Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Surfing Caucus for his kind words. Sadly, the pollution has closed our beaches in Imperial Beach this weekend so there are still battles to be fought there. I would just like to ask the ranking member if he has any more speakers or if he would like to make a closing statement? Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask for support of H.R. 8, but let me just point out, again, that, first of all, I want to apologize. I think we should all apologize to the people that live on the border region, that this body has had to spend 3\1/2\ years talking about doing something to help the environment and we have not taken action. It happens to be the nature of the creature. Congress moves slow. The Federal Government moves slow and let us just hope that the Senate will take up this bill and move it forward. At the time that Smog Check 2 is going to be mandated, is being mandated, by the Federal Government on the people of California, it is essential that we get H.R. 8 through to show fairness and equity and we believe that everyone should be responsible for the environment, no matter where they live or where they commute in from. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the passage of H.R. 8 and ask for unanimous support from Congress as we received it from the full committee, and I thank the ranking member for his help today here on this bill.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the most dynamic representative of the Surfing Caucus.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the soon-to-be chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the dean of the California delegation.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize my appreciation for the cooperation and assistance which has been provided by the California Air Resources Board and the California EPA. The support and the perspective of these agencies have been invaluable in this process. With the increased enforcement under H.R. 8, gross-polluting vehicles will be either repaired and brought into compliance, or simply left parked in the driveway. This will have the initial direct effect of removing the disproportionately high emissions of these vehicles from our air, and hopefully the long-term, indirect effect of increasing binational use of San Diego's public transit system which runs directly to the border. In both situations, the health of the people of both San Diego and Tijuana benefit, particularly vulnerable populations like children and the elderly, as does the environment of the entire region. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of my colleagues for this common sense and fair piece of legislation named H.R. 8, the Border Smog Reduction Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8) to amend the Clean Air Act to deny entry into the United States of certain foreign motor vehicles that do not comply with State laws governing motor vehicle emissions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Border Smog Reduction Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 is a bipartisan, common sense bill which will improve and protect both the environment and the public health by requiring the Federal Government to participate in the enforcement of existing air pollution control laws at our borders, laws which have been de facto mandated from the Federal level. At the heart of this bill is a basic issue of fairness, in addition to a clear opportunity to improve the public health and protect the air quality. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) was an original cosponsor of the bill and brought back much information from Texas. I would like to point out the help I received from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), both of whom provided encouragment and extensive work during this process. Their support has been second to none. I also appreciate the hard work of their staffs that they devoted to H.R. 8. I would also like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a new addition to this Congress, whose firsthand experience along the border has been extremely beneficial and has complemented the extensive input that I have received from the Customs and the INS agents in the San Diego region. I am also grateful for the support of my colleagues from the California delegation who have helped me out immensely in this process, and also my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce. I would specifically like to thank my subcommittee colleagues who took the time away from their own districts and families to attend an informative field hearing on this issue which was held in San Diego on November 18, 1997: the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). I would also like to emphasize the ongoing dialogue that I have had with the Administration on this bill, specifically the Office of U.S. Trade Relations, and the Environmental Protection Agency. My dialogue with EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Assistant Administrator Richard Wilson dates back to the 104th Congress when I first introduced this legislation. In meetings last fall, I received some very insightful and appropriate perspective from our Trade Representative, Ms. Barshefsky. In the time since, there has been what I would term a very productive and fruitful exchange with the Administration, which has helped to refine and polish H.R. 8 into the bipartisan legislation which was unanimously approved by voice vote on June 24 by the full Committee on Commerce. I particularly appreciate assistant administrator Mr. Wilson's help on this item, who met with me and staff on May 20 of this year. At that meeting, we reviewed a modified draft of H.R. 8, which I had prepared and provided to him in advance, and which he and his staff agreed addressed a number of questions which EPA had previously expressed about the bill. In this meeting, Mr. Wilson stated to me that ``if the bill as now written were to come before the President, we (EPA) would not recommend a veto.'' Mr. Wilson further stated that at that time the EPA would favor an ``opt-in'' approach for other States, which was in fact adopted during the committee consideration of H.R. 8. I recognize and share the EPA's concerns about the ``opening-up'' of the Clean Air Act, and I would like to again state clearly my resolve, which has also been clearly stated by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), that it is my intention, and also the intention of all of us who support it, to keep this bill as it currently is: a narrow, bipartisan rifle-shot to improve the Clean Air Act. The Border Smog Reduction Act is a simple but practical bill, which will increase the overall effectiveness of our air pollution control strategies by providing the Federal Government with the authority, which it currently lacks, to help States enforce existing law. H.R. 8 will ultimately allow Customs officers to deny entry into the United States to foreign registered commuter vehicles which have not been brought into compliance with our emissions control requirements. As the Customs officers have explained to me, this authority will be consistent with existing Customs pollution control requirements as they now pertain to vehicles which are being imported for sale. H.R. 8 provides ample opportunity for the operators of these commuter vehicles to have them brought into compliance prior to the law taking effect. I would emphasize here that H.R. 8 is directed only at foreign-plated commuter vehicles driven into the United States each day by foreign nationals or U.S. citizens for the purpose of employment or education. It will be the responsibility of the drivers of the vehicles to demonstrate compliance with applicable State laws, or risk fines and denial of access via that vehicle into the United States. H.R. 8 does not specifically require the impoundment of vehicles; Customs officers already have that authority to do so under existing civil penalty procedures and can employ this at their discretion. Customs agents have told me that once this bill has been implemented, and border commuters are made aware of and understand the new requirements, it is unlikely that commuters with vehicles which are not in compliance will repeatedly attempt to drive those vehicles across the border. Those that do would eventually be denied access to the U.S., be subject to fines from Customs, and potentially to the impoundment of the vehicles in question, again at the discretion of the Customs agents, but only after repeated attempts to violate the law. H.R. 8 will initially take effect in California only. However, it is not exclusively U.S.-Mexico border legislation. I specifically made certain that H.R. 8 extends enforcement authority to all border States that may at some point wish to take advantage of it, and allows them to have the flexibility to use it as they see fit, depending on the unique situations that exist and vary from State to State. Other border States which in the future may choose to take advantage of the authority provided them by this bill could adopt either the California program, or develop their own alternative in partnership with the Federal Government. However, the bill imposes no mandates or requirements on eligible border States. Let me at this point again specifically thank the men and women of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Department who actually man the ports of entry at San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, and whose expertise and perspective was essential in helping me to refine H.R. 8 since I first introduced the bill in the 104th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have here letters from the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 105, and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2805 in support of H.R. 8, and I would ask to include them in the Record at the appropriate time. I also have several other documents, including resolutions of support from the Air Pollution Control Districts of San Diego County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County which I will include also in the Record: National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 105, San Ysidro, CA, May 14, 1998. Hon. Brian Bilbray, Forty-ninth Congressional District, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Bilbray: On April 17, I met with you and your staff in San Diego regarding H.R. 8, the Border Smog Reduction Act. This meeting was to clarify questions about H.R. 8. It was also to determine if the everyday line inspectors thought the bill was workable and could be effectively implemented, without having a negative impact on the primary mission of Customs, drug interdiction, or creating longer traffic waits at the border. In our meeting you clarified that this bill would only target, and be applicable to, foreign plated commuter vehicles being driven across the border by U.S. citizens, resident aliens, or aliens with a valid visa for purposes of employment or educational study in the United States. This bill would not impact vehicles which are properly registered in California as such vehicles already have emission certification. H.R. 8 would not affect the residents of Mexico who cross into and out of the United States on a daily basis, to do everyday business, nor would it affect tourists who come across the border to shop, visit friends or family and so forth. We also talked about how H.R. 8 would work, and what the requirements of the Customs Inspector would be regarding the vehicles in question. It was further clarified that under the bill, the responsibility of the inspector would be to check if the vehicle was registered in California, therefore having smog certification. This could be done via computer or physically seeing proof of registration. If the vehicle was not registered in California the driver would have to show the inspector some documentation verifying smog certification. If it could not be proven that the vehicle in question was either registered in California or had smog certification, after the third attempt to enter the United States, the vehicle would be denied access to the United States and redirected to the country of origin. We discussed the need for incorporation into the bill of a 60-90 day ``grace'' period, between the enactment of the bill into law and its actual implementation. This period would be used as an educational and awareness-raising process to inform the regular border commuters whose vehicles would be required to comply with H.R. 8. Given the above understanding, implementation of H.R. 8 is a practical reality, and would simply build upon Customs' existing pollution control enforcement practices. Currently we are required to ensure that vehicles which are manufactured in Europe, Japan, Mexico, or elsewhere meet both United States and California auto emission and safety standards prior to being driven into the United States by United States citizens or foreign nationals residing in the United States. If these vehicles are found not be in compliance, do not have the required safety features, such as safety glass, nor an Air Pollution Control device installed, they are returned to the country of origin. This is allowed to happen once. If a United States citizen, or foreign national residing in the United States, attempts to drive the vehicle in question across the border into the United States, and the vehicle cannot be shown, by physical inspection, to meet Department of Transportation safety standards nor have an air pollution device installed it is seized by Customs. H.R. 8 would merely expand Customs existing authority to enforce air pollution standards, by requiring compliance of foreign-plated vehicles driven into the United States by United States citizens, or by foreign nationals with visas for purposes of employment or education. Based on our discussion and my own years of practical experience at the border, I believe that this bill can work and will serve to reduce air pollution from these cross border mobile sources. This bill will not result in excessive or unrealistic work load for individual Customs line inspectors. Nor will the bill interfere with our primary mission, seizure of narcotics or other contraband, or cause excessive traffic wait times. NTEU Chapter 105 still supports H.R. 8. Please let me know if I can be of additional assistance on this important matter. Sincerely, Robert Clark, President NTEU 105.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 8, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I just feel that we need to send a very clear message, and I think Congress and the administration must stop sending these mixed messages around the world about what our relationship is with Taiwan, and the Taiwanese people's place in the world. The fact is there are those forces all over the world who would like to deny national sovereignty to certain people, and, frankly, the Taiwanese are one to which I think the United Nations and many other agencies have denied recognition of their national sovereignty. We may want to raise concerns about certain activities that China may be involved with, be it with its neighbors to the south or be it internal, but I think one of the things we need to send, quite clearly, is a message to China saying the people of Taiwan have proven themselves over the last decades, and have earned the right to gain the title of sovereign nation unto themselves. I do not think anybody can claim that the people of Taiwan have not earned that much, through their actions and through their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that one of the things that is not brought up enough about America is the fact that we have consistently, not always but consistently, tried to support democratic republics around the world, and I think that the fact is that we need to send a clear message when it comes to Taiwan, that Taiwan is a nation moving toward the ideal democratic republic that we always talk about, that we always say we would like to see mainland China move toward. What a mixed message we send, if we tell the rest of the world and the people on mainland China that the democratic Republic of Taiwan is going to be sold down the river to mainland China's tyranny, because it is politically expedient for the people of the United States or politically expedient for people around the world. What a mixed message, if we do not stand strongly and speak clearly that the people of Taiwan have proven they cannot only defend their right to national sovereignty, their little island in the world, but also that they are continuing their movement toward what we all want the rest of the world to be, and that is a democracy that works, functions, and allows representative government to prosper. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is clear that the administration and Congress had to stop sending mixed messages, and has to send a very strong message, not just to Taiwan, but to Beijing, that there is a political and military reality called Taiwan, and we should not only respect this reality, we should embrace it.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the City of Imperial Beach, the most southwest lake community in the continental United States, is going to celebrate its 17th annual sand castle competition. Now, we hear many Members of the House come here and talk about great things in their communities. But, sadly, this is not going to be a great event unless things change over night. Sadly, we are going to be confronted by the fact that Mexico is sending down 25 million gallons of untreated raw sewage that may close the beaches of Imperial Beach for this great weekend for this community. Now, instead of being greeted by sand castles and happy children and families and blue sky and warm water and beautiful surf, the visitors of Imperial Beach may have to confront red pollution signs, not because they did not clean up their environment, not because they did not spend the money for infrastructure to make sure that they did not pollute, but because the United States allows a foreign government to violate American sovereignty and pollute American soil. Sadly, for the last 20 years, Mr. Speaker, we have stood by and watched a foreign country pollute our wildlife preserves and our beaches in southern California. And we have talked and we have negotiated. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of American taxpayers' funds at trying to address this issue while negotiating with the Republic of Mexico. Now, this problem is something that most people do not understand. The Tijuana River flows through a major metropolitan area of over a million people and flows north into San Diego. And San Diego has been impacted by this. Now, the responsibility for cleaning up this mess, Mr. Speaker, is not a local, not a State, it is a Federal obligation, because it is crossing an international border. And if the people of Mexico do not care about what they are doing to their neighbors, and we all talk about being good neighbors, I think we can all understand, in a civilized society, being a good neighbor does not mean dumping your raw sewage into somebody else's neighborhood. I am asking the Congress and the President and the Senate and all of America to finally stand up and say, we are willing to confront our friends and our neighbors to the south about the environmental problems that are not just HIDTA and NAFTA but predate NAFTA, but it is time to do what good neighbors should do every once in a while, tell our neighbors to clean up their act, quit polluting our waters, quit destroying our sand castle competitions, quit endangering our children and our families. Mr. Speaker, it is time that Congress makes some firm, tough decisions about what we are willing to do to send that message across. I would ask us to consider that if Mexico is not sensitive to the fact that tourism has been destroyed in the City of Imperial Beach again and again over the last 20 years, we should consider a sensitivity lesson to the Republic of Mexico and consider if tourism going into Mexico from the United States is a guaranteed right that we want to continue as long as this pollution continues. I am not proposing any actions today, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking us to become aware that it is time that this Congress, who talks about the environment, who gets involved in environmental issues all over this Nation, indeed the world, now be willing to stand up for the environment in our own soil that is crossing the border and start backing up our well-intentioned rhetoric with real action that will make sure that 18th sand castle competition in Imperial Beach is one that is clean, sunny and happy for both sides of the border.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is on a border State; he is up North, I am down South. There are two borders, though we forget about that sometimes. I want to clarify. The gentleman said this happens in many places. Where else in the United States do we have a problem like this that has been perpetuated through either Federal inaction or inappropriate action and been perpetuated through Federal agreements with foreign governments? I think the gentleman has to admit this is unique in one aspect.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman is on a border State.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Those of us who live along the southwestern border have grown tired of the Federal Government constantly finding excuses not to address the issues that only the Federal Government can address. We are talking about a crisis here that has been created by the lack of Federal action in the last 30 years. Pollution coming across the border, the lack of cooperation between Mexico and the United States, this is a Federal responsibility and a Federal obligation and a Federal preserve. They can talk about, let us spend more money having more sanctuaries, more preserves, but if the Federal government, those of us in Congress are not willing to move forward and take action, not talking about protecting the environment but actually doing something to protect the environment, if we will not do it where the Federal Government is the only agency that can execute it, the only agency that has the jurisdiction to execute many of these types of strategies, then let us not keep talking about that we care about the environment. If we do not move forward with this proposal at this time, then let us stop talking about how much we care about the environment. Now is the time to prove who really supports the environment.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think the distinguished Whip has articulated his position quite clearly. I think that, Mr. Chairman, there is a disagreement about how this process should work. I do not think money may absolutely corrupt, but it does influence, and there are those of us that feel we should limit that influence and those who feel we should not. This, obviously, is an issue of a huge loophole and just how much resources are able to be funneled into a campaign process. I understand the gentleman who is introducing this amendment's position, because he feels that there should not be any limits, and I respect that. But if we are going to have limits, and if we are going to enforce those limits, then we cannot have a huge loophole that allows groups to come in and circumvent the entire premise that there should be a limit on money's ability to influence elections, and maybe this amendment's whole concept is to create such a loophole, that it destroys the entire enforceability of the limit concept. I appreciate the gentleman from California's position and the fact that we do not want to create a loophole.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I was sort of torn on which side I should ask for time from, seeing that I am working with both sides on this issue, and I think that this is a classic example of bipartisan and bicoastal cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I think that, first of all, I want to praise the gentlewoman from Michigan, because I think a lot of people, because of partisan concerns, do not want to come up and say our side has really created an unacceptable situation, and I want to commend her for that. Because I think a lot of people on this side are saying, why has not anybody been willing to admit that wrongs have been done in the recent past? I think, on the flip side, there have been things happening historically in the far past that have not been addressed; and I think we all admit, no matter what our party affiliation, that this issue has become so chronic and so obvious and so outrageous that this amendment should be made in order and should be adopted by even those of us who cringe, as the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Connecticut does, to any type of amendment to our Shays-Meehan bill. The Shays-Meehan bill does not want a lot of amendments, but I think this is a viable one, and I would congratulate the gentleman from Mississippi for bringing it forward. I think it is something that the Democrats and Republicans can draw on. But let me remind my colleagues again, even with this amendment, we are treating a symptom to a much deeper problem. Why would anybody pay $100,000 to sleep in a bedroom except they think with the bedroom comes the ability to influence a whole lot of money and a whole lot of power? And the reason why people are trying to influence the political process in Washington is because Washington is controlling too much money and too much capital and too much power. So as we talk about campaign finance reform, let us all, especially those of us that worked the hardest on this over the last few years, recognize that we are only taking one step with this amendment. We are taking a nice two or three steps with the Shays-Meehan bill, but we are never going to complete this journey unless we are willing to stop having Washington control so much power and so much money out of Washington, D.C., and we learn to allow the people and the communities in America to have that power, to have that influence. I only wish there was as much money and as much interest in elections of city councils and county supervisors and commissioners and State assemblymen and State Senators and governors as there is in Washington, and the only way we can allow that to happen is to allow the people locally to make those decisions so that this type of influence is not needed and is not tried in the United States Congress.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I have to make an editorial note that this issue of what is a most-favored-nation status reminds me of the rest of the ``Washington speak''. This is the city where you can have a 7.5 percent increase and they call it a cut; call something a balanced budget that the rest of America would not call a balanced budget; and now we talk about most-favored-nation relationship, and it is a misnomer. It is not about China or anything else. I think we need to talk about is Washington going to start speaking plain English like the rest of us? The most-favored-nation status to America happens to be Canada and Mexico. That is a fact of life. Some people may not like it, some of us are concerned about it, but I think the issue here about do we speak plain English when we start talking about our business in this body, I think there is a good argument of saying we should do it across the board, not just with the trade issue. But getting back to home, let us talk about something near and dear to Americans here in the United States, and that is our tax structure, our Tax Code. Madam Speaker, I happen to own a tax business and have owned a family tax business for a while now. My wife runs our tax business. I just got off the phone with the young lady who runs my business, my wife, and her comment was this. ``When you start talking taxes, you start talking thresholds, will you please try to make it as simple as possible?'' Why do Americans across this country have to go to people like my wife to be able to get their taxes done? It is because Washington keeps making it more complicated. I want to praise this bill because it finally is getting back to the basics. Let us start with January 1 as being the beginning of the year. What a radical concept. Finally we are getting a message across that maybe Washington should start living by the rules that everybody else lives by, and one of them is January 1 should be the beginning of the time for our tax year, as much as possible. I praise this bill and I want to reflect the praise that my wife sends to this Congress, of keep it simple when you can. Let us make it January 1, the beginning of the year. I want to thank the Congress for doing that. Also, let us say this is the beginning of doing other things, of making the entire Tax Code simpler.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut and thank both authors of this amendment. I think it is a balanced amendment. It does not do everything we would like to see, but what legislation does? I think we are recognizing that this issue of campaign finance reform is not Democrat or Republican. We all carry blame for what was or was not done in the past. We all carry blame for the fact that the system is not working as we know it should. And so I would ask my colleagues to take a look at this amendment. It is comprehensive. There are parts in it that Republicans may not like, but there are parts in it where the supporters of Democrats will be infuriated. There are practices that, sadly, have become all too common, that have been used by Democratic supporters and Republican supporters, that the American people know are wrong and inappropriate. One of those activities is groups coming in at the last moment in elections and doing something that is supposedly an educational piece, which we all know are last-minute hit pieces and smear pieces. The American people expect candidates to keep their campaigns above the belt. Sadly, there are groups that are subverting the process by using dirty tactics late in campaigns and claiming that they are educational pieces. The Shays-Meehan bill will help to reduce that type of tactic in our electoral process. I want to say, as a Californian, I think there is one thing that is very clear that the people in this country are going to say quite loudly in the next few elections, because I saw it in California. Dirty tactics are going to backfire. Shays-Meehan helps to reduce the potential for those types of tactics being used in our Federal elections. And I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for bringing this forward and working together. Let us have a bipartisan effort in addressing these problems.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to echo the chairman of the Committee on Rules. I am one of those dirty dozen that wanted to vote on these issues. There is proper discussion, there is proper dialogue, but I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember we are here to vote on this issue eventually, so I think the time has come for us to be able to do what we say we want to do, and that is vote either for or against proposed legislation as it comes up.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask for opposition to the Reyes amendment. Let us not be so darned politically correct when it comes to the defense of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, the drug importers and sellers are watching us today, and they will say, either we vote for the Reyes amendment, which maintains the status quo, or we vote for the Traficant, which will say we will do what we can at the border within the resources of this country to defend this country. Those who are saying that Mexico might get upset, and let me challenge them, Mexico has been willing to do at the border what we have not. Everyone who votes against Mexico's certification ought to look at that vote. They have put the troops on the border, not because it is anti-American, but because it is antidrug. Let us have the guts to be pro American and antidrug, and if Members want to vote against Mexico, they had better vote for this bill.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and I think even my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who recognizes just how much the gentleman from Ohio has tried to moderate this issue and all he is trying to do is send a very clear message not just to the administration, not just to the American people, but to everyone that America will do for itself what it does for everyone else in the world and that it would defend its children and its neighborhoods with whatever resources are available. We are just talking about allowing the people who pay the bills to have this military available, to have their neighborhoods protected just as much as the people in Bosnia or the people in Europe or the people in Africa. Is it too much to ask, Mr. Chairman, that we just recognize the people paying the bills should have the same peacekeeping capabilities that the rest of the world does? Mr. Chairman, if we do not care about the drugs that are coming across the border, and we all know that, and illegal immigration and the related crime, let me remind my colleagues that this is a human issue, too. More people die every year trying to cross the border illegally than were killed in the Oklahoma explosion. Let me say that again. Every year, more people die on the border trying to cross illegally. And many of those people that are dying are young juveniles who are being dragged across the border by people who think that it is safe to come across our borders. I ask my colleagues that we send a clear message that America will do everything possible to secure its national frontiers, that the United States Congress expects the Federal Government to treat the boundaries of America as sacred and as secure as the boundaries in Bosnia or anywhere else in the world. We are asking that the common-sense approach of enforcing and using all the resources are available. Let me just close with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) saying we want to secure the borders. The problem with not securing the borders, Mr. Chairman, is that we have refused to do everything humanly possible in the United States. Let us do as much here on our own soil as we do on everyone else's soil.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 161, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''.