[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.

                          ____________________