Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I heard a Republican colleague earlier defend the Republican bill by saying, ``in this case, less is more.'' Only in Washington would someone say ``less is more'' with a straight face, that less protection is more security. But I am glad that at least we have one Republican on the record who admits that their bill in fact does less. It does less to protect Social Security, it does less to protect our seniors, and it puts aside less of the surplus. Less in this case is not more. The Democratic bill saves 100 percent of the budget surplus for Social Security, because seniors put 100 percent into their contributions over years and years of work. They did not put 90 percent in, they did not put 95 percent in, they put 100 percent in. That is what we should protect, not a penny less. Republicans should be ashamed to come down here to the floor and convince seniors that less is more. Our seniors know that less is not more, that less protection is not more security. They know who is on their side. They know it is the Democratic plan. Let us pass the Rangel substitute.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about values today, but we need to remember that every day the actions we take on the floor of this House say a lot to the American people about what our values really are. So I will be proud to cast another vote for the Democratic plan to reserve the budget surplus, whose ink has not even dried yet, to save Social Security, and against the Republican plan to use the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts, because I value our senior citizens. I value the years of work they dedicated to raising our families, to building this Nation, and to defending our freedom. I will fight to make sure the benefits they deserve, the benefits they paid for, are there when they retire. So when Members come to the floor to vote, they will have a clear choice of values: the value of playing election year politics with Social Security and the fiscal stability of this country, or the value of doing right by our senior citizens.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India on his visit to the United States and meeting at the United Nations. This is Mr. Vajpayee's first visit to the United States since he was sworn in as Prime Minister for the second time on March 19, 1998. On September 24th, the Prime Minister will address the 53rd Session of the United Nations, and shortly thereafter Mr. Vajpayee will receive the distinguished Dr. Ambedkar Award for this tremendous government service on behalf of the Indian people. The award will be presented by the founder and president of the Ambedkar International Mission U.S.A., Mr. Hardyal Singh. Dr. Ambedkar was the author of the Indian Constitution and was India's most prominent and vocal proponent of equal rights for Scheduled Castes. Prime Minister Vajpayee's long and impressive parliamentary career began in 1957 when he was just 22 years old. Mr. Vajpayee was briefly Prime Minister in 1996 and later became the Opposition Leader. The Prime Minister is also known as a scholar and an articulate speaker. He has published several collections of his poems and speeches including ``Lok Sabha Mein Atalji'', ``Mrityu Ya Hatya'', and ``Amar Aag Hai.'' Mr. Vajpayee has also been an editor of several Hindi newspapers. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has dedicated his career to the uplifting of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, promoting women's rights, and defending child welfare. On behalf of the House of Representatives I welcome this able leader to our country and hope his stay proves to be a productive one.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, all across America, parents use the tool of allowance to teach their children the value of money, that they have to pay for what they get. If they do not have the savings, they do not buy the goods. But over and over, Republicans ignore that basic lesson. They want to get it now and pay later. They want to get tax cuts now and pay for them later. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. Someone is going to pay for it. Who? America's working families who are paying into Social Security for those benefits today and for their retirement tomorrow. They will pay for it by forking over even more in payroll taxes. They will pay for it by having to retire later. They will pay for it in reduced Social Security benefits. Democrats want to prevent this from happening tomorrow by being responsible today, and we have an opportunity to save Social Security, and we seek to seize it. Republicans want to get political credits for tax cuts today that America's working families will pay for tomorrow, and that, to me, is the very definition of irresponsible government.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional gentleman, Mr. Eduardo L. Duran, for his many years of honorable service to the community. Mr. Eduardo L. Duran arrived in America 38 years ago in search of his long lost love and now wife Xiomara. Over the years, Mr. and Mrs. Duran experienced economic and social struggles as they raised their four children. Their struggles were due to the inability of speaking English and leaving a successful business behind in their native land. Mr. Duran, after several business ventures, was fortunate and successful enough to have his wife dedicate herself to raising their children, Alexander, Diane, Eduardo II, and Claudia Tatiana. After establishing his businesses, Mr. Duran became involved in his community. He is a member of the Hispanic Mercantile Federation, active partner of the Cuban American Foundation, member of the Lions Club, and founding member of the Latin American Kiwanis Club of West New York. Mr. Duran along with Jose Alvardo, Jorge Quintana, and Joseph Menendez helped found and charter the Latin American Kiwanis Club of West New York in February 15, 1995. Today, as one of the five Board of Trustee members, he holds the title of the second-vice-president. The other trustees are his son Alexander, President; Robert Arreaga, first- vice-president; Maria E. Smith, Secretary, and Maria Elena Pacheco, Treasurer. In my regards, Mr. Duran should be honored and recognized for his unique contributions to the community. It is an honor to have an outstanding gentleman such as Mr. Eduardo L. Duran residing in my home state serving the residents of my district. I ask that my colleagues rise with me and applaud this remarkable example of community service at its best.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church to the United States and specifically the New Jersey/New York region. The Coptic Church is responsible for many contributions to Christianity, including the Nicene Creed which is today recited by Christian churches around the world and thousands of biblical and theological texts produced by the early Coptic Church. Today those texts are valued by historians and theologians alike. Pope Shenouda III is a profound theologian, an eloquent preacher, an accomplished author, and an able leader of Christian unity. Before his consecration as Pope, His Holiness was a successful student, a charismatic teacher, and a pious monk. Since his consecration in 1971, Pope Shenouda III has led the Coptic Orthodox Church to a world-wide resurgence. In North America alone, the Coptic Church has established over 70 new churches in the last twenty years. Pope Shenouda III has traveled around the globe in the interest of Christian unity. In 1973, His Holiness was the first Coptic Pope to visit the Vatican in over 1,500 years. His Holiness has also kept in close contact with sister Orthodox churches with visits to Constantinople, Moscow, Romania, Bulgaria, and Antioch. Pope Shenouda III has also advanced relations with many Protestant churches as shown by his dialogue with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1993. Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to thank the Consul General of Egypt in New York, Soheir Zaki, for hosting a reception for His Holiness today. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome Pope Shenouda III on his visit to this country, and hope that his stay is a pleasant and fruitful one.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to AKTINA Productions, a non-profit Greek-Cypriot-American radio program which offers stellar bilingual programming on the airwaves of public station WYNE 91.5 FM in the New York Metropolitan area. AKTINA Productions is unique not only because it is the only bilingual Greek-American Radio Show presently airing in the United States, but also because it caters to all ethnic groups and ages. Its programming includes Greek songs and music, as well as hard news, special news reports and feature stories of wide public interest, including folk arts, sports, radio, theater and the latest Greek hits. Its informative newscasts and reports from Cyprus and Greece, inform listeners of the Greek and Cypriot national issues. Every year, AKTINA Productions organizes a cultural event to acknowledge the Greek and Cypriot heritage. This year's event will celebrate the unique customs and traditions of Asia Minor. The well- known dance Group Terpshichore will present a Dance-Music Journey from the Waterfront of Smyrna to the Black Sea of Pontos and into the caves of Cappadocia. This event will also mark the tragic anniversary of the Greek expulsion from Asia Minor following the catastrophe at Smyrna in 1922. It was at Smyrna in 1914, that the Turkish Nationalists regime initiated a systematic campaign to eradicate the ethnic Greek population in Asia Minor, consigning and killing thousands of male conscripts into forced labor battalions and destroying Greek towns and villages and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in areas where Greeks composed a majority, including the Black Sea port of Pontos and the areas surrounding Smyrna. Through this production AKTINA will be paying tribute to many Greeks who lost their lives during the tragic events at Smyrna, including Metropolitan Chrysostomos, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians in Smyrna who refused to abandon the city and was brutally murdered by Turkish mobs with the consent of the Turkish police forces. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate AKTINA Productions both for the service they provide to listeners in the tri- state area, for ensuring that we never forget the tragic events at Smyrna by staging this production, and to wish them well as they come together on September 20, 1998 to celebrate their Greek and Cypriot heritage.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations took such umbrage. I was referring to remarks made by previous speakers. I am glad to hear that the chairman says that no person in this country whose ethnic heritage is such that they should be diminished versus a U.S. company, but one of his previous speakers from his side of the aisle suggested that. So I hope that he takes his umbrage to his colleague and suggests to him that that type of suggestion is inappropriate for the Chamber and inappropriate insofar as that we do not want to make citizens in this country, because they come from a certain lineage, second-class citizens. I agree with him. On the question of oil, my simple suggestion is, there clearly has been various mentions of the question of the access to oil and the concern from it. That is a legitimate issue and interest of the United States, but the question is, does it rise to the national interest, the national security interest, and is this our beacon of light for U.S. foreign policy? I think that those are legitimate issues to raise. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding to me.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on International Relations, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I object to the bill's striking of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act both on the substance and the procedure. I do not think that many of us consider ourselves, with all due respect, to be secretaries of State, and I have heard many colleagues on both sides of the aisle suggest that they do not have the full abdication to the administration of what the United States role is in the world or a blank checkbook for that regard. For 9 years, 9 years the government of Azerbaijan has blockaded, not embargoed, but blockaded, meaning using force to blockade Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital supplies, creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the United States to send emergency life saving assistance to Armenia. By contrast, section 907 does not prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid to the people of Azerbaijan. As a matter of fact, to date more than $130 million in United States humanitarian and exchange assistance has been provided to Azerbaijan but through nongovernmental organizations. Azerbaijan has failed to live up to the basic conditions set forth in U.S. law pursuant to section 907. What does that say? Quote, taking demonstrable, demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. For this reason, we should not lift restrictions on aid to Azerbaijan. Second, I object to the provision of the underlying bill on procedural grounds. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, the committee which has the authorizing jurisdiction for the Freedom Support Act, I am clearly concerned that we set the process and the pattern, that the Committee on Appropriations usurped the jurisdiction of our committee, and that the Committee on Rules extended protection to the provision despite its violation of House rules on authorizing in appropriation bills. Section 907 remains an essential element of U.S. foreign policy towards the Caucasus as well as an expression of Congress' objection to Azerbaijan's illegitimate blockade of the Armenian people. I want to address one or two other things I have heard in debate. To suggest that American citizens of this country who identify with a certain national entity of another country, who may have been born here in the United States but whose roots in fact come from some other ethnic background, that those citizens have less of a right to petition their government for what they believe the United States policy should be any place in the world and that U.S. companies, however, with multinational interests have a greater right than United States citizens to petition their government in my mind is outrageous. We should take risks for peace but those should be on the side of making sure that Azerbaijan ceases to be the aggressor. Oil and oil interests themselves cannot be the guiding star of United States foreign policy, particularly at a time of an oil glut. We can get our pipeline, but the pressure should be on Azerbaijan, the aggressor, the aggressor, not the victim. When we assist the aggressor, we send the wrong message throughout the world. When we assist those who are undemocratic, we send the wrong message throughout the world. When we assist those who are trying to strangulate a people, we send the wrong mesage throughout the world. When we look the other way, when we lend a blind eye to what is happening in these parts of the world, simply based on economic interests, we go down a road which we have already had in our history, and we need not repeat that chapter again in our history. That, Mr. Chairman, is really in my mind the guiding principles we should be looking at as we determine how we vote on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Radanovich-Pallone amendment. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, all year Democrats have been trying to save Social Security, and all year Republicans have been trying to raid it. The proof is in our budgets. The Republican-passed budget did not include any provision to protect the surplus for Social Security. The Democratic budget provided a rock-solid guarantee. True to form, today Republicans are offering $200 billion in tax cuts paid for out of the budget surplus. Now, I support most of these tax cuts, but the money Republicans are using to pay for them belongs to our Nation's seniors and working families. They put it there. The surplus would not even exist if it were not for the Social Security Trust Fund. The conservative action would be not to spend what we do not have in the bank. We should take care of the commitment and the contract we already made with our seniors in Social Security before we pay for new promises using their money. It is easy to go out and tell seniors you are on their side. That vote will prove who really is and who really is not. And, believe me, the voters are watching.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Hill International is a New Jersey company who has sought to resolve a $55 million claim with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia dating from the 1970s for work performed on a power and desalinization plant. There is no question that the work was finished, because the plant is in operation today. The issue is whether or not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Prince Bandar will step forward and pay for the services they received. Now, I come to the floor today, with many of my colleagues, out of sheer frustration. After 3 years of asking, Members have not been able to get a meeting with Prince Bandar. Our government should stand up for U.S. companies and citizens who are economically hurt by foreign countries. How long will Members of Congress have to wait before we can have a meeting? Prince Bandar and Crown Prince Abdullah will be in Washington in just a few days. I hope that they will honor our long-standing request for a meeting and, more importantly, I hope that Saudi Arabia will meet its obligation to pay for what work was done, as is observed under international rules and law. Saudi Arabia should pay the claim of this U.S. company who did the work and should be paid.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a statement as it relates to one of the issues that we have consistently heard about and suggesting that the Administration has cut our overall drug efforts. In essence what we had here was a readjusted strategy. We found that the Administration through its fact-finding found that over the Mexican border, much more was coming through in terms of illicit drugs than from some of the Caribbean aspects, so it reallocated moneys to domestic law enforcement, and our overall budget remained the same. In the 1997 fiscal year, we are talking about 52 percent went to domestic law enforcement, because it understood the intention and the need to deal with what was coming over our border and it reallocated for that purpose. And then 12 percent went for interdiction and 35 percent went for demand. What we are doing, we are taking that 52 percent for domestic law enforcement which was geared at the border, the most porous place in which the ability to transverse drugs into the country was created and now here we are going to try to raise the interdiction part. There are many of us who support that. But we need to characterize it in the appropriate way. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who has been extremely active over many years in the House and former chair of what was a select committee on narcotics. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, I simply will say that I understand the gentlewoman's concerns, but unless we are going to send armed forces into another sovereign country which has all other types of ramifications, I think it is very, very dangerous and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. First of all, I want to say I have a great deal of respect for the gentlewoman and particularly for her concerns about the corrupt activities that take place in Mexico and in Colombia, particularly with reference to the narcotics trade. And I think it is a legitimate concern. We have concerns about human rights' abuses, but most particularly by the military aspects of those countries, and it is a legitimate concern. But I must respectfully and strongly oppose her amendment. The fact of the matter is that I would suspect that we would have all of the end use monitoring that we have had under what is known as the Leahy amendment, and that we would continue to have that. The fact of the matter is that it is in the national interest of the United States and the national security interest of the United States to assist these countries because, ultimately, assisting these legitimate efforts helps us in the interdiction and eradication of those drugs that would transverse our borders into our country, into our communities and, ultimately, to our children and those who are the most susceptible. So, in fact, as someone who traveled last year to Colombia with the Committee on International Relations and who boarded a helicopter in the jungles of Colombia and who went with the Colombian National Police in the jungle to see their eradication and who in the process ended up catching, in the very fields of the jungles a laboratory which refined these products and saw all of the work and the risk that was engaged and who talked to members of the Colombian National Police who were harmed and injured, and to their leadership which our own U.S. ambassador in Colombia has talked about time and time again, both in our visit there and as the chairman of the full committee has just suggested before the committee in terms of the degree of integrity that they have, not to suggest that for so long as there are human beings in any entity there is not a risk, but ultimately when we focus on the Colombian National Police, for example, we are more likely than not to have the type of resources flowing to an entity that is legitimately dedicated to combating narcotics trafficking. So it makes a lot of sense to have these provisions. If we without any limitation go ahead and strike these provisions, then Colombia and Mexico clearly will not have the wherewithal, particularly in Colombia, will not have the wherewithal to go ahead and be able to have any enforcement efforts. You also have to understand that in Colombia, we have very difficult consequences. We have guerillas who seem to lack any ideological perspective, but you have guerillas who use the narcotraffickers as their enforcement and the narcotraffickers use the guerrillas to fuel economically their efforts. So the bottom line is you have a synergistic relationship, none of them ultimately for any good purposes, and obviously for purposes that are incredibly detrimental to the interests of the United States and the national security of the United States in our efforts to combat drugs. I share the gentlewoman's concerns on the questions of corruption and human rights. But this broad swath of cutting I think would not meet our interests.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to point out to my colleagues who several times there have been references to the Administration cutting interdiction money. Several points I think need to be made. Number one is those moneys were used for other drug policy purposes, such as demand reduction. We have even heard some of the speakers on the other side suggest that as much as we also need to deal with interdiction, and I agree with that, we also need to deal with demand reduction. Also the majority has had the opportunity since they took control at any time during that process, in the appropriation process, to rise to the level that they presently offer in this legislation today. So I would just caution that as some seek to make a point that may be perceived as political in nature, the policy reality is, is that we have voted on the budgets that have been passed, we have had opportunities through the appropriation process to increase interdiction moneys to the levels that we thought were appropriate, and we now have in this bill today a very significant increase in interdiction. Now, that is fitting and appropriate. But I also think it is important in terms of keeping this debate intellectually honest that in fact there was significant assistance given to demand reduction and agreed that this is not just a one-sided war, that there are multiple aspects, different fronts to this war and if we are to be successful, we need to be attacking all of those fronts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us labels a whole class of workers guilty until proven innocent. I rise to express my strong opposition to this amendment. It automatically considers any worker at a port suspect, and it only targets port workers. Port employees are hard-working and honest people who have a strong commitment to doing their jobs and serving their nation in its efforts to eradicate illegal drug importation. This amendment does not account for those facts. Let me emphasize that I represent the largest port in the eastern seaboard. I understand the need to fight the entry of illegal drugs at our ports of entry. There's no doubt we need to continue in those efforts. The U.S. Customs Service with other government agencies does a valiant job in trying to seize narcotics at New Jersey's ports. They could not accomplish this without the assistance of the Port's workers. Here are some examples: in July 1998 under Operation Brass Ring the U.S. Customs Service seized 700 pounds of cocaine at Port Newark/Port Elizabeth, New Jersey; and in June 1998 the Customs Service seized 1,300 pounds of cocaine concealed in a shipment at Port Newark/Port Elizabeth. I cite these examples to demonstrate ongoing narcotics fighting efforts at the Port; efforts which the Port's workers aided. Port workers have their own initiatives to fight illegal drugs with programs like the Dock Workers Against Drugs initiative. They are not coerced or forced to do this; rather they participate voluntarily. This amendment imposes a federal mandate in an area where local efforts are already underway. The criminal background records of the Port of New York and New Jersey's workers, including ancillary workers, are already examined thoroughly. The ports of New Jersey and New York already do what this amendment offers. But the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor did this without a mandate from the Federal government. This amendment violates workers' privacy. It does not provide any safeguards to prevent the distribution of sensitive information to those with no connection to port operations. This amendment provides no limits to the information that can be collected, and records could be released that date back years and have no relation to the work of port employees. The information could be used in inappropriate ways. Protecting the integrity of our borders and stopping the entry of illegal drugs is a worthy goal and the workers at our ports support this effort wholeheartedly. Mr. Chairman, we need to fight the entry of illegal drugs coming into our ports. In New Jersey we have established rigid background checks to ensure our workers can function in the port environment, but we did it without a mandate from the Federal government. We shouldn't use this bill as a means to violate the privacy rights of our workers. The International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union all oppose this amendment. We should use this bill as an opportunity to provide the resources to stop illegal drugs at their source.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the intentions of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I want to express, however, some reservations. Port employees overwhelmingly are hard-working and honest people who have a strong commitment to doing their jobs and serving their Nation. Also not only in terms of moving the trade that we always talk about in this Chamber, 95 percent of all the Nation's commerce moves through ports like the ones that I represent, but also in their efforts to eradicate illegal drug importation. Mr. Chairman, I represent the largest port in the Eastern seaboard. I clearly understand the need to fight the entry of illegal drugs through the ports of entry. In fact, port workers cooperate with the Customs Department in a program that they work together called the ``Dock Workers Against Drugs Initiative.'' They are not coerced or force to do this. Rather, they participate voluntarily. Now, this bill imposes a Federal mandate in an area where local efforts are already underway. Criminal background check records of the Port of New York and New Jersey workers, including ancillary workers, are already examined thoroughly. The port already does what this amendment offers. The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor did this without a mandate from the Federal Government. My concern is the extent in which the amendment is written. It says upon the request of any State, county, port authority, or other local jurisdiction of a State, the Attorney General shall grant to that entity all of these rights to have criminal background checks on employees or applicants for employment at any point under the jurisdiction of that otherwise State, county, port authority, or other local jurisdiction. Now, my sense is I am not quite sure whether by ``local jurisdiction'' we mean port authorities or what is the extent of that entity. I am concerned that the extent, the broad net that is being cast here, provides no safeguards to prevent the distribution of sensitive information to those with no connection to port operations. This amendment provides no limits to the information that can be collected and records can be released to a wide variety of entities, as I think are described here, that may not in essence accomplish our goals. The protection of the integrity of our borders and stopping the entry of illegal drugs is a worthy goal. The gentleman from Florida clearly has a worthy goal. The workers at our ports I know, and I have spoken before the International Longshoremen's Association, I have heard from them their efforts and their commitment. These are working men and women who clearly understand the consequences to their families and to the communities in which they live. But I am concerned, and I just raise the caution and concern here in terms of the potential overbreadth of the way that this amendment has been written. In that context, I raise those concerns and hope that we can, as this bill moves, seek to make sure that the purposes of the gentleman from Florida can be tailored in such a way that we reach his goals, but provide certain protections.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about those who would portray the debate as some who would be softer on fighting the interdiction of drugs into this country and others who would be tougher, and who can outtough who? The fact of the matter is that for those of us who are supporting this bill, as myself, we want to take a very tough stand on the question of interdiction. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) raises a serious concern. Now, I have heard the language that has been used with reference to the Traficant amendment, but the language that has been used is not the words of his amendment. I have heard here about observers. Fine. I have heard here about AWACS, fine. I have heard about helicopters. Fine. I have heard about surveillance. Fine. I have heard about intelligence. Fine. All of those things are fine. But to suggest that this amendment does not specify the use of troops on the border is not to read the amendment at least the way I read it. What does it say? The Secretary of Defense shall assist in keeping illegal drugs out of the United States, by doing what? By assigning members of the armed forces, by assigning members of the armed forces to do what? To assist the INS in preventing the entry of drug traffickers into the United States. Where is that? Along the ports and borders. And the United States Customs Service and inspection of cargo vehicles and aircraft, at what? At points of entry into the United States. Therefore, although one can say in debate that this does not mean that troops will go at the border, the amendment says the Secretary of Defense shall assist in how? By assigning members of the armed forces. And where? At the points of entry to the United States. That means U.S. troops on the borders. Now, I asked my colleagues. I have heard those who are involved in the Committee on National Security, which I am not. I have listened to them and their expertise. I asked my colleagues. We have passed bills over the last several years for 1,000 new border patrol every year for the next 10 years. That means 10,000 new border patrols on the borders of the United States. I voted for that. I support that. But now, in addition to those 10,000 border patrols, we are talking about placing armed forces of the United States at the border. No one has suggested, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) did not offer in his amendment nonlethal forces, which is what everybody talks about, but that is not what the amendment provides for. We could have provided for nonlethal forces so that we could have the surveillance, the intelligence, the helicopters, the AWACS and all of that, but that is not what is being provided for here. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues who do, in fact, have a sense of what the national security of the United States is in the context of the number of troops that we need across the world, what are we doing? We have troops in Bosnia. We have troops in Macedonia. We have troops in Kosovo. We have troops in the Gulf, in north and south. We have troops in South Korea. We see the need to respond to terrorism in the recent attacks that took place in Afghanistan. We do not know where the next threat comes from, and we need to have the ability to respond to those threats. Now, does anybody here want to fight drugs more than the next? No. My 2 children, I am concerned about them, as my colleagues are for their children and the children of the district my colleagues represent. But let us be honest. The fact of the matter is that we have a finite set of resources. Mr. Chairman, 52 percent of all of our monies right now are being used in domestic police protection along the borders. We are going to add to that another 1,000 border patrol a year for the next 10 years, 10,000 more. Yes, we can have the ancillary services of the armed forces to assist that effort. But should we now take from all of the other efforts we need throughout the world, from our counterterrorism efforts that only have to increase because we are all the more susceptible, should we now take those troops and put them in lethal positions on the borders of the United States? That is what the legitimacy of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes)'s point is. We can support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) in the context of saying that the ancillary forces of the nonlethal aspects should be in fact used, but we should support the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) in the context that lethal forces with our troops are already stretched throughout the world and the necessity to respond in what I have heard Members here speak so many times of 2 different theaters in the world in which our troops need to be able to respond. Mr. Chairman, look what we are asking them to do: Respond in 2 different places in the world at the same time. All of the peacekeeping missions we have, all of the places we want them to support, all of the antiterrorism efforts we want to address, and in addition to all of that, we want to put them on the borders of the United States. We do want to fight drugs, but let us be intelligent about the way that we do it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the gentleman be addressing the amendment that the gentleman has offered as well?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the bipartisanship I was talking about, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) chairman of the Committee on International Relations, someone who has focused a lot of time of his work and efforts here in the Congress on the issue of combating drugs in our country.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just yield myself such time as I may consume very briefly, and then I will yield back. I think I want to echo comments of my colleague from New York (Mr. Rangel) which I think very vividly express the sentiments of those on this side of the aisle about our commitment to this fight, understanding that there are many aspects to this fight, many fronts to be fought on. Today we are focusing on one of those fronts, and appropriately, in an appropriate manner. But I just hope that my colleagues, in the ensuing debate that will take place on the amendments, will understand that in that process, as we deal with interdiction, which is an incredibly important element of this, we need not to forget demand reduction and we need not to forget about education and treatment.