arresting
terrorists and narcotraffickers, but, my friends, the dockets of the
judges who border the United States and Mexico are overloaded. They are
having to look for places to incarcerate hard-core criminals. All I am
saying is let us be responsible, let us come up with a plan.
I have five presiding judges, there are 89, 89 judicial Federal
districts throughout the United States, my friends, and five of these
judicial districts, five carry 24 percent. Yes, I am for arresting
traffickers and narcotraffickers. I used to arrest them when I was
sheriff, but let us come with a responsible plan. It may be my friend
can help me by coming up with a bill that will give these judges help,
give the United States marshals help, but this is not the place for the
military to be involved in.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, it is not as though the House has had this
debate. It never had this debate. It seems as though we have had it
over the years, and I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant). I have great respect for his passion and his zeal.
Let us apply a little common sense, as the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) always likes to teach me. This is also about the
Constitution and the prerogatives of the Office of the Presidency. He
is the Commander-in-Chief. The Congress, we do not have to stand here
and tell the Commander-in-Chief that one of your jobs is to protect the
Nation's borders. Constitutionally, it is implied in the powers of the
Executive Office of the Presidency.
With regard to narcotics, let us be very upfront; 80 percent of the
drugs that are coming into this country come through ports of entry.
Now, we have 10 percent that are air. We probably have the other 10
percent that come through the transit countries here in particular,
whether it is up through central America to Mexico, they shortland the
border, and then they end up taking it across the border through mules,
to humans, to motorbikes, horseback, that happens; so the gentleman is
correct on that.
That issue gets addressed by, whether it is INS and DEA and those
types of issues, but for the Congress to mandate placing our troops in
divisions on the border is not the most prudent way to do this. I agree
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) about how it detracts from
the unit readiness and those types of things, he is right. I concur
with the gentleman's analysis. That is not what we should be doing.
I would urge Members to vote against the Traficant amendment,
although, I have great respect for his passion.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is often one of the issues that gets contentious
on the floor of Congress, and it is a lot like eating an ice cream
sundae. It looks good. It feels good eating it, but it is not good for
us and a lot of times people recommend against it. Part of this effort
is not one of wanting to sound tough on drugs.
Like my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), I fought the
war on drugs. I had 26\1/2\ years working the border with the United
States Border Patrol, so I know what is involved. That is why I
emphatically asked my colleagues let us fund the INS, let us fund
Border Patrol. Let us give them the right equipment. Let us give
Customs the necessary personnel, the necessary technology to do the
kind of professional job that my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant) is concerned about.
If, in fact, this issue is about fighting terrorism; if, in fact, we
are concerned about the ability of this country to monitor and control
the borders, it is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an
issue that has to be dealt fairly. It is an issue that has to be dealt
even-handledly, and it is one that has got to be done strategically.
We cannot impose marshal law on communities along the border simply
because they happened to live there, people happen to live there. It is
imperative that we provide the same kinds of
[[Page H3277]]
protection to residents along the border like Brownsville, El Paso,
Nogales, and the San Diego area that the same citizens in Ohio and
other parts of this great country have.
It is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of working smart to
protect this country, but doing it professionally by funding INS Border
Patrol and Customs.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me start off by just saying that I think the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is the most successful Border Patrol
chief in the history of this country, a great American, a great crew
chief in Vietnam. I have been down in the contrawars with my great
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), a wonderful, wonderful
member of our committee. I also respect the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) and what he is trying to do. And I just want to point out a
few things.
We have already entered the drug war with the U.S. military. We
entered the drug war because we realized that our Customs folks and our
other folks were being overwhelmed by what essentially were military
operations on the side of the people that were moving cocaine and other
narcotics to our children into the U.S., so we started using American
military assets, even though there was a major debate 15 years ago on
this subject.
This is only permissive. It requires the request of the Attorney
General of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, and
even then it is not mandatory, it is discretionary with DOD.
I would say if we look at the enormous effectiveness of the
smugglers, people who are moving now, both people and narcotics into
this country, and the prospect and possibility of terrorism, which
always exists, this is not an unusual or an extreme request. It
requires a request from the Attorney General of the United States, and
in some cases, with this 2,000 mile border and an underfunded Border
Patrol which is stretched very thin and which, even today, cannot meet
its recruiting requirements, it is very obvious, it is very easy to
envision a time when the United States in its interests, its
preservation interests and security interests, should have the right to
have American troops on the border.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is an outrageous request, and I think
it is something that we should be able to have at least in our hip
pocket.
I would just ask my friends, I joined with them on all of these
requests for more Border Patrol funding, and I led some of those
requests, the INS has not gone along with those requests, we are still
short Border Patrol agents. I think this is a reasonable amendment
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, let us be upfront about this. Mexico has
recognized how critical the war on drugs are. They have put their
troops at the border. We are not even mandating that. We have Naval
forces and Air forces right now working a drug interdiction on the
border, and we have the National Guard of the State of California. I do
not know about the other States, but the troops from California are
already at the border.
Now, I have supported both gentlemen from Texas in increasing funding
for Border Control, but to deny the American people who pay the taxes
for the national defense capabilities of this country, to deny them the
resources defending their neighborhoods, because we are worried about a
public relations problem, or we are worried that it may detract from
hiring more Border Patrol agents, I strongly support that. I think my
colleagues know that.
{time} 1700
San Diego has more drug problems through the court system than any
other portion of this country. This is not about conviction. This is
about interdiction. I strongly support the argument of the gentleman
from Texas that we need more court processes. But do not dare walk away
from the fact that the States are doing it, Mexico is doing it, the
Navy is doing it, the Air Force is doing it, everyone is committed to
this. Everyone is committed to controlling the border, but we are going
to condition that American troops will not be used for controlling our
border.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILBRAY. I do not have time.
Mr. REYES. The gentleman still has time. Let me just ask my colleague
if he realizes that that authority already exists? I read from a report
filed this week. That authority is already there with DOD.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot even believe this debate. Is
the border a national security checkpoint or not? Are we guarding
borders in the Mideast? Are we vaccinating dogs in Haiti with our
military; building homes overseas?
I am not worried about the small illegal immigrant running across
that border. I understand that. But, my God, I am a former sheriff. How
many more overdoses are we going to have? Where is our program? We have
no program.
I heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) talk about the ports
of entry. The Traficant bill allows the military to assist Customs as
well at those ports of entry. They cannot make arrests, they must be
trained, they cannot violate posse comitatus. But, go ahead, keep the
doors open. Keep the cocaine and heroin coming in, colleagues, and then
let the people all over America end up on slabs. Maybe we need a rocket
to come across, someone to put together a warhead, maybe in Arizona.
Maybe that will teach us a lesson.
I say the Constitution says Congress is responsible for our national
defense. We authorized the President to conduct our programs. I do not
mandate it, but I do authorize that possibility to occur.
I want to thank this chairman for being respectful enough to allow a
Democrat to bring this amendment and to have time to speak granted from
the Republicans.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Traficant
Amendment.
I have been a law enforcement officer, and I served in the Army.
These two endeavors simply do not mix, particularly inside the borders
of the United States. Putting our forces on the border is a violation
of the legal protection of citizens from the military under Posse
Comitatus.
Our energy should rightly be focused on the need for professional law
enforcement officers; we do not have enough INS and Customs personnel
to address the need that now exists. Protecting our border is a massive
undertaking, one which should be performed by professional, bilingual
INS and Customs personnel.
As a co-chair of the Congressional Border Caucus, I can tell you that
one of our most constant and pressing issues is lobbying and fighting
for resources to put the law enforcement we need on the border. Again,
that is the appropriate venue for the gentleman from Ohio, and others
who share his concern, to focus their efforts.
The Department of Defense has spoken to this issue and their views
are very instructive for this debate. They note that it is not in the
DoD's military interest to require training in search and seizure
arrests--or use of force against civilian citizens.
They say this will lead to decreased military training, which reduces
unit readiness levels and overall combat effectiveness of the Armed
Forces. That, my friends, is not the path we want to take. Our soldiers
face enough danger.
DoD also says that ``the risk of potential confrontation between U.S.
citizens and military members far outweigh the benefit.'' Indeed it
does, and for one citizen on the border, it is too late.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
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.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) will be postponed.
[[Page H3278]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Vitter) assumed the Chair.
____________________