[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEW YORK MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI: WINNING THE WAR ON DRUGS AND CRIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-75
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-235 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska JIM TURNER, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Robert B. Charles, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Margaret Hemenway, Professional Staff Member
Amy Davenport, Clerk
Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel
Micheal Yeager, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 24, 1999................................ 1
Statement of:
Giuliani, Rudolph, mayor, city of New York................... 11
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Giuliani, Rudolph, mayor, city of New York:
Charts concerning crime rates................... 13, 22, 24, 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Meeks, Hon. Gregory W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, charts concerning crime rates.......... 44, 48
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii, FBI data chart............................ 52
NEW YORK MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI: WINNING THE WAR ON DRUGS AND CRIME
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, John L. Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mink, Gilman, Towns, Barr,
Hutchinson, Ose, and Kucinich.
Also present: Representative Meeks.
Staff present: Robert B. Charles, staff director and chief
counsel; Margaret Hemenway, professional staff member; Amy
Davenport, clerk; Cherri Branson and Michael Yeager, minority
counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; and Courtney
Cook, minority staff assistant.
Mr. Mica. I would like to call this meeting of the House
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources to order before these witnesses. I would like to go
ahead and get started.
We have several opening statements. This is the first
Washington hearing of our subcommittee. I am pleased to welcome
everyone this morning as we begin our oversight and
investigation of problems relating to criminal justice, our
national drug policy, and human resources.
In just a few minutes, we will be joined by Mayor Giuliani
of New York City. I am going to start with my opening
statement, then I will yield to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink,
and other Members for opening statements so we can proceed in
an expeditious fashion.
Again, good morning and welcome. Our subcommittee began its
work several weeks ago with its first hearing in my district in
central Florida.
The focus of that field hearing was to review the situation
relating to illegal narcotics and the epidemic of drug overdose
deaths; particularly those that have ravaged the young people
in central Florida.
Heroin of a very pure quality is destroying the lives of
our young people. In central Florida, drug overdoses well-
exceed homicide deaths. Across our Nation, heroin use among our
youth has risen 875 percent among our teenagers from 1992 to
1998. With heroin and illegal narcotics comes crime.
Two of the primary charges of our subcommittee are to
conduct congressional oversight relating to the problem of
crime and illegal drugs.
In my district and across the Nation, illicit drugs and
criminal acts are crippling our families, our neighborhoods,
and our schools. Our jails and prisons now hold nearly 2
million Americans.
It is estimated that between 60 and 70 percent of all those
behind bars are in jail because of drug or substance-related
crimes. The cost to our society, in dollars, totals billions
and the loss in productive lives cannot be estimated.
Over 14,200 Americans, mostly young, died last year from
drug-related deaths. Drugs, crime, and death are inevitably
linked.
Our subcommittee will not only conduct oversight and
investigate failures of government programs, we are also
interested in reviewing successful efforts by our State and
local officials in tackling crime and the problems surrounding
illegal narcotics.
Certainly the New York City turn-around, led by Mayor
Giuliani, must be one of the most successful efforts achieved
by any chief executive of any major American metropolitan area.
Let me just, if I could, give you a few statistics about that
turn-around.
This is New York City. Total major felony crimes fell by 51
percent from calendar year 1993 to calendar year 1998, and 11
percent in the last year, 1997 to 1998.
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 1993 to 1998,
declined by 67 percent, and by 18 percent in the last calendar
year.
Total felony and misdemeanor narcotics citywide, 1993 to
1998, went from 70,000 to 120,000. The total number of crime
complaints reported to the New York City Police Department for
11 major felonies in calendar year 1998 declined by 11 percent
compared to 1997, and by 51 percent compared to 1993.
Since Mayor Giuliani took office in 1994, the most
significant decrease in crime complaints is reported in murder,
which declined 18 percent in the last calendar year, and by 67
percent from 1993 to 1998; astounding figures.
Calendar year 1998 marked the lowest number of murders in
New York City in 36 years. Let me give you a couple of other
statistics from some of the areas affected.
In southeast Queens, major felony crime was reduced by 21
percent with 1,645 arrests and 89 search warrants executed. In
Staten Island and central Harlem, the central Harlem initiative
resulted in 2,887 drug arrests; 44 search warrants; a reduction
of major felony crime in the 28th and 32nd Precincts by 20
percent.
In Staten Island, there were 552 arrests, 38 search
warrants executed, and major felony crime was reduced by 12
percent. We will hear more from the mayor on this.
New anti-drug initiatives will be phased in, in east
Harlem, southern Brooklyn, northern Queens, and central Bronx.
Total narcotics arrests increased 17 percent in 1998
compared to calendar year 1997, and 90 percent compared to
1993.
Today, we will have a great opportunity to hear from Mayor
Rudy Giuliani as to how he achieved this incredible record in
our Nation's largest, and probably most famous, metropolitan
area.
The statistics in saving lives from murder is so dramatic
in New York City that it has actually helped to impact our
national murder statistics. We have seen a decrease in crime in
those national statistics as a result of his efforts.
Thanks to Mayor Rudy Giuliani's efforts, I have calculated
based on what the murder rate was before he took office that
3,500 people or more are alive today who would have otherwise
been fatal statistics.
This morning, we will hear from Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Tomorrow morning, our subcommittee will hear from General
McCaffrey who will present to this subcommittee the national
drug control strategy for the administration.
Next week, we will hear from our DEA Administrator, Tom
Constantine. The week after, we are hoping to announce the date
that Mrs. Mink, our ranking member, will help put together a
rather comprehensive hearing on education, prevention, and drug
treatment programs.
So, that is the schedule that our subcommittee has. Again,
I welcome you this morning. I am delighted to see some of our
Members present this morning. I would like to, at this time,
yield to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink, for her opening
statement.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My remarks basically are addressed to the mayor. In his
absence, I would like to extend my appreciation to the Chair of
this subcommittee for his very comprehensive and energetic
leadership in engaging members of this subcommittee in a recent
tour of Central and South America where, for the first time, at
least for me on this subcommittee and in Congress, I had the
opportunity to engage the very difficult questions of source,
traffic, and demand issues that face this Nation. Mayor
Giuliani of New York City undoubtedly has the Nation's most
impressive record with reference to not only crime control, but
his overall policies with reference to drug control.
He presides over a city government that is very complex and
has always been, in its long history, a crime challenged city;
probably the most in our country. We have witnessed some very
dramatic improvements in public safety over the last two
decades.
According to the data published in the FBI's Uniform Crime
Reports, violent and property crime declined 6.7 percent in New
York City between 1996 and 1997. Crime across the United States
also dropped during this same period, but only by 3.2 percent.
New York's success is not nearly a short-term trend. Crime
began to drop sharply and steadily beginning in 1990, during
the administration of Mayor Dinkins. It has continued a steady
decline during Mayor Giuliani's administration.
Probably many reasons account for this. Rapid economic
growth and job creation have undoubtedly played a role, but so
has his well-publicized focus on reducing quality of life
crime.
It appears to be getting results. That is really what all
of us are after. As you may know, this subcommittee has
jurisdiction over the drug control policy. We play a role in
developing our strategy. So we are particularly interested in
learning lessons of success, as well as lessons of failure that
apply to national policy.
One positive reason evident from the New York City
experience is the importance of a strong partnership between
the Federal, State, and local governments.
Just as an example, last year Mayor Giuliani joined with
President Clinton in announcing $120 million in Federal aid
grants, all part of the COPS initiative that helped to fund
1,600 new police officers in New York City.
Since the inception of the COPS Program, funding to New
York City has totaled more than $237 million. In addition to
that, New York received millions of dollars in grant aid from
the Justice Department, including funds for drug courts, the
Brooklyn Treatment Court, juvenile mentoring, local law
enforcement block grants, and many, many others.
Another positive lesson is the importance of a
comprehensive approach to fighting drugs. New York City's
program focuses not only on law enforcement in criminal
justice, but also on drug treatment, addiction, and education.
The city's strategy recognizes, as does our national drug
control strategy, that we need a comprehensive approach if we
are to begin to defeat this drug trafficking and consumption in
our country. I welcome Mayor Giuliani and thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the ranking member for her opening
statement. I would like to now yield to the distinguished
gentleman from New York and our leader in international
relations, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased we will be welcoming the distinguished mayor
of America's largest city, New York, to our hearing. It speaks
well of our new distinguished chairman of the Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Mica, who is
starting off this subcommittee's examination of these highly
important crime and drug issues with Mayor Giuliani as our lead
witness.
Our distinguished mayor of New York has been effectively
fighting these related evils, both as a U.S. Attorney in the
southern district of New York, and now as mayor of the biggest
city in our Nation.
The experiences of the city of New York under Mayor
Giuliani in these three important areas have a number of
lessons for our Federal Government; lessons to hear, to
observe, and to pay close attention to, and to utilize the
benefits of that experience.
The mayor's message and crime fighting success, even the
big and all-knowing Federal Government, can learn a few things
from today and improve the lives of our citizens throughout the
Nation, and especially our young people.
One of the most serious questions of the current Federal
administration's performance on its policy in fighting illegal
drugs is the over-emphasis on the demand side; especially
treatment as the cure-all.
The current Federal administration announced from its very
onset its intention of focusing more and more attention and
resources on treatment and on rehabilitation of hard-core
users.
It began by declaring that there was no war on drugs, which
we needed to wage. Its policy was largely based on treating the
wounded by diverting the means and resources to accomplish that
one-sided demand emphasis approach from other vital areas such
as interdiction and--efforts, eradication, and enforcement.
I remain concerned about this initiative from its
inception. The plan to cut back in the areas of interdiction
and eradication at the source of these drugs abroad was a clear
and mistaken signal that narcotics was no longer a top foreign
policy issue for this administration.
In a 1994 visit to Washington, Mayor Giuliani spoke to the
Washington Times about the importance of placing narcotics at
the top of our U.S. foreign policy agenda. If anyone does, Mr.
Giuliani knows from direct experience as a U.S. Attorney in New
York that what is needed to effectively prosecute the
international war on narcotics and crime is certainly not just
a demand approach.
He also knows as the mayor of the Nation's largest city,
the impact of illicit drugs from abroad on crime rates, on
health care costs, on safety of our streets, and the very
viability of our great cities.
Back in 1994, Mayor Giuliani said that local government may
have a bigger role to play in combating narcotics, but only the
Federal Government can provide overall guidance. To do so
properly, it has to make the drug problem a matter of foreign
policy.
It was sound advice then and it is still sound advice
today. The Federal administration failed to adhere to that sage
advice. It let its guard down. It cut back in source nation and
interdiction efforts.
The drug policy was, and has never been, at the top of our
foreign policy since then. A number of Presidents have
indicated that drug use and drug trafficking are a national
security risk; a risk that must be attended to.
The costly damage tag is already on that foreign policy
failure. Let me just use a hard drug like heroin as an example
of what has occurred. It is a particularly important drug in
the New York region, as we all know, and throughout the Nation.
While the administration cut back abroad, as well as on
interdiction, it mistakenly took its eye off the ball and
turned its back on source nations like Colombia.
Today, the heroin marketed in our New York region, once
dominated from Asia, is now being dominated from nearby
Colombia; one of our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere.
In addition, the ever-pure, cheaper, readily available
Colombian heroin--that supply has lead to a startling 875
percent increase, an 875 percent increase, for the first time
in teen heroin use; the ages between 12 and 17.
Supply can help create and sustain an increased drug
demand. Today, Colombia heroin dominates the eastern market of
our Nation. It is purer. It is cheaper and more deadly than
ever.
While the administration scrambles belatedly today to
provide high performance helicopters, which I was pleased to
work on, for Colombia for the excellent anti-narcotics police
for opium eradication in the Andean region.
Incidently, the police force has lost 4,000 courageous
officers in the last few years in their war against drugs. I
hope that we are not too late for the new heroin crisis, and
that we can avoid costly errors like that in the future.
Today's session with Mayor Giuliani hopefully will start
the learning process with the 106th Congress; particularly for
the last 3 years, the current administration. Just yesterday,
at the request of our chairman, we met with Pino Arlacchi, the
director of the United Nations Drug Agency.
He reminded us that some say we have lost the drug war. He
says the war has not yet begun. He is undertaking some major
steps in getting an intensive drug substitution, crime
substitution program that hopefully will lead to eventually
eradicate those sources of both opium and heroin in Latin
America and in the Asian area.
So Mr. Chairman, I, again, want to commend you for bringing
about this series of hearings that we are about to start today
to focus attention once again on the high priority that we wish
placed on this issue of drug trafficking and drug use on our
agenda.
I look forward to working with you. Thank you for moving
forward in this area.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman from New York.
He has been a long-time fighter in the war against drugs
and helping us on the international scene so ably as Chair of
our International Relations Committee.
I guess our witness is here. Let us defer for just a
second. I would like to welcome Mr. Giuliani. Mayor, you should
have been here a couple of minutes ago.
They were all singing your praises from both sides of the
aisle. We will provide you with a tape of some of those
comments, maybe for your future view. We are in the middle of
opening statements, Mr. Mayor. We are going to proceed now. We
have just heard from Mr. Gilman. We have heard from our ranking
member, Mrs. Mink.
Now, I am delighted to yield to a gentleman who I had the
privilege of serving under when he chaired so ably a
subcommittee of Congress when I was a freshman; a gentleman
also from New York, Mr. Towns. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Towns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, I look forward to working with you in dealing
with this very, very serious issue. I think that your timing
could not be better to get going on this very early on in the
106th Congress.
I also would like to welcome the mayor of the city of New
York who also has been on the forefront in terms of fighting
this problem as well.
We must be realistic enough to know that we cannot put
everyone in jail. In a 1998 report, the Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse found that 80 percent of the money spent to
build and operate prisons in the United States was spent to
house substance involved criminals.
We must, and I say we must, I emphasize that, actively
pursue treatment options that give people a chance to break the
hold of addiction and start new lives. The Center on Addiction
estimates that it would take $6,500 per year to treat an inmate
for substance abuse and provide vocational training.
This is a small additional amount to pay, given the average
cost of $20,000 per inmate for incarceration; incarceration
without treatment and training. It is estimated that every
inmate that returns successfully to society saves $68,000 in
reduced crime.
Therefore, it is cost-effective and efficient. We must be
realistic enough to be concerned about the effects of drug
abuse on pregnant women. I believe that each of us share the
concern that the youngest victims of drug abuse may be those
children who are born to drug-addicted mothers.
I worry that a reporting requirement for fetal drug
exposure may have a significant impact on women and their
children. If these reports, without additional evidence, can be
used to place children in foster care, women will forego
prenatal care or the followup services they need to hold onto
their children.
The compassionate response is not reporting them, but
treating them. I believe that our response to the drug issue
must be realistic, cost-effective, and compassionate. I believe
our mayor shares those core values.
On that note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the
mayor of the greatest city on Earth, New York, NY.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Towns.
We do not allow any commercials on this subcommittee.
I am pleased to recognize now the vice chairman of our new
subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia who needs no
introduction, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an honor to have you here today, Mr. Giuliani. I look
forward to both hearing your testimony and hearing some of the
responses. I know there will be some fairly specific and
probably wide ranging questions for you.
I have some based on some of the material that you have
presented and some of what I have read in the newspapers over
the last several years about the remarkable success, under your
leadership, New York City, has seen in its war not only against
mind-altering drugs, but crime in general.
Of course, you understand perhaps better than anybody the
interrelationship between those two factors. Even though your
testimony that you have provided us, your 8 pages here, is but
a summary and is very detailed.
I really do think that it personifies what I have always
considered the four C's of an effective anti-drug policy. It
represents a coordinated approach, a comprehensive approach, a
consistent approach, and a constant approach. Those are indeed,
as you know, certainly from your years with the Department of
Justice and as mayor. Any successful program attacking a
problem as pervasive as mind-altering drug usage in our
communities has to contain at least those four elements.
During the work that I have been engaged in over the last
few years, Mr. Mayor, up here in the Congress, we have done a
lot of work of course not only on domestic drug policy, but
international drug policy.
I have had the opportunity to travel to both communities
here in this country, as well as those abroad. One of the great
heros of the anti-drug movement in the international arena is
General Jose Serrano, the head of the Colombian National Police
[CNP].
He is really almost a mythical figure in Colombia, as well
as the annals of anti-drug policy because of his work over the
last several years. Chairman Gilman alluded to it before you
came in here.
He also, I think, has a deep understanding of both the
societal problems, as well as the law enforcement problems of
attacking something as insidious as mind-altering drugs.
The gains that he has made, almost single handedly, in
Colombia over the last several years have inspired almost
mythical loyalty because of his tremendous honesty and
integrity, the consistency of his approach, and his deep regard
for the citizens of his country who have been plagued by
tremendous drug problems over the last several years that, in
some ways, even make ours pale in comparison. Their very
society has been threatened by it.
Based on your work, both as an official with our Department
of Justice, as a U.S. Attorney, and now most relevant today
what you will be speaking about in your experience as mayor.
I would place you certainly up there as one of the true
heroes of the anti-drug movement; not only for this country,
but for the world. In setting the standards that you have and
achieving the results that you have, certainly not single
handedly, but I mean you have many, many thousands of
tremendous men and women that work with you I know.
In setting the tone for that and in implementing this
policy in New York, you are sending not only a signal to our
citizens in this country that indeed the job can be done and it
can be won.
You are also sending a very important signal overseas.
Those who are in countries fighting the war against mind-
altering drugs and working with us are very mindful of what
goes on in our country.
I know that even during my tenure as a United States
Attorney in Atlanta back in the late 1980's and into 1990, we
had a very serious problem because on the one hand we were
asking Colombia to extradite drug cartel figures up here and
they saw the problems we were having even here in our Nation's
Capital with drug usage at the highest levels.
There was a correlation between their willingness to
sacrifice their citizens, sending them up here--when they would
extradite or talk about extraditing a cartel figure up here,
they would frequently have murders, bombings, and so forth down
there.
They began to wonder, several years ago, whether it was
really worth it when they saw some indications that maybe we,
in this country, were not really serious about fighting the war
against mind-altering drugs.
Largely through your efforts and through the efforts of
some of our Governors and other mayors, but most notably
yourself, I think you have turned that around. So, in setting
the example that you have in New York that we are willing to
fight comprehensively drug usage in this country and do it
consistently, you are doing a tremendous service to our
international effort as well.
That then becomes the model, the example, and makes it much
easier for us to work with foreign nations because they see
that we are serious about fighting mind-altering drugs.
Therefore, they are much more willing to participate with us
and take the risks that they do in participating with us.
So, I salute you not only for what you are doing for our
anti-drug effort and our anti-crime problem here in this
country, but also for the example that you have set in the
international arena.
I thank you and look forward to your testimony and your
answers to the questions today.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note that we
have received word that last year in Cartegena, Colombia, one
port city in that Nation, the drug police, under General
Serrano, seized 18 tons of cocaine; 18 tons in one seizure,
nearly as much as Mexico did in that same period throughout the
entire country of Mexico.
I think when we talk about that kind of massive seizure, it
gives us an idea of what we are confronted with; 18 tons. We
used to talk about 1 gram being seized as a major effort. Now
we are talking about tons; 18 tons with a street market value
of millions and millions of dollars.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I would like to yield now to another distinguished mayor, a
former mayor, who is a colleague now from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich.
You are recognized.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome Mayor Giuliani. Certainly, as a former
councilman and a former mayor, I understand the day-to-day
concerns which confront city officials when drugs become a
problem at a community level.
That is where you have to attack it in order to eradicate
it. I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns
of local officials, such as yourself, Mayor, who have to
grapple with this on a day-to-day basis, and confront the
realities of people who live in neighborhoods who are asking,
``What are you going to do about this problem in my community?
You know, we have a drug house here. We have activity taking
place on the corner. Sometimes, it is in full view of others in
the community. What can be done about it?''
When you get calls like that and people come to you, I know
that it motivates you, as all local officials, to try to find a
way to come up with strategies to respond.
I know that this subcommittee in reviewing the same, Mr.
Chairman, is very interested in hearing from you with respect
to what kind of action will effectively reduce, not only
illegal drug usage, but more specifically, drug-related crime
and drug trafficking.
These are certainly among the major problems facing this
Nation today. I have a statement that I want to submit for the
record.
In closing, there are just a few things that I am hopeful
that we will be able to get into today. Unfortunately, in the
scheme of things in this Congress, we have other committee
meetings we have to go to. So, I may not be able to stay for
the whole presentation, Mayor.
I do want to ask you if, at some point, you will be able to
address the role of economic growth in the reduction of crime.
If we expand our economy and more people have opportunities for
employment, is there a relationship in a reduction in crime?
The other thing is where we have crime rates lowering, have
we also seen a rate of recidivism declining? Are we seeing
fewer first-time arrests as well?
The third thing that I think might be of interest is that
under your administration there has been a sharp attention to
so-called quality of life offenses, such as littering,
aggressive panhandling, loitering, and other minor offenses.
I think I remember seeing in the New York Times a few weeks
ago a report that said that this has led to delays in the
criminal justice system.
I guess the question would be, that I hope you get a chance
to address, is there a way in which the rest of the criminal
justice system is adequately prepared to respond to new
strategies?
Do they have to make adjustments down the road to be able
to meet the demands and requirements of an Administrator such
as yourself?
So, I appreciate you being in front of this subcommittee. I
certainly wish you well.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
I am going to yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
Hutchinson; a very skilled former prosecutor. We look forward
to your statement.
Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to be under your services on this
subcommittee. I want to welcome the mayor. Your praises are
sung in the lands of Arkansas. We have a great respect for the
work that you have done.
I am anxious to hear your testimony. So, I am going to
yield my time and look forward to hearing some of what you have
done and also asking further questions down the road.
Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. We have one additional Member at the dias. I
would like to recognize a new Member to Congress, Mr. Doug Ose
from California, who just came back with us from meeting some
of the Central and South American leaders and discussing the
issue of curbing illegal narcotics.
Mr. Ose, you are welcome and recognized.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to be here with you after spending last
week on the Mica march through Central and South America. Mr.
Mayor, I am especially appreciative of your appearance here
today.
On this visit last week, we heard substantial input. I am
looking forward to yours regarding what we are doing on the
domestic front to address our drug challenges with respect to
education and treatment, law enforcement, incarceration; the
entire domestic approach on which we are spending around $18
billion a year.
I begged to be on this subcommittee because of the
importance of this issue. The one day that I was able to get
back to my district over the weekend, I spent talking with
people who have either been children or who are parents asking
them for input regarding our domestic strategy.
I thought the comment earlier about treating the wounded in
our country was appropriate. We are accused or it was suggested
to us in South America that we were the few, the myopic, and
the vociferous.
I have to tell you, there are more than just us up here who
are interested. I am myopic on this issue. I intend to be
vociferous. So, I am hopeful that you can give us some guidance
here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor, this is an investigations and oversight
subcommittee of Congress. A part of our rules for the
subcommittee is that we do swear in our witnesses. So, if you
would please stand, Your Honor.
Would you raise your right hand?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Let the record show that the witness
answered in the affirmative.
It is my pleasure now to introduce the mayor to our
subcommittee. It was my privilege back in the early 1980's,
almost two decades ago, to work with Rudy Giuliani, who was
then the Associate Attorney General of the United States.
In that capacity, he assisted me. I was a staffer with
Senator Hawkins of Florida and our Nation faced a wave of
crime, illegal drugs, and immigration problems that were just
staggering.
I must say that there was no one in that administration at
that time who did more to bring that situation under control
than Mayor Rudy Giuliani, at that time, Associate Attorney
General.
I know because he was on our side when we tackled those
tough problems. He has an incredibly distinguished record, not
only as mayor, but also as U.S. Attorney when he tackled the
problems of organized crime in a manner that is almost
legendary.
So, it is with great personal pleasure that I welcome
before our subcommittee of Congress one of our first witnesses,
someone who we want to hear from. We appreciate his counsel and
his--if there are any disturbances from the audience, would you
please alert the Capitol Police. I will have anyone removed
immediately.
Mr. Audience Attender. Mr. Ama Dou Diallo, who was only 22
years old, a Black man, gunned down and killed.
Mr. Mica. I am sorry, sir. You are going to have to leave
the subcommittee room.
Mr. Mayor, again, we are absolutely delighted that you are
here. We are anxious to hear about your record of success. We
know that sometimes with success you also get criticism.
We want to hear your commentary on how you have tackled the
problem and how you are tackling the situation with illegal
narcotics and crime in the city of New York.
You are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF RUDOLPH GIULIANI, MAYOR, CITY OF NEW YORK
Mr. Giuliani. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss what I believe,
as I believe members of this subcommittee----
Mr. Mica. Mr. Mayor, you might have to pull that up as
close as you can. Our audio system is antiquated. We are
working on it.
Mr. Giuliani. I appreciate the opportunity to address what
I believe and I think members of this subcommittee have just
expressed the same thing. The most important domestic and maybe
international problem that we face is the problem of drug
abuse.
I think that unfortunately it does not often enough rise to
the level that it should in order to have the coordinated
intense response that it needs, given the damage that it does
to our society.
In New York City over the last 5 years, a lot of good
things have happened and there still are a lot of problems.
Probably the thing that is known most is the tremendous
reduction in crime.
We went from a city that had about 2,000 murders a year, 5
years ago, 6 years ago, to a city that last year had 629
murders. So, we have had a 70 percent reduction in murder. We
have had a 50 percent reduction in overall crime. In the
poorest neighborhoods of the city, and some of the
neighborhoods that were afflicted the most by drugs, one of
them Crown Heights in Brooklyn, we have had an 80 percent
decline in murder; Washington Heights in Manhattan, which used
to be a center of drug dealing, has had about an 85 percent
decline in murder; about a 70 percent decline in crime.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.005
Mr. Giuliani. New York City is now, according to the FBI,
the safest large city in America; the city with the least
amount of crime that has a population of over 1 million, which
probably would have been unheard of 5, 6, 7, 8 years ago, a
decade ago, a decade and a half ago.
There are a lot of reasons for that, and a lot of different
things, and a lot of people that have contributed to it. Things
that have to do with the communities; things that have to do
with the police department; the technology that is now
employed; the broken windows theory that is used;
accountability that exists within the police department.
I think I should also say, in light of the interruption
before, that one of the myths that is created in trying to rob
the police department of the credit it deserves for the
tremendous amount of work that it has done to make New York
City the safest large city in America, is that despite at times
tragic incidents, and at times even criminal conduct on the
part of police officers, the overwhelming majority of police
officers not only conduct themselves lawfully, but have put
their lives at risk and have lost their lives in order to
achieve this degree of safety. I, unfortunately, have been at
too many of their funerals where a police officer laid down his
life in order to save somebody in New York city of whatever
race, religion, or ethnic background.
Finally, on that subject, one of the myths that is created
is that this tremendous record of crime reduction has been
achieved by police officers becoming more violent. Just the
opposite is the case.
Police officers in New York City, over the last 5 years,
have reduced their use of guns, and weapons, and shootings by
over 67 percent. So, as they have reduced crime by 50 percent,
and they have reduced murder by 70 percent, they now shoot
their guns and discharge bullets on a per capita basis 67
percent fewer times.
As compared to cities with populations of over 800,000, we
exceed police officers who discharge their weapons less often
than in just about any other city in America.
So, there was an article in the Washington Post I think a
few months ago comparing Washington to New York and pointing
out that New York City police officers discharge their weapons
about 4 or 5 times less often than in Washington, DC.
So, I wanted to say that so that there will not be the
sense that although people acknowledge the tremendous decline
in crime and the increase in safety, that people also
understand that the police officers in New York City, 40,000 of
them, are among the most restrained in the use of their weapons
of any urban police department in the country, and have become
considerably more restrained as they have reduced crime.
Having said that, and even with that record of crime
reduction, I would have to say that one of the primary reasons
for the major crime reduction that we have had, and one of the
primary reasons that it may or may not continue is the whole
area of drug enforcement.
We have obtained a great deal of our crime reduction by
putting a tremendous amount of emphasis on drugs, and a
tremendous amount of emphasis on dealing with the problem of
drugs in a very, very comprehensive way.
When I was Associate Attorney General, maybe even before
that when I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney back in the 1970's,
I used to be in charge of narcotics enforcement. Then I had the
respon- sibility of overseeing the Drug Enforcement
Administration when I was the Associate Attorney General in the
Reagan administration.
I developed a theory in those years that I now have a
chance to put in practice as a local official; at least part of
it. It seems to me that there are five things that we should do
about drugs.
There are five different areas of concentration. In none of
those areas are we doing as a Nation or as a society what we
should be doing. We are doing some of it, but we are not doing
enough of it.
Drug interdiction, drug enforcement, drug policy should be
a major area of our foreign policy. It should be right at the
very top. It should be right up there with international trade,
disputes between countries, border disputes, regional disputes.
It should be one of the three or four most important
aspects of the foreign policy of the United States. When you
pick up a foreign affairs magazine or a foreign policy
magazine, you should read as many articles about what should be
done in engaging the countries that are the source countries
for drugs as you read about international trade, or about
border disputes, or long-standing ethnic disputes.
The reason for this is really simple. This is our most
important domestic problem. The art of foreign policy is to,
over a wide stage, try to advance the interest of your country.
It is in the interest of the United States to reduce
dramatically the amount of drug production that goes on and
drug shipments that go on all throughout the world. We should
use our influence. We should use our ability to influence other
nations.
We should use our ability to give them aid and assistance.
We should use our ability to persuade. We should use requests
for our assistance as a quid pro quo for every opportunity that
we can get.
This is not particularly a criticism of just this
administration. This has been an institutional problem for a
long time. It has never given the drug enforcement, drug
interdiction, and drug policy the same level of intensity as
some of the other issues that face us in the area of foreign
policy.
That is something that the Federal Government and literally
the President, have to achieve. It has not been achieved.
The second thing is this has to be a source of tremendous
intensity with regard to border interdiction. That, again, is
the respon- sibility of the Federal Government.
There are three areas, however, where local governments can
play a very important role. We need help. We need help from our
States. We need help from the Federal Government. It is an area
where I have been able to focus on as a local official.
Education, treatment, and enforcement, all three, and you
have to do all three. You have to be equally committed to all
three, if you want to reduce drugs in a city, in a State, and
in a country. We have increased our educational efforts
dramatically in our schools and in our community groups.
We have police officers that now go into our schools with a
tremendous amount of support from the community to teach young
people on a one-to-one basis, not only the dangers of using
drugs, but the life-fulfilling and life-affirming things that
you can do that buildup a resistance to the temptation of being
involved in drugs.
That program, the DARE Program, has been an enormously
successful program. It has not reached every child. It has not
reached every school. Over the next year to 2 years, it will.
As we are doing all of the intense things that we are doing
in law enforcement, the educational part of it, is equally as
important.
We also have increased our specific program to setup what
we call drug-free zones around our schools, so that the police
put extra attention on the areas around the schools in order to
remove drug dealers from the schools and from the areas around
the schools.
After a 4 year battle, I was able to persuade our Board of
Education, because I do not control the school system as
Congressman Towns knows, I have two votes on the board out of
seven. However, after 4 years of persuasion, I convinced the
school board to allow the police department to take over school
security.
We have 3,400 school security officers. They were not very
well-trained. They were not particularly well-educated on
dealing with the dangers of drugs; even seeing the temptations
and the problems that come up with drugs.
The last 4 or 5 months, they were taken over by the police
department. They are now being trained. We will make every
school a drug-free school with a drug-free zone around the
school.
So that even if we cannot get drug dealers out of every
single neighborhood in the city and drive them completely out
of the city, we can keep them away from our schools and maybe
send a different message.
We have also put a tremendous amount of emphasis on drug
treatment. Rather than going into the details of it, which I
would be happy to supply in questions, I would like to give you
the philosophy of it; something where I really need your help,
the help of the Congress, and of the administration.
We are making a mistake in the way in which we do drug
treatment. New York City pays the biggest price for this. We
put the majority of our money in New York City, which is
largely State and Federal money, and is mandated to be used to
keep people addicted.
A minority of our money is to involve people in drug-free
programs. Because of the mandates and because of the matching
Federal dollars, the State funds a drug treatment program in
which somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the people in the
treatment are on methadone.
Methadone is a drug. Methadone keeps you addicted.
Methadone means that you can be addicted for 15 or 20 years.
Roughly, the percentages work out something like this. Well-
over 50 percent of the people who are in methadone go back to
heroin.
So, you have accomplished nothing, but sustaining them in
their addiction. Then they go back to drugs in a fairly short
period of time. About 70 to 80 percent of the people on
methadone cannot work and do not work.
They never achieve the ability of being able to take care
of themselves. Methadone, if justifiable at all, is justifiable
as a transitional treatment to a drug-free program.
Maybe it needs to be reserved in those few very, very
difficult cases in which freedom from drugs as the end result
of a treatment program just cannot work. We have flipped it. It
reminds me somewhat of what we did with welfare back in the
1960's and the 1970's.
We intended to help people for a short period of time. It
became generational in nature. Now what we have done is we have
made the exception the rule because it is easier and because
industries have grown up that draw in huge amounts of money for
doing methadone maintenance.
They shy away from doing the more difficult work of putting
people into drug-free programs. We are trying to reverse that.
Our goal over the next 2 to 3 years is instead of 70
percent of our treatment slots being for maintaining people
interdiction, and 30 percent for drug freedom, we would like to
flip it and get it to 70 percent drug freedom, and 30 percent
reserved for methadone as a transition drug, as a temporary
measure.
There is a philosophical problem here at the core of the
Federal Government's mandates and the way in which it
conditions money to the cities and the States. It has them
invest much more in keeping people addicted, rather than
investing in moving people toward drug freedom.
Now, the area that I think probably is the real core of
this testimony is what we have done in the area of law
enforcement.
As a part of the crime reduction in the city of New York,
and also as a part of trying to make New York City as drug-free
as possible, I learned very early on when I was a U.S.
Attorney, by using Federal agents to arrest people that
ordinarily would have been arrested by just the local police.
If you can concentrate your drug enforcement resources, in
essence, block-by-block, neighborhood-by-neighborhood and just
arrest every drug dealer you can find and prosecute them, then
you cannot only get tremendous reductions in drug activity--I
began this way back in 1983, 1984 on the lower east side of
Manhattan by flooding the area with police and arresting drug
dealers of every kind; the highest level drug dealers, the
middle level drug dealers, the people on the street.
We ended up, over a period of about 6 months on the lower
east side of Manhattan, seeing 50 and 60 percent reductions in
car thefts, burglaries, rapes, and other forms of crime. We
have taken that concept and we have refined it quite a bit.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.006
Mr. Giuliani. We do it in cooperation with the Drug
Enforcement Administration and sometimes with the FBI. We have
essentially taken the areas of the city that had the most drug
activity and we have created for those areas what are called
drug initiatives.
We take a large number of police officers and put them in
groups of five. They are called modules. Their job is very
simply to wipe out drug dealing in a community. They go block-
by-block.
They work with the people in the community. They try to
identify every drug dealer. They try to, over a period of 6
months to a year, get every drug dealer arrested. Then we work
with the prosecutor's office to get those cases prosecuted so
that they are concentrated on in the courts. We try hard to
avoid parole or probation for them so they do not get back out
on the streets quickly. We have now spread that throughout the
city.
[Map shown.]
Mr. Giuliani. I have a map here that kind of demonstrates
it. One of the things that we have done, and the thing that has
brought about the crime reductions in the city is we keep
moving and increasing our commitment to it.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.009
Mr. Giuliani. So that the goal ultimately will be a city in
which--if you look at that map--that is the city of New York.
That is the greatest city in the world, Congressman. That is
the one you mentioned before as the greatest city in the world.
If I could just stand up here for one moment, I could point
it out. The drug initiative began right here. This area,
although it is only about 19 percent of the population of the
city, was producing 29 percent of the crime in the city.
This area was exporting more crime to other areas. A few
years ago, we put 1,000 additional police officers into those
areas to arrest every drug dealer we could find.
The result is that this area, for the last 2 years, has
just about lead the city in crime reduction. It has now become
one of the safer areas in the city.
What we knew would happen is if we drove drug dealers out
of this part of the city, they would then increase in other
parts of the city. So, we kept the drug initiative there and
then we just increased it. We then moved to other parts of the
city.
Now, the areas that are colored areas, all of those areas
have intense drug enforcement, drug initiative task forces.
Essentially, they are following the patterns of the drug
dealers.
As we move them out of here, they move here. We move there.
We stay there. We do not move out. When we put pressure on it
here, and here, and here, and here, they move to these areas.
Then we move with them.
Essentially, it is a very, very heavy commitment of
arrests. New York City had the safest year that it has had
since 1964, 1965 last year. It had the most drug arrests in its
history.
So, there are a lot of sophisticated reasons for the crime
reduction; the COMSTAT Program, the Broken Windows, community
groups, and community policing. Probably equal to all of those
and maybe slightly more important are the 120,000 drug arrests
that took place last year.
If those 120,000 drug arrests did not take place last year,
I do not think there would have been an 18 percent decline in
homicide and a 12 percent decline in overall crime. We have
just expanded these drug initiative task forces to three other
parts of the city of New York.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.012
Mr. Giuliani. It is a very, very labor-intensive effort. It
is a very dangerous effort because drug dealers, as you know,
are among the most violent and the most dangerous criminals
that we deal with.
The end result is really a wonderful one. There are
communities in the city of New York that I knew very, very well
when I was a U.S. Attorney and a prosecutor, and when I ran for
mayor the first time and the second time that were overwhelmed
by drugs, where you can now go and there are no drug dealers.
Children are playing on the streets. Children are able to
go to their schools. They are growing up not living in
oppression. I used to feel that there were large segments of
New York City where it did not make much difference whether you
lived in New York City or you lived in the Soviet Union in
those days because you were just as oppressed.
Except in New York City, you were oppressed by the drug
dealers who controlled your block. They told you what to do.
They told you where to go. They killed you if you turned them
in to the police.
Now, those areas have, in very, very large measure, been
liberated; not to perfection. We still have serious drug
problems. That is why we need your help on a Federal level with
assistance for these programs, but also with a much more
intelligent and a much more focused Federal drug policy. I do
not see, right now, the philosophy or the movement in the
Federal drug policy.
Of the people that we arrest, 70 to 80 percent are involved
in drugs, to this day, even with the crime declines. Maybe even
more tragic, 70 to 75 percent of the children that we have to
bring into foster care because their parents are beating them
or abusing them, and we have about 40,000 children in foster
care.
So, this is a large number and a tragic number. About 70 to
80 percent, at least one of the parents or the care giver, is a
drug abuser and maybe more than one.
There is a clear correlation between the success that a
child can have and their ability to be able to work, their
ability to be able to succeed, and their ability to stay out of
being involved in crime, and their exposure to drugs, or a
family that is involved in drugs.
So, I am looking forward to working with you on
constructive things that we can do. The local governments have
an important responsibility here. I believe we are taking on
that responsibility as best that we can.
The State governments do, but the Federal Government also
does in the area of foreign policy, border patrol, and in
cooperation with regard to the treatment, education, and law
enforcement efforts that are absolutely necessary.
There is absolutely no way in which anybody could
exaggerate the danger of drugs. I think the more concentration
that we can have as a Nation and how we turn around this
problem, the more successful, the healthier, and the better
America we are going to have in the next century.
The people who we will help the most are the people who are
the poorest sometimes and the most oppressed in our society
because they are the ones who are most affected by this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giuliani follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.020
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mayor Giuliani.
I would like our staff director to give you a copy of the
national drug control strategy. I know you have not seen it. It
was just rolled out by the administration last week.
Tomorrow at 10 a.m., we will hear from the national drug
czar, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy on this strategy.
You cited, Mayor, that you felt the Federal Government has
certain responsibilities. I think one of the first and primary
ones that you alluded to is our responsibility to stop drugs at
their source and interdict drugs.
We have reviewed this strategy on a preliminary basis. Last
year the Congress put $17.9 billion in the anti-narcotics
effort, drug treatment, and all of the other programs.
This year the administration has proposed $17.8 billion;
$109 million less. It is sometimes not how much money you spend
or throw at a problem, but it is how you spend it. This
strategy also would propose, over last year's budget,
reductions in interdiction, eradication of drugs at their
source and crop substitution.
How effective do you think these programs are? Should we
closely visit these figures as, again, a Federal
responsibility?
Mr. Giuliani. I think it is a question of philosophy,
approach, and commitment. Then I would be able to tell you if
the dollars were sufficient. I do not see, on the part of the
State Department, the kind of commitment to persuading in some
cases, and pressuring in other cases, the governments that have
to be dealt with to reduce the source of drugs in the first
place.
I agree entirely with, I think it was Congressman Barr who
said this. Part of that process has to be to reduce the demand
for drugs in the United States. I mean that is our end of the
bargain.
It is very, very hard to go to somebody in Colombia, or
somebody in Pakistan, or somebody anyplace and say you put your
lives at risk to reduce the drug dealing, but we are going to
spend $60 billion on drugs in the United States and not do
anything about it.
So, this is a very, very coordinated thing that has to be
done here. We have to show our commitment by reducing the
demand for drugs in the United States by really very, very
well-focused, very intense, and very disciplined anti-drug
programs, advertising programs, educational programs in the
schools.
Public officials from the President on down speaking out
about the drugs often, and about the danger of drugs, and the
alternatives to drugs. It should be a major commitment to doing
it.
At the same time, we should be putting an enormous amount
of pressure on the governments that are the source countries
for drugs to take the risk that they have to take in order to
do crop substitutions; literally changing their economies.
It has got to be a major focus of our foreign policy. It
cannot be something that is a second level issue, or a third
level issue, or occasionally a State Department hierarchy will
get engaged in it, but it is not the major focus of what they
are doing.
As far as the financial commitment to it, it would seem to
me from the results that we have had over the last 10 or 12
years that we need more of a commitment to it, not less. We
also need to very much dramatically refocus the way in which we
conduct foreign policy.
When an American ambassador, or the Secretary of State, or
the Deputy or the Assistant Secretary of State are engaging
diplomats in other countries that are source countries for
drugs, this should be at the very top of the agenda.
This should be item No. 1. What are you doing about
reducing the crops? What are you doing about cooperating with
us if you are a trans-shipment country? You want help from us.
We have got to see much better improvement on this. We should
keep statistics on it.
We should publish the statistics. We should couple our
efforts with foreign policy.
Mr. Mica. Our subcommittee is charged with putting together
Congress' policy. We would like you to provide us with your
recommendations as a local official.
Mr. Giuliani. I will be happy to.
Mr. Mica. The other question that I had dealt with the
pressure now to legalize drugs, to provide free needles, and
methadone for those on narcotics.
You have stated that you have concerns about some of these
programs that seem to keep people on drugs or addicted in some
way. There is more and more pressure for Congress and for
States to liberalize our laws relating to drug use.
Could you comment about your philosophy and maybe provide
us with some direction from your experience?
Mr. Giuliani. Well, the urge to legalize drugs, de-
criminalize drugs, I think comes out of frustration for people
who are well-motivated.
It comes out of the frustration of not seeing the kind of
progress that we should be seeing on a national level in
reducing the amount of drugs, the number of drugs, the amount
of money that comes out of the drug industry.
I think it is a very, very, very dangerous debate to have
because it reduces the ability to convince young people that
drugs are dangerous.
To me it is very, very perplexing. In an era in which
Americans, American opinion leaders, are much more concerned
about the dangers to your health of smoking, of unclean air,
and all other kinds of environmental problems and issues, all
of which is a very, very good thing, to have people suggesting
that we should de-criminalize, and by de-criminalizing you
encourage. Make no mistake about that. The law is ultimately a
teacher.
What it does is it creates dividing lines for us between
what is right and wrong and the direction in which we move
young people.
So, if you break down the barrier and now you say use all
of the marijuana you want, that is OK, then you are going to
see significant numbers of people that you are not seeing today
using marijuana.
Then you are going to see a certain percentage, not all,
start moving on to cocaine and to heroin. That is just the
reality of life in the countries that have done it. The
countries that have de-criminalized and legalized drugs, they
have seen a significant increase in the amount of drug use, not
only of that drug, but of other drugs.
I will give you one other perspective on it that comes out
of my experience of investigating and prosecuting organized
crime for a good deal of my life. There are people who argue
for legalizing and decriminalizing drugs.
They say it will take the profit out of drug dealing. It
would be the best thing you could possibly do for organized
crime.
You would end up in a very short while giving them the
opportunity to make even more money than they are making today,
as they have actually done in countries in which they have
legalized drugs.
They would have a black market in which they would just
adjust the price on the black market to meet the increased
demand for the additional drugs that people want.
If you were to de-criminalize drugs, and you were to allow
people to use heroin, they would not be able to get all of the
heroin they need from legal channels.
A doctor is not going to give you a prescription that says
have all of the heroin you want any time you want it, which is
what a heroin addict eventually needs.
So, the heroin addict would supply their need for heroin in
the legal marketplace. Then they would go to a black market to
get the additional amount of heroin that they want or that they
want to traffick in.
Organized crime would be able to make, by just adjusting
its dollars--the price of drugs can vary dramatically as a
function of supply and demand.
You would end up with a black market in drugs that would at
least be the equal to or maybe greater than organized crime's
involvement in the present availability of drugs.
It is a very, very damaging approach. We should be using
our laws to make America healthier. We should be using our laws
to move us toward a freer, more independent society as opposed
to, in essence, caving into a vast social problem, admitting
that as a government and as a society there is nothing we can
do about this except letting a lot more people destroy their
lives by using drugs, and we are just going to stand by and
watch.
It should not be ignored in all of this that the people who
will pay the biggest price for this abandonment of any kind of
social responsibility here will often be the most powerless,
and people with the least opportunity in our society.
Maybe it is a little bit easier to talk about this social
experiment because it does involve significant numbers of
people who are among the less powerful in society.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I would like to yield now to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
I do want to take this time to recognize the presence of
one of our distinguished colleagues on this side of the aisle
representing the city of New York; our colleague, Mr. Meeks. I
would like, Mr. Chairman, to yield my 5 minutes to Mr. Meeks at
this point.
Mr. Mica. Without objection. You are welcome to join us.
Thank you.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you Ranking Member Mink. Mr. Mayor, what I would like
to start out with is your initial comments that you made at the
beginning of your testimony where you have indicated initially
with reference to crime rates going down under your
administration.
The FBI's Uniform Crime Report tells us a different story.
Given the crime index which combines violent crimes and crimes
against property in the report, the report shows a clear
decline long before your administration.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.021
Mr. Meeks. A result of the economic boom and community
policing that was actually started under Mayor Dinkins is that
crime in fact had begun to decline; not only declining in New
York City, might I add, but every major metropolitan city in
this Union. Crime has gone down, as opposed to it just being
within your administration.
So, would you not agree it is fair to say that the economic
climate of this country has a lot to do with the reduction of
crime?
Mr. Giuliani. Well, I would say that the economic up-turn
in America has a lot to do with the reduction of crime. That is
quite true, but I would have to correct some of the other
things that you have said.
First of all, in the 4-years before I came into office
under the prior mayor, the city averaged 2,000 murders a year.
I think it was 2,200; 2,100; 1,985; and 1,055.
Since I have been in office, we have been able to bring
that number down to 629. The reductions that occurred in the
last year of the Dinkins administration, the last 2 years, were
very, very small percentage reductions.
Since I have been in office, they have been about 10 to 15
percent per year. They have been 5 times the national average.
If New York City had a crime decline like the rest of the
Nation, then New York City's crime decline would be about one-
fifth of what it has been.
There may be another way to look at it. For the 5 years
that I have been in office, New York City has accounted for 24
percent of the crime decline in America. So, the crime declines
in New York City have been much more significant than in the
rest of the country.
Since I have been in office, they have been much more
dramatic than the small declines in overall crime that occurred
during my predecessor's administration. In the area of murder,
under my predecessor, New York City set records for murder that
have never been reached at any other time; 2,100; 2,200; 1,955;
and 1,985.
Although the economic up-turn had something to do with
this, and would explain the baseline decline in crime, the fact
that New York City's decline has been 4 to 5 times the rest of
the country, and the fact that New York City's crime decline
has been sustained over a longer period of time than any other
city in the country. When I came into office, New York City was
one of the more dangerous cities in America from the point of
view of overall crime and murder.
It has now gone down to city No. 160 out of 180. There are
things going on in New York that explain a good deal of the
crime decline because it is much greater than the rest of the
country.
Mr. Meeks. Yet in fact, Mr. Mayor, at least, based upon
your earlier statement in reference to the decline of the
number of shootings, the police has utilized as far as bullets
are concerned.
In New York City, as you well-know, recently the shooting
of Mr. Ama Dou Diallo, and incidents with reference to Mr.
Abner Louima, Mr. Diaz; in cases of police brutality in the
city of New York, particularly in reference to the minority
community, your voice has not been as loud as it has been on
other issues.
In fact, during the period between 1996 and 1997, over a 1-
year period, the city has had to settle 503 police misconduct
cases. The city's law department reports that police
misconduct, assault, excessive force, false arrest, and
shooting by the police cost the city's taxpayers more than $44
million in your first 2 years as mayor.
That is an astounding average of about $2 million a month
for police misconduct cases alone. There has been an increase
in the number of brutality claims. They have in fact tripled to
2,735 between June 1996 and June 1997, according to the city's
comptroller.
Also, it seems clear that most of the victims of police
brutality happen to be African American and/or Latino. They
have filed 78 percent of the complaints against the police.
While 67 percent of the officers involved in this happen to be
white--was released in February 1997, found that 81 percent of
blacks and 73 percent of Hispanics believe that police
brutality is a serious problem in New York.
It seems to me that, at least from the district that I
represent, I was just told on my way over here that another
young man in my district was unarmed, was shot by the police
yesterday.
I was also told by a number of African American men in my
district that when they are pulled over by the police, they
fear the police as much as they fear the common criminal on the
street.
Now, what I will agree with you is on this--I would agree
with you that the overall number of individuals in the police
department, as a former prosecutor myself, do a great job in
the city of New York.
However, they need the voice from the top, which it appears
has not been under your administration, that says we will not
tolerate police brutality and excessive force by the police
department in the city of New York.
Mr. Giuliani. First of all, I do not think you have ever
listened to my voice. I have said over and over again,
including--that was a long question. You have got to give me a
chance to answer it, if you are being fair.
The fact is that I have over and over again said that
police officers have to be respectful. We have taken action
against police officers who have acted improperly. One of the
cases that you mentioned, it was my administration that fired
the police officer in question, even though he had been kept on
by prior administrations.
We have worked very, very hard to make this police
department more respectful and more restrained. In your
selective use of statistics, you leave out the fact that
incidents such as the one that you are talking about have
occurred in New York City for the last 20 to 25 years.
That police brutality and the issue of police brutality has
not been an issue just exclusively of my administration or
while I have been mayor of New York City. Then you have got to
start looking at, if you are interested in fairness rather than
demagoguery, you have to look at the number of incidents.
The number of incidents of police brutality, for example,
are less in my administration than in the administration of Ed
Koch or David Dinkins. That is something you did not mention.
1993 was the last year of David Dinkins' administration. I just
happen to have these statistics with me.
There were 62 percent more shootings by police officers per
capita in the last year of David Dinkins' administration than
last year which was my administration. In every year of my
administration, something you left out of your statement, in
every single year of my administration, the police officers
have grown more restrained in their use of firearms, even as we
have added 10,000 police officers and given them automatic
weapons.
I will give you the exact number. In 1993, there were 212
incidents involving police officers in intentional shootings.
In 1994, there were 167. Now, in 1998 it is down to 111. That
is 2.8 shooting incidents per 1,000 officers.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.023
Mr. Meeks. In 1993, David Dinkins' last year in office,
there were 7.4 shooting incidents per 1,000 officers. That is
62 percent less per capita. So, yes, we have problems. Yes, we
have difficulties. Yes, we have lots of things that we have to
work on.
Yes, I have spoken out about it 100 times or 1,000 times. I
was at a police graduation last week. I said to the 800 police
officers that what we expect of them is restraint, almost an
inhuman ability to be restrained when they have to be.
We expect respect for every single citizen of New York
City. I have increased the size of the civilian review function
in the police department. I have increased the number of
inspectors and people who are involved in that.
Finally, on the incident that you just threw out there
without any analysis, let me tell you what I know of that
incident. That was an incident in which police officers were
called to a man's home because he was beating his wife.
He apparently broke her jaw. The wife called because she
said over 9-1-1, that this man was trying to kill her. These
two police officers went there to save her life. They did not
sit back and think about, oh, are we going to save this woman's
life who is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, white, or black?
Are we going to save this person's life and some kind of
political demagogic debate that sometimes takes place in the
area of politics? They put their lives at risk to go there to
save her life.
He turned to them and said, ``You will have to kill me.''
They shot him and wounded him. We had an incident in New York
City----
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Mayor----
Mr. Mica. I am sorry, Mr. Meeks. The time----
Mr. Meeks. That is just----
Mr. Giuliani. You have to----
Mr. Meeks. You actually make a presumption in this case,
but yet when Mr. Diallo was shot, you do not say the same thing
where there are 41 bullets that are fired at one man.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. So, you make a presumption on one and talk early
on one instance and not on the other.
Mr. Giuliani. I do not make presumptions and I do not make
demagogic speeches without the facts.
Mr. Meeks. Neither do I.
Mrs. Mink. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Giuliani. The simple fact is that I do not know the
facts in the Diallo case. There were four police officers
involved. There were no witnesses. I do not know the facts. So,
I will not presume the facts.
I will not presume the facts against the victim in any way.
I have great sympathy for the victim and his family. You left
out of your statement the fact that I called the victim's
father.
I reached him in Viet-Nam. I arranged for him to get a
visa. The city offered to pay for getting him to New York City,
as well as the family. I spoke to the father; expressed my
sympathy.
I told him how sorry I was about it. I am in the position
where I do not know the facts, and neither do you, of what
happened in the Diallo situation. The four police officers were
involved. There were no witnesses. The four police officers
have exercised their privilege against self-incrimination.
Anybody who is telling you the facts is making them up on
either side of it. We have, unfortunately, prejudiced people on
both sides who will give prejudicial viewpoints rather than
speaking from the facts.
The facts that I just gave you about the incident, if it is
in your district, come from four discussions with the police
commissioner, from several witnesses to the incident, including
the police officer's partner, the woman whose jaw was broken by
the man who was shot, and I believe the man's mother.
They were witnesses to the incident. In the other incident,
we do not have any witnesses. I would be happy to give you the
facts, if I had them.
Mr. Mica. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Mink. Mr. Chairman, may I ask consent to insert at
this point in the record, FBI data and a chart?
Mr. Mica. Without objection; so ordered.
They will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2235.024
Mr. Mica. I do want to thank the gentleman for coming.
Also, I try to give a free opportunity for folks to enter their
questions.
Mr. Towns, when he was chairman, always allowed me that
courtesy when I served under him. Other Members are always
welcome. I think that is a part of our process here, to keep it
open.
Sir, I would welcome you submitting questions to the mayor
as our witness, written questions. I will leave the record open
for 2 weeks for additional commentary.
Mrs. Mink. For me too?
Mr. Mica. You are in the deal.
I cannot do anything without my ranking member. She has
done a great job.
Mrs. Mink. I have so many questions.
Mr. Mica. If we have another round, you will be welcome. We
will also leave the record open. I do want to be fair to all
Members. Mr. Barr has waited patiently.
So, I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Barr, our vice chairman.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think your record, which I am very familiar with, Mr.
Mayor, speaks for itself. It speaks for our country and for the
very best of our effort to fight mind-altering drugs. Let me
ask you, some of you did not touch on it.
It may be that you all do not have this problem in New
York. I suspect you do to some extent. We have it in
communities in my district where I live in Smyrna, GA; perhaps
not to the same degree, but certainly it is a serious problem.
That is with illegals; illegal aliens coming into our
communities. Some of the problems that our local law
enforcement are facing I know are the same sorts of things that
you grappled with when you were at the Department of Justice
and likely as U.S. Attorney.
That is what do we do? How do we address the problem of the
illegal aliens being detained on drug charges? We are seeing
some particular problems with INS, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Just recently, Commissioner Meisner has indicated an intent
to start releasing felon offenders from detention, including
drug traffickers and other criminals.
This comes at a time when we in the Congress and the
President by signing the appropriating and authorizing
legislation have greatly increased the amount of money going to
INS.
Specifically, to assist them in working with local law
enforcement and State law enforcement to keep the illegals
detained so that they are not released back into the community.
Is this a problem that you are seeing in your jurisdiction?
Is this helping or hindering your ability to fight the drug
problem in New York City?
Mr. Giuliani. The failure of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to timely deport people convicted of
drug dealing, even though if they finished their sentences, is
a very damaging thing in the city of New York.
On a comparative basis, I do not know if it would be as
damaging to New York as it is to Los Angeles or Miami where
there might be a higher level of it. It certainly is something
that creates additional difficulties for the police.
The number of deportations that take place in the city is
just a very, very small percentage of the number of people that
could be deported who have actually been convicted of felonies.
So, we have the problem of not only finding the people who
are doing it and incarcerating them, but when they finish their
sentences then they are returned to society. They are not all
deported.
So, they remain in the city of New York. As unfortunately
is the case, because of the recidivism rates, particularly in
the area of drug crime, are pretty high, they go back to
selling drugs again. Now, I have to say that the INS over the
last 2 years, with some urging and some cooperation that we
have given them, have increased the number of deportations.
It is something that they are trying to do something about.
Frankly, they do not have the resources and the funding to do
the number that they should. I am sorry. I do not have the
exact numbers. I will get them for you.
If they deport 20 percent of the number that could be
deported who have not--not just accused of selling drugs, but
are convicted of it, that would be a lot. So, it is probably
about 80 percent that are returned to society. I will get you
the exact numbers.
Mr. Barr. Thank you. I would appreciate that because I
would like to compare it to some of the problems we are seeing
in some of the communities in my jurisdiction.
One thing that impresses me about your approach is not just
that you have a very sound, a very, very strong handle on the
big picture, but you understand some of the nuts and bolts.
Frankly, I am amazed. I do not know how you do it. Either
you are a rocket scientist or you have a tremendous staff that
works with you to be able to put together this sort of----
Mr. Giuliani. I am no rocket scientist. So, it has got to
be the staff.
Mr. Barr. There would probably be some folks that would
disagree with that. Even in your summary remarks here, one
thing that impressed me was your recognition that before you go
into an area, you have the chart up here.
I know in your comments you also talked about your
targeting of model blocks and your drug initiative areas. You
do not just sort of go into an area willy-nilly and sort of
catcher's catch can.
Apparently, what you have done is to look very carefully at
each individual area, develop the data and the information that
you can then analyze before you target your resources. I think
that is perhaps one reason why you are seeing such tremendous
results.
Could you comment briefly on how you have been able to do
that and if there are any particular pointers that you can give
us? How can we replicate that under other communities? Also, if
you are familiar with one program in the Atlanta area we are
working with Justice on, the PACT Program, Pulling America's
Communities Together, and some of the grant money that has been
available through that to do on a smaller scale?
I think some of what you are doing here, stressing the need
to develop computer software, data collection, and analysis
techniques so that we can better target. Could you give us some
pointers on how you have been able to do that and the
importance of coordinating that effort among different
jurisdictions?
Mr. Giuliani. Probably the thing that I could say most
relevant to that is to describe very briefly the COMSTAT
Program. The COMSTAT Program is a program that the police
department started 5 years ago.
It won the award last year from the Kennedy School as the
most innovative program in government. It is an information
gathering computer program of massive proportions.
I guess to simplify it, what it does is every single day
statistics are gathered from the 77 police precincts of the
city on every conceivable kind of crime. Statistics are
gathered on civilian complaints. Statistics are gathered on
complaints by the community about the conduct of the police and
about corruption that might be charged against police officers.
So, it is a complete management tool.
It is reviewed on a weekly basis by the leadership of the
police department and on a weekly basis by me. Then the police
commanders are brought in on a regular basis in a room that
looks like the room at the Pentagon with big maps of the city
and maps of their community.
What they try to do is to focus on where the crime problems
are emerging and how they should move around their resources.
Police commanders are expected to have a strategy for how they
deal with it.
They are also expected to have a strategy for how they deal
with some of the problems that might arise in policing,
including civilian complaints. Ultimately, what that allows you
to do is to manage your police department to reduce crime,
instead of manage your police department just to arrest people.
So, if during those meetings which take place twice a week,
every day of the year, so they are on a rotating basis. A
police commander would be back there four or five times a year.
Basically, you can look at an area of the city.
We have a map up there. Let us say this is what would
happen at the COMSTAT meeting. They would notice that there was
all of a sudden an increase of car thefts in this area. There
were 20 percent more car thefts going on for 2 months in this
area in the Bronx. The COMSTAT process would review that. The
police commanders would be expected to add additional police
officers to focus on that and reduce that problem before it
became a long-term problem.
Suppose we have gang violence in the lower part of
Manhattan or in areas of Brooklyn or Queens, the same thing. We
expect them to address that immediately. So, that is the core
of the program.
When you have these meetings for a year, 2 years, or 3
years, that is why I could say to you before that when we did
the first drug initiative, we did it in the part of the city
that had something like 19 percent of the population, but 29
percent of the crime.
That part of the city was exporting more crimes to other
parts of the city. In other words, we were picking up people
who came from that area who were committing crimes in other
parts of Brooklyn, committing crimes in Manhattan, committing
crimes in the Bronx.
So, it made sense to do the first drug initiative there.
Having done it there, we ended up with double the overall rate
of crime decline in that area of the city than in the city in
general.
Since then, we have moved out to 11 other areas of the city
of New York. It is a very, very information, data-intense
computer program. I would invite you, the subcommittee members,
if you would like to come to a meeting. The Vice President has
been there. A number of other public officials have been there.
It is an excellent program. It can be replicated with a lot
of changes, depending on policing, the interrelationship
between police, and problems in different communities. It can
be replicated anywhere.
It is being replicated now in a number of communities in
the United States and overseas. I would invite you to come and
see it. I really cannot do it justice in just describing it
generally.
You have to sit through the 1 hour, 1\1/2\ hour program.
Immediately, you will see what the concept is and why it works.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Towns, you are recognized.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by a question I think was asked by our
chairman. I did not quite get the answer. If you answered it, I
probably missed it. So, I will not say you did not answer it.
I did not get the answer. I think the chairman asked your
position on the Needle Exchange Program. I did not hear your
answer.
Mr. Giuliani. My position on the Needle Exchange Program is
that we have it in the city of New York. It is done under State
law, State authorization with Federal funding. I honestly do
not know if it works.
It concerns me greatly. It concerns me because I understand
the purpose of it. The purpose of it is to avoid the spread of
HIV-AIDS and try and reduce that method of spreading that
terrible disease.
On the other hand, it concerns me because what we should be
about is convincing people not to use drugs, not facilitating
them in the use of drugs.
I have to say that in the areas that have the clinics,
although people anticipated this, including me, that it might
have an impact on higher levels of crime, there are lower
levels of crime now than when the clinics began, and
significantly lower levels of crime.
Now, whether that is in any way a reflection of the clinics
or it is a reflection of the overall reduction in crime that is
going on, I cannot tell you. From a practical point of view, I
understand the need for them.
From a philosophical point of view, they continue to
concern me because I worry about underscoring or helping people
use drugs and not trying to deal with those people by trying to
get them into drug-free programs. Ultimately, there is nothing
the city can do about it.
It is authorized. All of those programs are permitted by
and licensed by the State Board of Health. They have Federal
funding for them. I cannot tell you that they have caused any
significant problems.
The people in the communities that have them do not like
them. They worry about them, but there is no additional--I knew
I would be asked the question. I tried to get all of the
statistics out on crime in those areas. Crime has gone down in
the areas in which the clinics are located. That could be for
different reasons.
Mr. Towns. In the other part, from the health standpoint in
terms of hepatitis, and in terms of AIDS in particular.
Mr. Giuliani. I think there is no question that depending
on the report that you read, and I have read maybe six or seven
different reports, five or six that say they are very useful
and very helpful in the sense of the health-related things that
you are talking about.
I get one or two that say they are exaggerated in that
direction. In any event, I think from that point of view, yes.
It probably is helpful in reducing the spread of diseases.
There is a different concern that I have which is I am
uncomfortable with the idea of the State being involved in
giving you a hypodermic needle to facilitate your remaining
dependent on heroin. I would rather see those programs put at
least some emphasis on trying to move the people who want to
utilize the program into drug-free treatment programs so we can
give them a chance to lead a decent life and a life free of
drugs.
Mr. Towns. Thank you.
You know, I think that you have sort of moved to my next
question. I think that is a real problem with our treatment in
terms of our approach to dealing with the drug problem. I think
it is really not coordinated.
I think that is the problem. I will give an example, when
you talk about opening a drug treatment facility of any type in
any community, I mean of course the community is up in arms.
I understand that and rightfully so because of problems
around it. I think that what we have created we can deal with
it. Most clinics in every hospital close at 4 p.m.; almost
every clinic. At 4 p.m., it closes down.
Why not at 5 p.m., it opens up to treat addicts, even in
the Methadone Program, whatever it is? You can have all of the
support systems there in terms of the backup of the hospital.
You can have the police, the guards, everybody is there.
The lights are already on. The telephones are already in there.
So, all of this is there. So, you cut down on the tremendous
amount of cost because you do not have to go out there and
build a facility. You do not have to go out there and fight
with a community to be able to get them to accept the facility,
and you waste all of the money, the time, and the energy in
that.
Even in the Needle Exchange Program, they could work toward
counseling patients to come off of whatever they are on and to
encourage them to go into a certain type of program based on
the assessment of that person.
I think that we need to be concerned about the type of
program that a person goes on. I think some people would fit
better in one type of program than they will another. So, I
think the coordination of it has not been there.
The other part is that an idle mind is the devil's
workshop. If you have a person that comes off of drugs, and he
or she cannot get a job, then I think it enhances their chances
of going back on whatever they were on.
So, I think that if we have a hospital or other facilities
that are working along with this particular program, then I
think they could move them into jobs, do all kinds of things to
be able to help them to stay away from drugs.
I just do not feel that it is coordinated. I mean from the
moment a person goes to be detoxified as to what happens to
them in terms of the next steps. So, even the Methadone
Program, I do not think the coordination is there because of
the fact that if a person is on methadone, who is working with
them to move them to the next step?
So, I just think that the coordination--I think we are
spending a lot of money. I think that the money is being
wasted. If we have a facility that we can use after 4 p.m., why
go build one?
Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Towns, I agree with you completely. I
think that there is a lack of coordination. There is a lack of
specific purpose. There is a lack of really having thought
through how can you really help somebody?
Then unfortunately, in many of these areas these things
become businesses. There is a methadone business. You make a
lot of money for doing this. You get lots of Federal matching
money.
Therefore, the more people that you can be giving the drug
to as quickly as you can give it to them, the more money you
are going to make. You will even see hospitals that have
clinics.
They have already projected how much money they are going
to make on their clinic based on Federal and State matching
dollars. So, what I would like to see happen and what I am
trying to do, and I am trying to get the State to turn drug
treatment from the State over to the city, is to put the
maximum amount of emphasis, not every dollar, but reverse the
percentages on putting people in drug-free treatment programs
where people work as a part of the drug therapy.
Good programs require work as a part of the drug therapy.
They require that as soon as the person is detoxified, and as
soon as the person is stabilized, then they should have a job.
They should be working.
Their drug treatment should be coordinated with their being
a part of the work force and developing a work discipline. If
you can do both, get them off drugs and develop a work ethic
and a work discipline in the person, we are going to give them
the best defense to leading a drug-free life.
That is what we are trying to do. The obstacles in terms of
State and Federal mandates, all of the money moves. The money
basically moves toward the quickest, easiest form of drug
treatment that can bring in the most dollars, as opposed to
understanding the drug treatment.
It is very difficult. It is very intense. It requires
asking a lot of the person addicted to drugs in a lot of the
programs. That is where we should be putting our emphasis. Then
we are going to have the maximum number of people free of drugs
rather than people continue to be dependent, which is a shame.
It really is a shame.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but
can I ask one more question?
Mr. Mica. We are running close, but go right ahead, Mr.
Towns.
Mr. Towns. I will try to make it short.
We will have law enforcement officers, people involved in
interdiction of drugs come before us. They will make a case. We
will learn that the criminals have better resources than they
have. By the time they finish, they almost make you want to
cry.
During peace time, how do you feel about the military being
involved in the interdiction process? If their boats are faster
than our boats, and their planes are faster than our planes, I
mean, you know at least their planes are not faster than our
military planes. They are not faster than our ships.
Mr. Giuliani. I do not see any reason why the military
should not be involved in drug interdiction that is taking
place beyond the borders of the United States or even close to
the borders of the United States.
Obviously, the line should be a very strict one. The
military should not be involved in any form of internal law
enforcement, at least not in this kind of area. That would be a
terrible mistake.
Beyond the borders of the United States it is perfectly
appropriate for the military to be involved. When I used to be
involved in that kind of work as Associate Attorney General, I
was constantly encouraging more military involvement, more of
their resources being used for this purpose.
I think, obviously, it is very, very good from the point of
view of drug interdiction. They do have sophisticated
equipment. They have trained personnel. At times the Defense
Department would disagree with me when I would make this
argument.
I also think it is good for them. I think it keeps them
trained. It helps them. It assists them in a lot of their
training functions as well.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Giuliani. I was corrected on one thing by my very, very
capable staff, which is the reason why we were able to do this.
That is that the Needle Exchange Program is funded by the State
of New York. There are no Federal funds. There are no city
funds for it. It is all State-funded.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Mayor, I noticed that also. I did not say
something because I knew your staff would correct you before I
had the chance to.
I have agreed to an additional question from the ranking
member.
Mrs. Mink. I will try to be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. I will send my other questions for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
One of the discussions that I have had with others concerns
your statements last summer having to do with the Methadone
Treatment Program.
Your description in your testimony today that this program
is a mere substitution of one addiction for another. Therefore,
you wanted to see a phase down of this program, and certainly
no linkages in establishing the program for eligibility for
Federal funding.
I have received from my staff an NIH report of people who
have researched this whole issue who feel very strongly that it
is a supportable treatment program and should be continued.
My question, however, does not go to the medical evidence
which, of course, is relevant. I will ask you to submit what
medical evidence you have.
What concerns me is a news article that appeared in the New
York Times recently which said that, while New York City has
36,000 heroin addicts, only 6 percent are currently able to be
treated under your program in the city hospitals.
I wanted your comment on that. What other efforts your
administration is embarking in order to provide services and
treatment in this drug-free context in which you are pursuing
for the other remaining 30,000 addicts who, under the Methadone
Program, are voluntarily admitting to their illness or
addiction, and coming to the government, and to various
agencies for some relief so that they can have a reasonable
expectation of returning to a useful life; one free of
addiction?
My concern is that however good the intentions might be to
pursue a drug-free, non-addictive type program that there
really is not much evidence of a capability to pursue that.
Therefore, a much more balanced approach toward your view of
methadone is really required.
Mr. Giuliani. Well, first of all, I should explain to you
that New York City does not do drug treatment. The State does.
As a part of the arrangement between the city and State, the
responsibility for drug treatment is overwhelmingly a State
responsibility. So, when you look at the small number of slots,
those happen to be the small number that we supply at the city
hospitals. The overwhelming amount of drug treatment that is
done in the city of New York is done by the New York State
Department of Health.
Mrs. Mink. But they are in city hospitals.
Mr. Giuliani. But that is the contribution that we are
making. The city of New York does not handle drug treatment. We
have city hospitals. So, we make those positions available.
Overall, the jurisdiction for drug treatment is the State
of New York. Roughly, they spend about $155 million to $160
million a year on drug treatment; largely their funds. Some of
it is State funds.
Unfortunately, the State, which is the one that does drug
treatment, and we have a tremendous number of drug treatment
slots. When you just look at the city hospitals, you are
looking at a small contribution to it.
The overwhelming amount of money and positions are spent on
methadone rather than on drug treatment. What I am proposing is
reversing the percentages. I am not saying cut out Methadone
Maintenance Programs.
Although, it would be ideal if at some point we could. What
I am saying is we should not have 70 percent of the slots be
for maintaining somebody on chemical dependency and 30 percent
being for drug-free programs.
I have asked that the State give those programs to the city
so that the city could run them and then we could reverse the
percentages.
We could have 70 percent of the people in drug-free slots
and 30 percent in the Methadone Programs, which are maintenance
programs. So, I think my position is a little more complicated
than maybe was described in the New York Times.
Mrs. Mink. Of the 2,000 that you do have in the city
hospitals under this treatment program, what is the success
rate of actually getting these addicts off of drugs all
together?
Mr. Giuliani. I cannot tell you just individually what it
would be for the city hospitals because they do not end up
getting measured that way. The city hospitals are a part of
35,000 or 40,000 drug slots. They are just a small portion of
it.
The success rates of the drug-free programs that are long-
term treatment programs, 50 percent, 60 percent. I mean they
are pretty good. They are good rates of success, but they
require long-term commitment to treatment; 2 years, 3 years.
They require things like work therapy. They are intense
efforts. They are harder to do. So, any bureaucracy, whether it
is the city, the State, or the Federal Government, if you
confront it with two things that it can do, one of which is
very hard and one of which is very easy, but it can give you a
lot of money, all of a sudden your priorities are going to get
distorted.
The thing that is going to happen over and over again is
the thing that is very easy and it gets you a lot of money.
That is the unfortunate part of what we do with methadone. It
is easy. It brings a lot of money.
Whatever the help benefits of it, there is not a single
thing in any of that literature you have that does not say the
following: that it is addictive. You must remain on it for the
rest of your life.
There are people who are strongly committed to methadone
because it is an industry. They make a tremendous amount of
money from it; millions, and millions, and millions of dollars.
If you were to require them to do what the Phoenix House
does or what Detox Village does, which is a 2 year drug
treatment program, they would not be getting the money.
Somebody else would be getting the money and the work is much,
much harder.
So, a part of the policy direction that the Federal
Government should be not to eliminate methadone, but to try to
move more of the percentage of dollars and funding to the more
difficult programs that give people a better chance of leading
an independent life than having them addicted to a chemical
substance for the rest of their lives. That is the point that I
am now trying to make.
Do not wipe one out, but see if you can move the
percentages toward a much more life-affirming form of therapy.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the news
article, plus the NIH report that I referred to be admitted to
the record at this time.
Mr. Mica. Without objection; so ordered.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Mayor, we want to thank you for being
generous with your time this morning.
Mr. Giuliani. Thank you.
This was very, very instructive. I wish you would take up
the invitation to come to the COMSTAT Program. I think you will
find it very interesting.
Mr. Mica. We would like to take you up on that invitation,
but we thank you for your leadership, for your insight into
some of the successes you have had, and also for your candid
responses to some of the problems that you have experienced.
We also look forward to hearing from you. We are
particularly interested in Federal programs that affect our
cities and States, and how we can do a better job in working
and coordinating our efforts with you.
There being no further business to come before this
subcommittee this morning, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]