[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H954-H989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DISAPPROVAL OF DETERMINATION OF PRESIDENT REGARDING MEXICO

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 95 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 95

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 58) disapproving the certification of 
     the President under section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for Mexico during 
     fiscal year 1997. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question except: (1) two hours of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on International Relations; 
     (2) the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     International Relations now printed in the joint resolution, 
     which shall be considered as read, shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, and shall not be 
     separately debatable; (3) the further amendment specified in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by a Member designated in the report, 
     which shall be considered as read, shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, and shall separately 
     debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (4) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 58 pursuant to House Resolution 
95, the amendment printed in House Report 105-20 be considered as 
modified by (1) striking ``the impact of such process on financial 
markets'' from the text designated as section 6(C); and (2) striking 
``on currency markets, international financial markets and merchandise 
trade flow'' from the text designated as section 6(g)(1)(B) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``in enhancing international counter 
narcotics cooperation''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Foley]. Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take the floor to begin this 
debate today on the drug war and the specific question of certifying 
Mexico's role in the drug war to make several points to all of my 
colleagues which I hope will be noted throughout the debate, and I hope 
on our side of the aisle that the managers both of the debate on the 
rule and the debate on the actual bill will help communicate. This is 
an effort on our part to help the people of Mexico to help the people 
of Colombia and to help the American people.
  All of us are faced with a terrible challenge of international drug 
lords who are ruthless and who use the profits of American money from 
sales to Americans in order to sustain a level of violence that is 
tragic. No American can look at the thousands of Colombians who have 
died, no American can look at the Mexican prosecutors, the Mexican 
police who have died risking their lives to try to free their countries 
from the scourge of drug dealers and then talk in a self-righteous 
manner about these countries.
  We have a challenge in America of ending the drug trade protecting 
our children and cutting off the flow of money to drug lords wherever 
they are. We have a challenge as good neighbors to recognize that we 
need to reach out to help the people of Mexico and to

[[Page H955]]

help the people of Colombia, and yes, there are concerns about 
decertification, and yes, if you read the law and you answer honestly 
the questions written in the law, we find ourselves at the point, as 
the attorney generals of California and Arizona reported, that they 
felt decertification was appropriate. But we will be offering an 
amendment later to give the Clinton administration an additional 90 
days to find ways to work with the Mexican Government to avoid any such 
decertification because we believe the key as good neighbors is to work 
together and to work to honor the memory of those in Colombia and 
Mexico who have lost their life fighting the drug dealers and to 
recognize that only by a true team effort in which the American 
Government and the American people also take on an all-out challenge of 
defeating the drug dealers here and stopping the drug purchases here 
and eliminating the flow of American money to other countries.
  So I hope all of our colleagues will approach this debate in a 
positive effort to create a spirit across the Americas of defeating the 
drug dealers as allies together for civilization.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a straightforward rule that allows us to bring a resolution 
with strong bipartisan backing to the floor for timely consideration, 
as the Speaker has just indicated. The rule allows 2 hours of debate, 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations. It makes in order as the base 
text House Joint Resolution 58 as amended by the Committee on 
International Relations and reported by a strong 27 to 5 bipartisan 
vote.
  In addition, it provides for the consideration of an amendment by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] debatable for 20 minutes, equally 
divided between the proponent and an opponent. All points of order 
against the committee amendment and the Hastert amendment are waived. 
Finally, the rule allows for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is with a certain degree of reluctance that 
the House takes up this resolution. I believe collectively this body 
has been a strong supporter of the democratization and stabilization 
process in Mexico, but it is simply impossible to overlook the evidence 
we are confronting today on the matter of full cooperation in the war 
on drugs. That is the test under the certification process.
  Mexico has been identified as the source or transfer point for a full 
70 percent or thereabouts of the elicit drugs that flow into the United 
States every year. That is an extraordinary amount. As we seek closer 
cooperation with Mexico on trade and other areas, we do our closest 
Latin American neighbors and ourselves no favor if we close our eyes to 
the endemic corruption that is confounding our efforts in Mexico.
  Frankly, many of us were perplexed to see Mexico receive full 
certification by President Clinton, when countries like Colombia, where 
the National Police have fought a courageous battle against its drug 
cartels, were fully decertified. There seems to be a bit of a double 
standard there.
  I think it is true, as we have seen in the certification process this 
year, that the process is imperfect, some might even say 
counterproductive. But for today it is the law we have to work with. 
And if we don't like the certification process, I would refer your 
attention to provisions in the Hastert amendment to reconsider that 
process and provide for a high-level counternarcotics commission.
  But what are we looking for in Mexico? We are looking for reliable 
drug enforcement officials to work with us, willingly, effectively and 
cooperatively.
  Many applauded when Mexico mobilized its military in the war on 
drugs, including myself, making the recent revelations unfortunately 
about General Gutierrez all the more troubling to us. It seems we were 
sharing sensitive information about drug cartels with a military man 
who was involved in fact with those cartels.
  We also need evidence that once captured, notorious criminals like 
Humberto Garcia will be charged, tried and sentenced, not simply 
allowed to walk out of custody.
  Our goal is not to take a step back from the many positive aspects of 
our relationship with Mexico, and they are many, and we are proud of 
them. I think the Committee on International Relations resolution does 
strike the right tone. It is tough, but it is fair, and the Hastert 
amendment is an additional opportunity for positive cooperation between 
our two countries.
  It is my hope that once the initial reaction has passed, the Mexican 
Government will respond with a concerted effort to address the specific 
vital issues outlined in the Hastert amendment, where the United States 
and Mexico can do a better job of fighting drug traffic together.
  Mr. Speaker, notice that I included the United States in the ``can do 
better'' category, because we all know the problem is not entirely one 
of Mexico's making. There are demand issues to deal with in the United 
States and some lingering questions about the commitment and efficiency 
of our own administration to the fight against drugs. We are working on 
that. Having said all of that, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the rule and in passing House Joint Resolution 58.
  A little candor on the situation in Mexico will advance our cause a 
lot further than glossing over the rough spots. That is what friends 
are for.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a bad rule for a questionable 
bill and a truly terrible substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution is a slap in the face of our 
Nation's neighbor to the south, and the substitute, which was brought 
to the Committee on Rules, is a slap in the face of the President of 
the United States.
  It is unrealistic to expect that the Government of a sovereign nation 
would be willing to cooperate with the United States if Congress passes 
legislation such as this. It is ludicrous to think that the President 
would sign anything which directly condemns him, as does the substitute 
made in order here.
  The fact that this resolution has been brought to the floor in this 
manner, without opportunity to amend it with a more reasonable approach 
to a problem that everyone agrees is of critical national importance, 
demonstrates that the majority in this House is not interested in 
narcotics control. Rather, the majority is demonstrating its first 
priority is to bash the President and his administration, and then to 
bash the Government of one of our Nation's closest neighbors.
  Mr. Speaker, no would can deny that drugs are the scourge of our 
society. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that the influx of drugs from 
Mexico is a serious problem that affects every level of our society.
  While the Mexican Government and President Zedillo have taken 
important steps toward implementing a meaningful drug control program, 
many, many serious deficiencies exist, and evidence of corruption is 
alarming.
  None of us can deny that more must be done, much more. The Government 
of Mexico has not done everything to fully cooperate with our law 
enforcement agencies, and, despite 52 requests for drug-related 
extraditions, has not extradited a single Mexican national. This is 
serious business. But how can we expect another sovereign nation to 
work with us, to cooperate in our efforts to stem the tide of the 
influx of this poison into our country, when we move ahead with 
legislation like House Joint Resolution 58?
  We need to step back, Mr. Speaker, and examine the implications of 
this legislation carefully and rationally. The lives of American 
children depend upon our actions.
  Yesterday the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a Member of the 
other party, came to the Committee on Rules and made a compelling case 
for a sense of the Congress resolution which he proposed as a 
substitute to the committee bill and the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  The Schiff substitute recognizes the direct threat that drugs 
represent to the United States and that the Government of Mexico has 
failed to undertake measures which would significantly

[[Page H956]]

curb the drug trade and corruption in that country. The language is 
strong and right on target.
  But the Schiff resolution calls on our Government to continue to work 
with the Mexican Government to dismantle drug cartels and arrest and 
prosecute their leaders, to achieve compliance with our extradition 
requests, to increase interdiction, to step up efforts to enhance law 
enforcement efforts on both sides of the border, and, finally, to 
identify and eliminate corruption at every level of the Government of 
Mexico.
  The Schiff resolution would have, had this House been permitted to 
consider it, sent a strong message to the Government of Mexico but 
would not have sent along with it a direct slap in the face. I offered 
an amendment to the rule to include the Schiff resolution in the 
amendments to be considered today, but my amendment was defeated on a 
straight party-line vote, with all the Republican Members voting 
against the substitute offered by their own fellow Republican [Mr. 
Schiff].
  Mr. Speaker, the ranking member of the Committee on International 
Relations told the Committee on Rules yesterday afternoon that the 
current situation with Mexico and the certification process mandated by 
section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shows that the law 
does not work. The President was faced with an extremely difficult 
choice when he was presented with the choice of certifying or 
decertifying Mexico. There is little disagreement that this law does 
not allow the President adequate flexibility to deal both with the drug 
problem and with the totality of U.S. national interests. The law 
should be changed.
  But in the meantime, there is little reason to believe that the 
Republican majority should use this outdated law as an opportunity to 
specifically condemn the President of the United States by bringing 
forward a substitute resolution which contains language which 
specifically states that the administration's policies of the past 4 
years amount to, ``the failed antidrug policy.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose ordering the previous question on 
this resolution in order to try to amend the rule to allow the House to 
consider the sense of Congress resolution proposed by the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. His proposal is reasonable and sends a 
strong message and encourages greater cooperation between the United 
States and Mexico. If we are serious about stemming the flow of 
narcotics into our country, reason and not insults should prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, here on the floor and back in your offices, you know, 
there is a war going on in this country. Unfortunately, it is a one-
sided war. The only people that are fighting are the drug lords, the 
people that are killing our young children. And we, including our 
allies, are doing little to fight that war.
  I do not have to tell my colleagues I have spoken out many times on 
this floor about the illegal drug use in this country, criticizing the 
Mexican Government, the Colombian Government, and yes, criticizing the 
American Government, and yes, criticizing this Congress as well for not 
fighting that war.
  In my view, if we are going to get results in our foreign affairs, we 
simply must be willing to use the stick once in a while. We cannot just 
hang that carrot out there and threaten and keep letting them eat the 
carrots. That is what we do all too often with our foreign policy.
  In this case, unless we are prepared to suspend our aid to Mexico, 
they will know there will never be a penalty for their lack of 
cooperation in this war.
  Has there been cooperation? Not very much.
  Consider the comment from Tom Constantine, head of our Drug 
Enforcement Agency, one of the most credible law enforcement officers 
in America. I was proud to work with him in the New York State 
government for many, many years.
  He said, ``There is not one single law enforcement institution in 
Mexico with whom the DEA has an entirely trusting relationship.''
  Can you imagine that? That, my friends, is a damning indictment. And 
that is why I feel Mexico should be decertified.
  Let me read some statistics. Seventy-five percent of all the violent 
crime in America today is committed against our women and children and 
it is drug-related, 75 percent of all violent crime in America today.
  Did we all know that? Does that not mean anything to us?
  And let me tell my colleagues something else that is so startling. 
The Rand Corp. says that 75 percent of all the illegal drug purchases 
in America today are made by whom? They are made by upper-middle class 
Americans. I guess my colleagues and I could be put in that category. 
But recreational drug users who use a little cocaine, sniff a little 
cocaine or smoke a little marijuana over the weekend, and they come 
into the innercities and they buy these illegal drugs. That is what 
creates the territories, and that is what creates the murder.

  Did my colleagues know that marijuana use in American 12- and 13-
year-olds is up 127 percent over the last 4 years? Did we know among 
14- and 15-year-olds that marijuana use is up 200 percent? And it goes 
higher and higher as you get up.
  We are destroying a whole new generation of Americans, financially 
and physically. And that is why it is part of our fault, because we are 
not fighting the war inside our boundaries.
  But listen to this, 50 to 70 percent of the cocaine entering the 
United States of America today transits through Mexico. Seventy 
percent? And 20 to 30 percent of heroin crosses the borders from 
Mexico. Eighty percent of grown marijuana comes in from Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to fight a battle here, and that is why I would 
have liked to have seen a much stronger bill than the one we are 
considering here today. But this House is a body of compromise. And if 
we were to send any kind of message expressing our dissatisfaction to 
Mexico, it was necessary to reach a compromise that took care of the 
concerns, legitimate concerns, like the gentleman sitting over here 
from Texas that represents border States. We have to take those 
considerations into consideration, because they believe that a straight 
decertification would be destabilizing in Mexico.
  While this bill grants a waiver of sanctions to the President and 
while the Hastert amendment made in order by the rule delays 
decertification for 90 days, it still does send a strong message of our 
dissatisfaction with Mexico's level of cooperation in the drug war. 
That is why I am going to do what Ronald Reagan taught me to do, you 
cannot always have it your own way, you have to compromise. To me, this 
is a reasonable compromise.
  But, Mr. Speaker, after we do this, let us get on with fighting that 
war to save our children, please.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Reyes].
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to speak on a very, 
very emotional issue, and a very important issue to us. I want to say 
to my colleagues in the House that I deeply appreciate the comments 
made this morning both by the Speaker and the Democratic leader in the 
context of the Hershey retreat that half of us attended over the 
weekend. I think it is important that we listen to what the Speaker 
said immediately preceding these arguments on the rule.
  I stand this morning against the rule because I think at times those 
of us that understand, those of us that have the experience of the 
impact of decisions made in Congress and how they impact border 
communities, not border countries, but border communities on both sides 
of the international boundary are often disregarded and not taken into 
account.
  We have heard this morning, and probably will hear some more, some 
rhetorical statements such as there is a war going on, that this issue 
is tough, but fair, that 75 percent of crime committed in this country 
is related to drugs, and that drug use is up 100 and something percent. 
We all know this; I know this.

[[Page H957]]

  Yet, over the course of the last week or so, I have been talking to 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to educate them about 
the implications of something we are about to do that is going to have 
long-term and profound impact on the relationship that this country has 
with our neighbor to the south, namely, Mexico.
  I think certification of Mexico is critical. I think it is critical 
not as an issue of checking off on a report card, but I think it is 
critical from the context of, we cannot expect cooperation, we cannot 
expect teamwork if we do not provide our fellow members of the team an 
opportunity to work with us.
  I can tell my colleagues from personal experience, experience 
predicated on 26\1/2\ years of working this Nation's border to enforce 
immigration and narcotic laws, that the issue is tough, the issue is 
serious. What we are about to do here in voting to decertify Mexico and 
voting on the alternative amendment is serious business.
  This morning we are being watched and monitored throughout Latin 
America. This morning we are being monitored because people south of 
our border know that we do not have our own house in order, yet we are 
taking a position that we are making an attempt to tell people that 
they have to have their house in order.
  I think it is critically important that we understand that a vote for 
this rule is a vote that ultimately will come back to haunt us in many 
different ways, including a profound way where our neighbor to the 
south may choose a path and a road that ultimately comes back to haunt 
not just us, not those of us in this Congress today, but ultimately 
future relationships with future generations of this country. I think 
we deserve better; I think our children deserve better.
  I think we need to step back and we need to have a cooling-off 
period. From that perspective, I appreciate having had an opportunity 
to be heard by the Speaker, by the leader, and by Members of both sides 
of the aisle in terms of what I offer in terms of my experience on that 
border.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because it is 
the wrong thing to do at the wrong time and gives us the wrong kinds of 
consequences.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I am sorry that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not seem 
to grasp that one of the essences of democracy is permanent 
dissatisfaction. I am among those who believe that the resolution that 
came out of the Committee on International Relations, decertifying the 
Mexican Government for its blatant and obvious actions, is not 
fulfilling the responsibilities of all governments in fighting drug 
trafficking.
  I would have supported that resolution if I had been in the Committee 
on International Relations, and would have preferred that it be the 
final product today in this House. But as a consequence of a 
negotiation, a bipartisan negotiation, a very intense negotiation over 
the last couple of days, there is an amendment that is made in order by 
this rule that I fully support, an amendment by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], that while not satisfying many of us, I think 
at least moves forward in a way that both sides of the aisle and all 
positions should appreciate this morning.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] says that it postpones 
decertification of the Mexican Government for 90 days, and gives an 
opportunity to the Mexican Government to show good faith in very 
concrete ways in the field against the fight against narcotrafficking 
within these 90 days, and avoid decertification if those steps are 
taken. I think that is a reasonable measure, a reasonable measure that 
both sides of the aisle should support. People from the border States 
as well as from the rest of the country should support and express 
gratitude to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and the Speaker 
and all others who have so diligently worked for that compromise on 
both sides of the aisle.
  However, I think that even a more important aspect of the Hastert 
amendment is that this obviously hypocritical and fatally flawed 
certification process is put under the microscope, and a commission 
will be created to look at this process, a process that while it says 
that the Colombian Government, and obviously there is a very serious 
allegation of the President of Colombia having taken money directly 
from drug traffickers during his campaign, that is a very serious 
allegation; while Colombia is decertified, though Colombia has perhaps 
given the largest quota of blood against the narcotraffickers, the 
soldiers, the policemen of Colombia, they have given the largest quota 
of blood against the drug traffickers programs in the entire 
hemisphere, yet they are decertified.
  At the same time, the Mexican Government, infiltrated to the teeth by 
narcotraffickers, infiltrated to the extent that hours after our 
President certified Mexico, a major drug trafficker was let out and 
apparently given a Mercedes to leave, despite that, Mexico was 
certified and Colombia is decertified.
  And wait a minute. The most corrupt government in the hemisphere, 
even more corrupt than the PRI government, the government of gangsters, 
by gangsters and for gangsters, the government of the dictator Castro, 
no, our Government said no, they should not be on the list of people 
that have to be certified. They are cooperating, Castro is cooperating.
  That is what the administration says, despite the fact that I have on 
video our local drug-fighting authorities in south Florida saying that 
over 50 percent of the cocaine that comes in through the Caribbean 
comes by and through Cuba, and yet the Clinton administration says no, 
they should not be on the list.
  This certification process is flawed, it is hypocritical, it is 
discriminatory, it has to be put under the microscope. The amendment of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] does that.
  Let us look at this process, let us see if there is a better way to 
cut back on drug trafficking, to reduce consumption and avoid the 
politicization of this process which is obviously occurring, and I 
think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would agree. So 
let us support the Hastert amendment, let us be bipartisan, let us be 
serious, and let us avoid petty politics.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a President of the other party, Mr. Nixon, once 
observed, watch what I do, not what I say.
  The folks on the other side are following that advice, of course. 
They are claiming to be bipartisan, claiming sweetness and light, and 
then they bring forward the Hastert amendment on which Democrats were 
not consulted. They brought it to the Committee on Rules, imposed on a 
straight party line vote, and they used the Hastert amendment to attack 
the President and his administration. Let me read from the Hastert 
amendment which they are presenting as this wonderful compromise.
  On page 4:

       United States Government strategy has been weak in 
     responding to statutory deadlines, has been characterized by 
     an absence of statutorily mandated measurable goals, lack of 
     effective coordination and program accountability, and often 
     untargeted and insufficient funding, from the smallest 
     agencies involved in the drug war up to and including the 
     White House Drug Policy Office.

  They are not talking about another country, they are talking about 
our President in our own country.
  They further say:

  United States Government policy has emphasized additional funding for 
unproven drug treatment techniques at the expense of accountable drug 
prevention programs that effectively teach a right-wrong distinction.

  And then they go on to say:

       For the past four years, United States Government strategy 
     has failed to use the media to communicate a consistent, 
     intense antidrug message to young people.

  The folks on the other side, in praising this compromise, I guess 
they are compromising between their right wing and their far right 
wing, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hastert], neglect to tell us that what they are doing is condemning the 
President of the United States, condemning the activities of our own 
Government in trying to counteract this drug trade.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

[[Page H958]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for his kindness.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with the same kind of outrage that has been 
expressed by my colleagues, but I also understand the frustration and 
the pleas that has been made by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes]. 
So I rise in opposition to the rule because I believe there is more 
that could have been done.
  It is crucial that we acknowledge that this is not, this question of 
drug usage and drug devastation, it is not a Democratic problem or a 
Republican problem, it is an American problem. I think it is important 
for us to rise on this floor and come together to associate ourselves 
with a resolution that is an American resolution.
  The Federal Government now spends currently $15 billion per year in 
the war on drugs. But, interestingly enough, as it is under President 
Clinton, it has not been substantially or was not substantially 
different under President Bush. We focused a lot on border control, 
interdiction, law enforcement, punishment, and prevention. We do work 
some with education, treatment, and rehabilitation.
  Individuals in my community suffer extensively. Black men comprise 12 
percent of the total population; 13 percent of drug users, 35 percent 
of arrests and 55 percent of convictions.
  I want a real solution. I want to acknowledge that there are problems 
with Mexico, but yet we can find data that says that the Mexican 
officials seized 30 percent more marijuana in 1995, which in turn was 
up 40 percent over 1994. Cocaine seizures went from 22.2 tons to 23.8 
tons, and heroin seizures increased 78 percent from 1995.
  So I think we need to recognize that work has been done. We have 
sufficiently cooperated with many Mexican officials so that the 
extradition process has been expanded.
  I want to see us come together around solutions, to emphasize 
treatment, to emphasize the importance of bringing down the desire for 
drugs in our community. I do not want to see us not recognize the 
problems in Colombia or Mexico, but I do realize that we must do more 
about international smuggling, we must do more about money laundering, 
and in that instance I am disappointed that the Schiff amendment 
substitute was not considered to be brought to the floor of the House. 
I appreciate that there were those who supported this in the Committee 
on Rules.

                              {time}  1100

  This had viable solutions by offering it as a sense of Congress:
  First, the suggestion to dismantle major drug cartels and arrest and 
prosecute leaders of such cartels; that we would continue to work to 
implement effective legislation for Mexico to prohibit money 
laundering.
  We would also like to achieve compliance with Mexico with outstanding 
extradition requests, and that effort has been enhanced; we need more 
of that. That we would work to increase the interdiction of narcotics 
and other controlled substances, and we would do more on prevention and 
treatment, I might add.
  It again does this Congress no good and it does us great ill, if you 
will, in international relations and working with countries to improve 
this cooperative effort in fighting drugs if we castigate an 
administration that has shown itself well with the drug czar, that we 
are concerned about decreasing the amount of drugs that have come into 
this country, and to have an amendment on the floor that has been 
offered now that gives some and then takes some away by castigating the 
hard work of DEA agents, border control agents, and the various other 
Federal employees that have worked so hard with local government, with 
the President, and treatment programs, it does not show itself well, 
and does not get the job done in terms of helping Mexico do what it is 
supposed to do.
  I am frustrated by this process. I want action, but I want us to 
recognize that it is an American problem and we must treat it as such, 
to make sure we can fight this drug problem and help the American 
citizens get rid of it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, we are potentially faced with a vote to 
decertify Mexico for not cooperating with the United States to 
adequately fight the war on drugs. This is yet another of the truly 
frustrating votes in which a Member of Congress is forced to choose 
between two alternatives, both of which mandate not only an 
unconstitutional use of American taxpayer's dollars but pursue an 
ineffective policy action.
  President Clinton recently certified Mexico as a good drug warrior. 
However, absent some procedural maneuvering to remove a waiver that 
allows the President to release Mexican foreign assistance 
notwithstanding decertification, the only choice we as Members of 
Congress will be left with is: First, certify Mexico and further 
encourage an obviously corrupt political regime to continue its 
corruption-based, prohibition-era-style activities with a check from 
the United States taxpayers in the amount of $25 million; or, second, 
decertify Mexico and pressure that same regime to increase its 
corruption-based, prohibition-era-style activities with a check from 
the United States taxpayers in the amount of $25 million.
  Voting against certification does little more than pressure Mexico to 
pretend it's cracking down on drug producers. Voting for certification 
condones the President's position that Mexico is doing everything 
possible and the corruption remains both ignored and subsidized. This 
vote has become meaningless; the process of Mexican certification has 
become a kind of political dog and pony show. Unfortunately for the 
American taxpayer, foreign aid will continue to flow to Mexico 
regardless of the vote and regardless of whether this money 
accomplishes anything positive or productive.
  Today's war on drugs consists of inherently defective tactics and, as 
such, a new approach to the drug problem is desperately warranted. If 
we are going to be honest with ourselves, we would have to decertify 
our border guards, prison wardens, and school principals; after all, we 
cannot even keep drugs out of our own country, prisons, or schools.
  We never seem to learn anything from our failures. Two years ago 
Texas banned smoking in all prisons. The price of a 99-cent pack of 
cigarettes suddenly soared to $25 within the prison system, yet smoking 
continues while corruption thrives. Just last year, 40 prison employees 
faced felony charges for dealing in cigarettes.
  I cannot possibly vote to certify Mexico as a drug warrior obediently 
taking orders from the United States Government. How can I in good 
conscience vote for a resolution to decertify Mexico whether it has 
teeth in it or not since our whole approach to the drug problem is 
flawed and doomed to fail. Most Members recognize this and thus, the 
frustration with this resolution.
  This resolution, whether it passes or fails, embraces and subsidizes 
the same flaws prohibition-era approach and does little more than 
increase potential corruption and crime. The sooner we realize and 
acknowledge this, the better.
  I urge a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 
95, the rule for consideration of House Joint Resolution 58.
  First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] 
for his skillful work on this proposed rule, and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his support 
of our resolution.
  House Joint Resolution 58, introduced by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Shaw], disapproves the President's recent certification that 
Mexico had cooperated fully with the United States' antidrug efforts 
last year. This resolution of disapproval was reported favorably by the 
Committee on International Relations by a bipartisan vote of 27 to 5. 
This measure is supported by our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] as well as the leadership of both parties.
  Mr. Speaker, the latest data indicates that 60 percent of the illegal 
drugs entering our Nation passed through Mexico. That figure may be 
higher. It is a conservative estimate. If we do not work together to 
confront this problem, thousands of Mexican and American citizens, 
particularly our young people, will pay a terrible price. That is why 
we expect that our friends in Mexico would give their very best 
efforts, along with our Nation, to confront this terrible threat.

[[Page H959]]

  Regrettably, I have reached the conclusion that Mexico's government 
up until now has not shown the kind of full commitment that is needed.
  We acknowledge that Mexico has indeed been open to new antidrug 
initiatives. For that we commend them. But that cooperation was 
completely undermined because Mexico's antidrug chief was actually on 
the payroll of that country's most powerful cartel. He is now in 
prison.
  We also recognize that several massive drug syndicates continue to 
operate with impunity in Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, our DEA administrator, Tom Constantine, told Congress 
just a few days before the President's certification that there is not 
one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an 
entirely trusting relationship.
  In short, this administration gives Mexico a failing grade for its 
antidrug cooperation last year. But it would allow the President to 
maintain aid programs that are important to us, including some forms of 
counternarcotics aid that might otherwise be prohibited to a 
decertified country.
  I believe that is a responsible approach to this thorny issue.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 95 provides for a full and fair debate 
on this issue. It is time we establish a relationship that is trusting 
and meaningful. We must end the divisiveness that surround drugs, and 
the best way to do this is to lance this boil and develop real, 
substantive counter-drug cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to call our colleagues' attention to a New 
York Times editorial of March 12 of this month entitled ``Mexico 
Without Illusions,'' in coming out for decertification, stating: 
``Unless President Zedillo attacks these problems boldly by initiating 
a thorough housecleaning of corporate officials, Congress should 
override Mexico certification.''
  I urge our Members to support the rule on House Joint Resolution 58 
and to support final passage of the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the editorial I mentioned.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 12, 1997]

                        Mexico Without Illusions

       Congress and the Clinton Administration appear headed for a 
     collision over Mexico. Just weeks before President Clinton is 
     scheduled to visit Mexico, Congress is moving to override the 
     Administration's disingenuous certification that its 
     Government is fully cooperating in the fight against illegal 
     drugs. A successful override would invite a diplomatic 
     confrontation with Mexico. But the crisis would be worth 
     enduring if it led Washington to a more realistic 
     appreciation of Mexico's problems and of President Ernesto 
     Zedillo's failure to address them with sufficient resolve.
       The Administration invited a Congressional rebuff when it 
     pretended all was well with Mexican drug enforcement. It 
     acted immediately after a series of embarrassing incidents 
     made plain that pervasive corruption in Mexico's police, 
     military and ruling party has blunted drug enforcement and 
     led Mexican officials to withhold vital information from 
     American authorities.
       Only days before the certification decision came word that 
     Mexico's recently appointed drug enforcement chief had been 
     arrested for corruption, and that news of his downfall had 
     been kept secret for nearly two weeks.
       Largely because of this breakdown of enforcement and 
     cooperation, well over half the cocaine entering the United 
     States now passes through Mexico. Mexico has become the 
     principal conduit for South American cocaine as well as a 
     supplier of homegrown marijuana and heroin.
       Mexico already resents the idea of a Washington report card 
     on its law enforcement efforts. The insult would be far 
     greater if Mexico received a failing grade, even if the 
     Administration, as it surely would, waived the economic 
     penalties that decertification could bring. The annual drug 
     certification review is of a useful process. But as long as 
     it is required by law, Washington does best to tell the 
     American people, and itself, the truth.
       In Mexico's case, that truth is cause for considerable 
     concern. The drug enforcement problems are symptomatic of a 
     deeper crisis in Mexican political life.
       The old regime, represented by the Institutional 
     Revolutionary Party, or PRI, has used patronage networks and, 
     on occasion, electoral fraud to monopolize Mexico's 
     presidency and dominate its politics for nearly seven 
     decades. It is now in deep disarray, unable to reform itself 
     and unwilling to give way to a more democratic and 
     accountable system. President Zedillo is a weak but decent 
     leader, apparently too beholden to the PRI establishment to 
     reform it.
       He has failed, for example, to move aggressively to clean 
     up the notoriously drug-corrupted Federal Judicial Police. 
     Mr. Zedillo has instead relied on regular army generals who 
     are themselves proving vulnerable to bribery and other 
     abuses. New reports link army drug fighters to a series of 
     mysterious kidnapping incidents. Mr. Zedillo has failed to 
     challenge federal and state politicians whose failure to halt 
     drug trafficking in their areas of jurisdiction suggests 
     either active complicity or incompetence.
       With a long common boarder and a wide array of common 
     interests the United States has compelling reasons to 
     maintain constructive relations with Mexico. But such 
     relations can only be based on an honest assessment of 
     Mexican conditions, including the obvious problems now 
     afflicting its drug enforcement programs.
       Unless President Zedillo attacks these problems boldly by 
     initiating a thorough housecleaning of corrupt officials, 
     Congress should override Mexico's certification.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to our 
colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL, for yielding me this time.
  I would like to say to the House that sometimes we have a tendency 
around here to do what makes us feel good, rather than what is actually 
the right thing to do. Clearly, the politically expedient best thing to 
do is to bash the living hell out of Mexico.
  I have plenty of grist for criticism of what we have seen from 
Mexico, but we have to ask this question, Mr. Speaker: What does it get 
us? What does decertification get us? What does listing a whole load of 
items that would exacerbate the anti-gringo sentiment from Mexico get 
us in this war which, frankly, we are in large part responsible for?
  If Members will look at a country that is trying to emerge and bring 
about economic reforms and political reforms, as Mexico is, and it is a 
long and difficult struggle, and it has not been as successful as we 
would like, but if we look at the problems that exist there and then 
look at the magnet of $30 billion which we in this country are 
providing, it obviously has to impose quite a strain on Mexico.
  There is a sense that every government official in Mexico is corrupt. 
We know that is not the case. There have been 25 assassinations which 
have taken place in Mexico. Loads of judges, police officers, and a 
wide range of other people are strongly committed in Mexico to dealing 
with this scourge of drugs. But obviously the $30 billion which we are 
providing as consumers here in the United States has clearly played a 
role in creating that corruption.
  I will support the manager's amendment compromise, but I have trouble 
with it. Why? Because as we look at that litany of criticisms that we 
are going to be imposing, which we are going to be leveling at the 
Mexican Government, it seems to me it will make it tougher for them to 
try and deal with many of these items.
  Why? Because of the political problems that exist in Mexico, as I 
said earlier, that anti-gringo sentiment. So I will say that 
reluctantly I will join in support of this compromise, and hope that we 
can do so in a bipartisan way and deal with this very, very serious 
problem.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 additional minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Reyes].
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding the 
additional time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would call attention to a Dear Colleague letter that I 
sent out to my colleagues yesterday. It is a follow-up to another 
letter that I had sent last week, and before I read a portion of this, 
I would like for my colleagues in the House to know that when I first 
heard about the question of certification of Mexico for this year, I 
was in El Paso. I sent a letter to the President urging him to certify 
Mexico. I did so because the impact that decertification would have on 
border communities on both sides of the international border would be 
devastating.
  We have a border that is interdependent economically. We have a 
border where we have made significant progress since the passage of 
NAFTA, and I know that NAFTA for some of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle is still an issue of controversy. But the progress that we 
have made is significant.

[[Page H960]]

  One of the things that I want the record to reflect that has not been 
mentioned here is that Mexico has not been sitting on its hands. Mexico 
has lost a presidential candidate to their effort on the war on drugs. 
Mexico has lost a bishop to the war on drugs. Mexico has lost a number 
of clergy that stand up and address drug trafficking and the scourge of 
the impact of drugs on the society in Mexico, and they have paid with 
their lives, they have paid with their lives.
  Mexico has in the past lost lives of its policemen and soldiers 
fighting in remote regions of that country against very well-financed 
and well-armed drug traffickers. So the price Mexico has paid has been 
significant.
  I think when we get caught up in the rhetoric and in the language 
even of the certification process, where we say we have to have proof 
that they have fully cooperated, well fully can mean different things 
to different people. One of the issues here has to be clearly defined 
and attainable goals in the context of what we expect on this war on 
drugs, clearly defined objectives, even of what we expect of ourselves.
  We should not be on the floor taking this opportunity to again take 
it out on Mexico in terms of the frustration that we all feel about the 
impact of drugs in our communities. I think we can reach consensus on 
this floor on both sides of the aisle that all of us are opposed to 
narcotics, all of us are opposed to seeing what is going on, even in 
the neighborhoods around this great institution.
  I think we have to understand that from the perspective of the 
Mexican Government, from the perspective of the Mexican people, 
decertification, even decertification with a waiver, even with the 
amendment that we will be voting on and are considering this morning, 
in all probability, even with all of those things being fully 
understood by Mexico and Mexican citizens, it is still an affront to 
them, and an affront to the price they have paid in helping us to try 
to deal with what can best be termed, from my experience, as an issue 
of national security for this country. But we forget in the process 
that it is also a threat on the national stability and the national 
security of Mexico.
  I would urge my colleagues to step back and rethink their position on 
this. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], well known in the 
areas of commerce.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I served 10 years on the Select Committee on 
Narcotics Abuse and Control, and having dealt with this issue for a 
number of years, I truly come to the floor today with mixed emotions. 
One of the things I learned, I think, long ago when I came to this body 
was to listen to the folks who are closest to the problem.
  When I listen to my colleagues from Texas, from Arizona, from 
southern California, and they explain to me the difficulties of the 
decertification process, and what it is going to mean to our relations 
with our neighbors to the South, I think it behooves us to listen to 
those arguments.
  This is not a partisan issue. While I agree with all of the failed 
antidrug policy indictments in this resolution with this 
administration, that is really beside the point. The point is how do we 
solve the problem of drugs coming in through our borders from Mexico.
  I am not certain that the approach we take today, whether it is the 
Hastert approach or the approach from the committee, really gets that 
job done. If I had a problem in the Great Lakes region, I would hope 
that other Members from other parts of the country would listen to my 
particular problem and pay me some heed, because I might know what I am 
talking about.
  I think we ought to really take a look at the arguments being made by 
our friends on the southern border, and take that into account before 
we cast this important vote.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas for yielding me the time.
  I rise with some degree of uneasiness because I believe I have 
established a reputation in this body as one of the strongest antidrug 
crusaders that there is. With the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules [Mr. Solomon], we have been successful in having a 
rule put in that sometime in this Congress there needs to be a drug 
testing plan put in for Members of Congress. At one time I had a full-
time antidrug coordinator on my staff in Texas.
  I have consistently voted for the most tough and effective measures 
to fight the war on drugs so that it would appear that I would stand in 
support of the rule and in support of the resolution to decertify 
Mexico. I am not going to do that. I spent 2 days in Mexico this past 
weekend. I am convinced that, while they have problems in their 
antidrug efforts, President Zedillo and his Government are making a 
good-faith effort to be a good-faith partner with the United States in 
the war against drugs.
  If we go ahead today, report this rule, report the resolution and 
pass either the Gilman resolution that came out of committee or the 
Hastert substitute, what we are doing is an exercise in self-
flagellation. Neither of those has true sanctions. One waives the 
sanctions, the other delays it for 90 days.
  So we have a symbolic effort where we are pointing fingers at Mexico 
with no teeth behind the finger pointing which is going to infuriate 
not the Mexican Government but the Mexican people. When the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Boucher] and myself were in Mexico over the weekend, all the Mexican 
papers had front-page headlines that Mexico viewed this as a very 
serious issue of national sovereignty. Quite frankly, they could not 
understand how we could be thinking about decertifying their Government 
without decertifying our Government.
  For example, there are 20,000 Mexican troops in the field eradicating 
marijuana crops. How many law enforcement officials are in the United 
States eradicating marijuana crops? My information is the answer in the 
United States is zero. Last year the Mexican Government extradited or 
expelled 16 people to this country that were wanted on either murder 
charges or drug charges or charges of that nature. How many did we 
expel to Mexico? My understanding is the answer is zero.
  I could go on and on, and in the debate later in the afternoon I will 
go into some detail. But the pure point of the matter is, if we 
continue with this exercise, we are going to make the House of 
Representatives irrelevant in a true dialog with Mexico and the 
administration on the war against drugs. We need to be involved. We 
have got expertise in this House that needs to be involved, but a 
symbolic vote that is a 1-day political victory is not the answer. I 
hope we would vote against the rule and, if that passes, vote against 
the resolution.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I was an original 
cosponsor of the bill. I support the bill. I do not mean to demean or 
condemn the President, I am just a pragmatist and I keep a look at the 
scoreboard. As high as 50 to 70 percent of all narcotics comes through 
and from Mexico, and, if there is a war on drugs going on in America, I 
am Stonewall Jackson. I liken certifying Mexico as a cooperative 
partner in our war against drugs as giving a special tax exemption to 
Al Capone during Prohibition to sell booze.
  Nothing personal against Mexico. It is not working. American cities 
are busting at the seams with narcotics.
  Let me say this to the Congress. Other than a nuclear threat, that is 
the greatest national security threat our Nation faces and every 
citizens feels it in every city across this country. In fact, I do not 
think the bill goes far enough. I recommend to the majority party that 
they bring to the floor the

[[Page H961]]

Traficant bill that does not mandate but allows for the deployment of 
military troops falling out of chairs without armrests all over the 
world, put them on our border, not to make arrests but simply to detain 
and keep both illegal immigrants out and narcotics. Mr. Speaker, if we 
are going to have a war on drugs, we cannot do it with the Peace Corps. 
It is time to start fighting. I support the rule. I support the bill.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the rule, and I am 
going to vote against the Hastert amendment. Let me tell my colleagues 
why.
  In the 1980's, I helped draft the certification laws as a staffer in 
the other body. If we read the Hastert amendment, it requires a 
studying, the decertification process. I come before my colleagues to 
say that we do not need to study the decertification process. We need 
to toughen the decertification process and the penalties against 
countries that traffic in drugs. The 1986 Antidrug Abuse Act 
established four very clear criteria, tests of cooperation. Let me read 
them.
  It requires steps that would prevent smuggling. And how can anyone in 
their consciousness certify Mexico when Mexico has 70 percent of the 
cocaine coming into the United States, when they do not even produce 
one gram of cocaine that is not naturally produced there? So it is all 
being smuggled. So by that criteria, do they judge cooperation? Punish 
money laundering? They have not prosecuted one person under their money 
laundering law.
  Achieve maximum reductions in drug production? Achieve maximum 
reductions? Eighty percent of the marijuana is coming out of Mexico; 30 
percent of the heroin flooding our streets and our neighborhoods and 
our schools. Are they cooperating with the letter of the law? No.
  Do they facilitate the prosecution of traffickers, as the law says to 
the maximum extent possible? This is what Tom Constantine, the head of 
DEA, told our subcommittee just before certification.

       There is not one single law enforcement institution in 
     Mexico with whom DEA has a trusting relationship.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], my colleague who is in fact the 
original proposer of the resolution.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I ask to speak immediately after one of the cosponsors of the 
resolution that is going to be before the House today, my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  I rise in support of this particular rule. Plain and simple, 
regardless of where you come down on the Hastert amendment, if you want 
to vote on the decertification process you must pass this rule. 
Otherwise, it is not going to happen. It is a question of do you just 
want to have a sense of the Congress, business as usual in our war 
against drugs, then vote against the rule. It is that simple.
  Now, the fact that we vote for the rule does not mean that we have to 
vote for the Hastert amendment. I have some very, very serious problems 
with the Hastert amendment and in all probability will vote against it. 
However, this is a good rule. I think there are plenty of good things 
in the Hastert amendment, but there are some things that I would have 
dropped out.
  I think to put the criticism of the administration, even though I 
think it is deserved, but I think to put that into the bill and then 
ask the Democrats to vote for it is going to be pretty much of a tough 
call.
  I think also the question of setting up a commission should be done 
by a separate bill, and I think it should have moved separately through 
the House. But please, if Members feel that Mexico has not fully 
cooperated, the bill says, the certification process says, that the 
President certifies that Mexico has cooperated, fully cooperated, with 
us, they cannot possibly vote for certification. Therefore, approve the 
rule and vote for the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as one of the original cosponsors 
of the resolution calling for the decertification of Mexico, I rise 
today in support, not wholehearted support of this rule but in support 
of it nonetheless because it is important, Mr. Speaker, to at least 
take one small step for the people of this country and let the 
Government of Mexico know that its days of getting a free ride and 
having us worry more about Mexico's self-esteem and our children and 
drugs on our streets has, indeed, come.
  We have witnessed some rather strange things during even this 
preliminary debate on the rule, Mr. Speaker. We have heard Members call 
for a cooling-off period. A cooling-off period? We have had a cooling-
off period for several years in this country which has given us an 
unprecedented level of teen drug usage.
  We have also witnessed a cooling-off period in this country over the 
last few years that has skyrocketed the amount of drugs coming into 
this country, and not from 134 counties thousands of miles away but 
from Mexico itself, which stands before us today trying to convince the 
American people and this Congress that it is doing everything that it 
can to stop that flow. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  We have also heard Members take to the well of this great body and 
try to make us feel guilty about standing up and saying the time has 
come to say that Mexico is not doing everything it can. Rather than a 
cooling-off period, Mr. Speaker, we need to turn up the heat, and the 
only way that we can do that is to stand up and say, Mexico must be 
decertified.
  There may be circumstances prevailing here that allow for a waiver, 
but it must be decertified because, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth. 
That reflects reality, and it is time to get real in the fight, in the 
war against drugs which this administration has not seen fit to do.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is a serious matter here that is being discussed, of course. 
And we are saying that this rule is unfair. We are not suggesting that 
there is not a serious drug problem, that we have serious reasons to 
question the degree to which we have gotten cooperation, none of that 
is under question here.
  The question is what is the most reasonable policy to make sure that 
Mexico will in fact continue to cooperate with the United States and 
continue to do the things necessary to decrease the flow of drugs into 
our country.
  This is not a fair rule that the majority reported out of the 
committee. They rejected the amendment offered by one of their own 
Members, a sense of Congress amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  I include the Schiff amendment for the Record at this point:

 Amendment Offered as a Substitute to the Committee Amendment to H.J. 
                                Res. 58


                  Offered by Mr. Schiff of New Mexico

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The international drug trade poses a direct threat to 
     the United States and to international efforts to promote 
     democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of 
     law.
       (2) 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs representing all 
     ethnic and socioeconomic groups, including 1,500,000 cocaine 
     users, 600,000 addicted to heroin, and 9,800,000 smokers of 
     marijuana.
       (3) 10.9 percent of all young Americans between 12 and 17 
     years of age use illegal drugs, and 1 in 4 children say they 
     have been offered drugs in the last year.
       (4) Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the Nation 
     approximately $66,900,000,000 in 1996, including costs for 
     lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration.
       (5) The effort to reduce the social and economic costs 
     imposed by drugs on United States society is contingent on 
     the ability to stop drugs at the Nation's borders and to 
     forge effective cooperative relationships with other nations.
       (6) According to the Department of State, Mexico is the 
     source of 20-30 percent of heroin, up to 70 percent of the 
     foreign grown marijuana, and a transit point for 50-70 
     percent of the cocaine shipped to the United States.
       (7) Drug traffickers along the United States-Mexico border 
     smuggle about $10,000,000,000 worth of narcotics into the 
     United States annually, and the drug trade generates 
     $30,000,000,000 for the Mexican economy.

[[Page H962]]

       (8) There has been a failure to take effective action 
     against drug cartels and other significant narcotics 
     traffickers in Mexico, and the Department of State reports 
     that there has been insufficient effort to confront the 
     Juarez and Tijuana drug cartels.
       (9) The Government of Mexico has to date failed to honor a 
     single United States extradition request for Mexican 
     nationals indicted in our courts on charges of narcotics 
     trafficking.
       (10) The number of drug seizures in Mexico in 1996 was only 
     half the number of seizures in 1993, and the number of drug-
     related arrests in Mexico in 1996 was only half the number of 
     such arrests in 1992.
       (11) There is evidence of official corruption in counter-
     drug efforts in Mexico, including the recent arrest of 
     General Jesus Gutierrez, the Government of Mexico's highest 
     ranking counter-drug official.
       (12) There has been insufficient coordination between 
     United States and Mexican drug enforcement agencies, 
     including Mexico's refusal to allow United States agents to 
     carry weapons on the Mexican side of the United States-Mexico 
     border.
       (13) The banking and financial sectors in Mexico lack 
     mechanisms necessary to prevent money laundering, estimated 
     at nearly $10,000,000,000 in 1996 by the Department of the 
     Treasury.
       (14) The Department of State reports that Mexico has become 
     a majority money laundering center and the preferred 
     international placement point for United States dollars.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING EFFORTS BY MEXICO TO 
                   STOP THE PRODUCTION AND TRANSIT OF ILLICIT 
                   NARCOTICS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Government of Mexico has made ineffective and 
     insufficient progress to stop the production and transit of 
     illicit narcotics or drugs or other controlled substances; 
     and
       (2) the President should work with the Government of 
     Mexico--
       (A) to dismantle major drug cartels and to arrest and 
     prosecute the leaders of such drug cartels;
       (B) to implement effective legislation in Mexico to 
     prohibit money laundering;
       (C) to achieve compliance by Mexico with outstanding 
     extradition requests by the United States, particularly 
     compliance with requests for the extradition of Mexican 
     nationals indicted in the United States on charges of 
     narcotics trafficking;
       (D) to increase the interdiction of narcotics and other 
     controlled substances coming across the United States-Mexico 
     border;
       (E) to increase cooperation between the Government of 
     Mexico and United States law enforcement officials by 
     allowing such officials to resume carrying weapons on the 
     Mexican side of the United States-Mexico border; and
       (F) to establish and carry out a program designed to 
     identify and eliminate public corruption, and to prosecute 
     officials who are involved in such corruption, at every level 
     of the Government of Mexico, including the Mexican police and 
     military.
                                                                    ____


        Sense of the Congress Resolution on Mexico Certification

       Whereas, the international drug trade poses a direct threat 
     to the United States and to international efforts to promote 
     democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of 
     law; and,
       Whereas, 12.8 million Americans use illegal drugs 
     representing all ethnic and socioeconomic groups including, 
     1.5 million cocaine users, 600,000 addicted to heroin, and 
     9.8 million smokers of marijuana; and,
       Whereas, 10.9 percent of all young Americans between twelve 
     and seventeen years of age use illegal drugs; and, one in 
     four children say they have been offered drugs in the last 
     year,
       Whereas, drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the 
     nation approximately $66.9 billion in 1996 including costs 
     for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration; 
     and,
       Whereas, the effort to reduce the social and economic costs 
     imposed by drugs on U.S. society is contingent on the ability 
     to stop drugs at the nation's borders and to forge effective 
     cooperative relationships with other nations, and,
       Whereas, according to the U.S. State Department, Mexico is 
     the source of 20-30% of heroin, up to 70% of the foreign 
     grown marijuana, and transit point for 50-70% of the cocaine 
     shipped to the United States; and,
       Whereas, drug traffickers along the U.S.-Mexico border 
     smuggle about $10 billion worth of narcotics into the United 
     States annually; and the drug trade generates $30 billion for 
     the Mexican economy,
       Whereas, there has been a failure to take effective action 
     against drug cartels and other significant narcotics 
     traffickers in Mexico, and the U.S. State Department reports 
     that there has been insufficient effort to confront the 
     Juarez and Tijuana Drug Cartels; and,
       Whereas, the number of drug seizures in Mexico in 1996 was 
     only half the number of seizures in 1993, and the number of 
     drug-related arrests in Mexico in 1996 was only half the 
     number of such arrests in 1992; and,
       Whereas, there is evidence of official corruption in 
     counter-drug efforts in Mexico; including the recent arrest 
     of General Jesus Gutierrez, the Government of Mexico's 
     highest-ranking, counter-drug official; and,
       Whereas, there has been insufficient coordination between 
     U.S. and Mexican drug enforcement agencies, including 
     Mexico's refusal to allow U.S. agents to carry weapons on the 
     Mexico side of the United States border with Mexico; and
       Whereas, the banking and financial sectors in Mexico lack 
     mechanisms necessary to prevent money laundering, estimated 
     at nearly $10 billion in 1996 by the U.S. Department of the * 
     * *.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the committee did not give us a reasonable 
series of choices. What they presented was the bill out of the 
committee, out of the Committee on International Relations, and then 
their own substitute, a Republican crafted substitute in which they 
took great pains to criticize the President of the United States.
  There are Members on their own side of the aisle, on their side of 
the aisle who do not agree with this position. We should have had a 
range of choices. There should have been a sense of Congress 
alternative offer. That is clearly what is going to be done in the 
other body. That is clearly what is being presented by the Senator from 
my State, a member of their own party, Senator Hutchison. That is what 
the Senate perhaps will vote on soon. Yet they deny us the right to 
vote on that option in the House of Representatives.
  I would urge that the House vote no on this rule, send this back to 
the Committee on Rules so that a fair rule may be crafted on this most 
controversial and most delicate matter of relationships between us and 
our neighbor to the south, Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the war on drugs is not a partisan 
matter. It is going to take the full cooperation of all of us in this 
country and all our friends and allies around the world that are 
involved. And that, of course, includes Mexico.
  The issue today is the question of certification and the facts are 
very simple. As ranking member of the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] said yesterday, 
There is just simply no possible way that you can come to a rational 
conclusion that we can possibly certify Mexico as being fully 
cooperative in the efforts that we are taking together on the war on 
drugs.

                              {time}  1130

  I think that is very strong. I respect the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton], I always have, and I am glad to find myself in 
agreement with him on this conclusion.
  I think that under Chairman Gilman's leadership that HIRC has brought 
forward a very good resolution. I think the Hastert amendment adds to 
it in a positive way by giving us some specific matters that we wish to 
set out in areas that we will measure in terms of cooperation from the 
Mexican Government as well as it brings into question, can we do better 
than the certification process that we are using now? I believe the 
answer is yes, we certainly can do better than the process we have now, 
and I think the key word here is together with Mexico we can make a 
huge dent in the war on drugs. That is why I strongly urge passage of 
this rule and passage of the resolution and the Hastert amendment as 
well.
  I would point out that the Schiff amendment is a sense of Congress 
and does not address the specific issues that we are talking about in 
the Hastert amendment nor does it get to the question of overcoming the 
President's certification situation that he has left us with today.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 209, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page H963]]

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               YEAS--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Delahunt
     Etheridge
     Hutchinson
     Kaptur
     Kingston
     McIntyre
     Price (NC)

                              {time}  1153

  Messrs. CUMMINGS, WISE, DELLUMS, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, UPTON, and 
BONILLA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SHAYS, CHRISTENSEN, and LEACH changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  Mr. SKEEN changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut and Mr. PAUL changed their vote from 
``present'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, official business off the Hill kept me 
detained during the vote on House Resolution 95, the rule accompanying 
House Joint Resolution 58. Had I been present for this vote--rollcall 
No. 45--I would have voted aye.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 95, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) disapproving the certification of 
the President under section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961 regarding foreign assistance for Mexico during fiscal year 1997, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 95, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton] each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Becerra] be permitted to control 30 minutes of my 
debate time, and that he be permitted to yield that time at his 
discretion.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the minority is pleased to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], and I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman be permitted to yield that time at his 
discretion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hamilton] and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman]?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Foley]. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Becerra] will control 35 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Joint Resolution 58.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution, House Joint Resolution 58, expresses 
congressional disapproval of the President's February 28, 1997, 
certification to Congress that Mexico has fully cooperated with our 
Nation's antinarcotics efforts during the past year. I am pleased to be 
joined by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] in support of our 
substitute to his original bill, which did not contain any waiver of 
imposition of sanctions.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue before today is nothing less than a matter of 
vital U.S. national interest, dealing directly with the well-being of 
our Nation's children and their future. It is not about the value of 
the peso nor the health of the Mexican economy nor the status of 
diplomatic relations between our two nations. These critical issues, 
while extremely important, must not override the importance of fighting 
drugs in our bilateral relations.
  The importance of Mexico's cooperation with our antidrug efforts 
cannot be overstated, Mr. Speaker. In the past 4 years, drug use among 
American

[[Page H964]]

teenagers has nearly doubled. It has been estimated that 60 percent of 
our Nation's illegal drugs entering our country come from Mexico. The 
societal costs for the impact of these illicit drugs and the drug-
related crime, incarceration, health care, among other costs, is 
staggering, in the billions of dollars.
  The President unwisely certified that Mexico has fully cooperated 
with our antinarcotics efforts, but the facts show the opposite.
  Last month, the Mexican equivalent of our DEA administrator, General 
Gutierrez, was arrested for conspiring with Mexico's largest drug 
cartel. Only 4 hours after President Clinton certified Mexico's 
cooperation, the police allowed a top money launderer to walk out of 
custody as a free man. Mexico withheld that revelation from our 
officials with whom they were supposed to be fully cooperating.
  Drug cartels have penetrated the highest level of Mexico's 
antinarcotics law enforcement agencies. Our own DEA Administrator, Mr. 
Constantine admits, ``There is not one single law enforcement 
institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting 
relationship.'' Mr. Speaker, such a relationship is absolutely 
essential.
  Tom Constantine of DEA, according to newspaper accounts, also states 
that the damage from this most recent Mexican law enforcement scandal 
to our war on drugs appears to be worse than that done by the United 
States spy, Aldrich Ames.
  The New York Times editorial of March 12 on this issue of drug-
related corruption said, ``Unless Mexican President Zedilla attacks 
these problems boldly by initiating a thorough housecleaning of corrupt 
officials, Congress should override Mexico's certification.'' That is 
the New York Times March 12 editorial.
  The administration's statement that the prompt arrest of General 
Gutierrez, the head of their DEA, demonstrates Mexico's full 
cooperation on drugs is sadly analogous to a young man who attempts 
murder on his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the courts, 
since he is now an orphan.
  The resolution before us is simple. It gives Mexico's drug 
cooperation a failing grade instead of the President's passing grade. 
Not only are we changing Mexico's grade on drugs, we are also sending a 
message to this administration that its international narcotics control 
strategy is sadly lacking.
  In addition, based upon our experience last year when Colombian 
decertification unintentionally cut off key antidrug support, this 
resolution gives the President the authority to continue United States 
assistance to Mexico, particularly military assistance, which is likely 
our last best hope down there if he certifies it is in our vital 
national interests.
  We have already provided 20 excess Vietnam era Huey helicopters to 
the Mexican military to fight drugs along our common border and 53 more 
will soon follow. To suspend FMS assistance and IMET training for the 
Mexican military now would be counterproductive and render this excess 
military equipment useless, and that is why we reiterated the waiver.
  The strong 27 to 5 vote in our Committee on International Relations 
vote on March 6 in support of this resolution was evidence of the 
strong bipartisan sentiment against the President's ill-advised 
determination of Mexico's real performance in fighting drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that the President made the 
wrong decision, and this resolution will help us set the record 
straight, while preserving appropriate assistance and stability in our 
relations with the Government of Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos].
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived piece 
of legislation and in strong support of the position of the President 
of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we keep this issue in perspective. 
The drug problem is an American problem. It is our problem. It is a 
demand-driven issue. If there were no demand for drugs in the United 
States, the drug lords in Mexico and elsewhere would not be able to 
sell their products.
  Now, it is very easy to vote against Mexico. It is very easy to 
decertify. But our question should be what can we do to most 
effectively help the fight against illegal drugs?
  Passing this ill-conceived legislation will make the Mexican 
Government less likely to cooperate with us, and it will make the 
Mexican people justifiably outraged.
  There are far too many courageous Mexican policemen, soldiers, 
judges, journalists, government officials who have lost their lives in 
the fight against the drug lords. It is an insult to them to attempt to 
decertify this Government, which has given us better cooperation than 
we have ever had from Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, we all understand that the cases of corruption in 
Mexico are appalling. We understand that there are high-level people 
who have been paid off, and not all of them are as yet imprisoned. But 
do we decertify the New York City Police Department when there is 
corruption? Do we decertify the FBI or the CIA when there is corruption 
and even the sale of our national secrets?
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation today has much more to do with 
political posturing than with helping fight the drug war. There are no 
negative political consequences for Members in this House from 
insulting the Government of Mexico.
  Last November, the American people made it clear that they want a 
bipartisan approach to solving the drug problem. This resolution and 
its amendment is an insult to the President. The President clearly 
understands that Mexico's record is far from perfect, but it is better 
than it has been, and it is critical that this Mexican Government work 
with us in fighting against illegal drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the committee-reported version of House Joint 
Resolution 58. Let me briefly explain what that language does. It 
disapproves the President's decision to certify that results in the 
decertification of Mexico. It permits the President, however, to waive 
the sanctions associated with decertification if he determines it is in 
the vital national interests of the United States to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, we are confronted here with the application of a law 
which this Chamber passed. That law requires Mexico, in order to be 
certified, to have fully cooperated with the United States or to have 
taken adequate steps to deal with the narcotics problem.
  I simply do not believe that Mexico's record over the past year meets 
the law's high standard for full certification.
  I am quick to acknowledge that the president here faced a tough 
decision. He could certify Mexico as having fully cooperated, and that 
is what he did; he could decertify Mexico, and of course that raises a 
lot of difficult foreign policy problems for the United States and 
Mexico; or he could have decertified but exercised the vital national 
interest waiver that the law provides.
  The President made the judgment that he would certify Mexico. By so 
doing, he found that Mexico had fully cooperated with the United States 
in the fight against drugs.
  I disagree with that judgment. I believe that this decertification-
certification statute should be repealed. It forces the President to 
make a legal assessment without providing adequate options for the 
policy dilemma that he faced. It forces him to make a narrow judgment 
about each country at issue. But, my friends in this Chamber, we do not 
have the privilege of ignoring the law. We may not like the law, and I 
do not like the law, but we should not evade the law. And the law 
provides today, the law which most of us in this Chamber voted for, the 
law provides that Mexico must fully cooperate. Not partially cooperate, 
not cooperate more today than it did 2 years ago or 4 years ago. The 
law provides that they must fully cooperate, and I do not think any 
person can find full cooperation by the Mexican Government in the fight 
against drugs. Some cooperation, yes. Maybe it is better than a year or 
2 years ago, but not full cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot play fast and loose with the requirements of 
the law,

[[Page H965]]

because we are the body that makes the law.
  Now, let me say if you look back over the past 6 or 7 years, what we 
have done again and again and again is to find that the Mexicans have 
cooperated, that they have had great success in combating drugs. Every 
President has found that now for 7 or 8 years.
  We have been deceiving ourselves. We would better serve the national 
interest, in my view, if we spoke the truth about that cooperation. 
Some good things, some bad things, but not full cooperation. We should 
speak the truth, the good and the bad, and we should apply the law. We 
should not evade the law.
  Everybody in this Chamber knows the Mexican record. It does have some 
good features. The administration believes at the very highest levels 
of the Mexican Government we are getting good cooperation today. You go 
down each of the major measures of cooperation, corruption, 
extradition, the task force, the number of arrests, cooperation on 
overflight rights and marine agreements and all of the rest, and you 
cannot find cooperation.

                              {time}  1215

  So I believe the best choice here, and the choices are not easy, is 
to say that the Mexicans should be decertified. But because this 
relationship with Mexico is so important, because we understand that 
the national interest of the United States is to stop the flow of drugs 
into this country, because we understand that we are not going to be 
able to do that successfully without the cooperation of Mexico, the 
better thing to do here is to decertify Mexico because they have not 
fully cooperated, because that is what the statute demands of us, and 
then to say, because of the importance of this relationship and all of 
its aspects, we waive, under the national security waiver, and that is 
the position I think this body should adopt.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], our ranking minority member, for his very strong support of 
our resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take this moment to respond to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lantos] that said if we did not have demand here 
at home, we would not have the problem. Amazingly, we used to hear that 
the U.S. demand is a problem when we discussed this issue with other 
nations. Not anymore, as these other nations' drug use soars and we see 
their democratic institutions corrupted and threatened from within and 
destroyed by the drug barons.
  It is even sadder to hear it right here at home. Sure, we must do 
something about demand, and we are. But an unlimited supply of ever 
purer, cheaper, and more addictive drugs also creates demand. So we 
must fight this problem on both the supply and demand side. But we must 
recognize that the purer and additional supplies coming into our 
country creates demand, and that is why we are so concerned about the 
lack of cooperation south of our border.
  I would like to note also that the Governor of California, Mr. 
Wilson, in an article in the Washington Times on March 13 stated, ``Let 
us stipulate to the existence of a tragically large market for illegal 
drugs and to our own obligation to reduce demand for them by every 
available means, but the drug trade is one business in which the 
abundant supply creates demand.'' That is the Washington Times today by 
Governor Wilson of California.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished chairman of the committee, for 
yielding to me, and also for his leadership in this area.
  I would just say to my colleagues that now is the time to tell the 
truth. We have a law which is on the books that orders us to make a 
judgment, and it is time to make that judgment, and I think that the 
anecdotal evidence and the statistical evidence that tells us that a 
large part of the drug trade in Mexico and the drug trade through 
Mexico to America's children is large segments of the government in 
Mexico. The government is heavily involved in the drug trade.
  Now, if we tell that truth, and that is a truth that is manifested in 
hundreds of case files, in hundreds of cases that are in the possession 
of the U.S. attorneys and are on the front pages, if you tell that 
truth, we cannot in good conscience certify that Mexico has been 
cooperative in the war against drugs.
  About 10 years ago, Kiki Camerena, our drug enforcement agent, was 
murdered in Guadalajara, and Carroll Quintero, who was later jailed for 
that murder, coasted down the runway before he took off and toasted our 
DEA agents with a bottle of champagne as they tried to stop him at the 
Guadalajara airport, and we said, never again.
  We entered a new series of talks with Mexico and thought we would 
have a new bright dawn, a new era. We thought that that era would 
rejuvenate, when NAFTA was passed, over the objections of some of us, 
but that was supposed to boost cooperation with respect to the war 
against drugs, and that did not work.
  Last year, Jefferson Barr was murdered in Texas, and we tried to 
extradite the killer of Mr. Barr, and Mexico did not give us any more 
cooperation in extraditing that killer than they did with the killers 
of Enrique Camerena 10 years earlier.
  So I would just say to my colleagues, we have a duty, and it is a 
simple duty, it is an easy duty to discharge, it is a duty to tell the 
truth. If we erect that fiction that somehow they have cooperated with 
us when we know they have not, we disserve the people of the United 
States, we disserve the hard-working people in Mexico and the people 
who have died in Mexico, the good prosecutors who were assassinated 
trying to turn this war around, and most of all, we disserve our 
children.
  There is no interest more important than our children and their well-
being, and there is no way you can make an argument that somehow making 
this certification helps them.
  Please support the bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the committee's bipartisan 
bill to decertify Mexico with the waiver. The fact of the matter is 
that 75 percent of the cocaine that comes into the United States comes 
from Mexico. Approximately 25 percent of the heroin that comes into 
this country comes from Mexico.
  Now, my point today is not to lambast the Mexican people. They are 
certainly fine people. Not to lambast the Mexican police. Many have 
given their lives for this cause. But the fact of the matter is that 
the Mexican Government has not complied with our law with respect to 
full cooperation. That is American law. We only certify if there is 
full cooperation. There is not full cooperation.
  The fact of the matter is that the Mexican drug czar is in league 
with drug cartels. The fact of the matter is that he lived in a luxury 
apartment supplied by a major drug dealer. The fact of the matter is 
that our DEA could not track him because Mexican officials were 
tracking them. The fact of the matter is there are 150 extradition 
requests still pending in Mexico where we have requested that they send 
drug traffickers back to this country for prosecution.
  I have to say that I am very concerned when I hear people say, well, 
this is totally a demand problem. It is not a demand problem, but it is 
easy to wag your finger at poor kids in the ghettos. It is much harder 
to take on official corruption, and that is the dual standard that I 
take offense at.
  We should not smooth over this incident. We should say that Mexico 
has not cooperated fully. But rather, people would like to have harsher 
penalties on teenagers and mandatory sentences for teenagers. Well, 
there is a place for that. But there is also a place to stand up and 
say to the Mexican Government that we expect better performance, we 
expect a higher standard.
  We should not continue to allow business as usual. We will never 
convince kids in poor communities that we are serious about fighting 
the war against drugs when all they see is us shaking hands with 
governments that do business with drug dealers.

[[Page H966]]

  Mr. Speaker, I think we can do better; I think the committee has 
proposed a fair policy, which is to decertify with the waiver.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brady], a member of our committee.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is a difficult one. As a Texan, 
we share the largest border with Mexico of any State in the country. 
Mexico is a valued friend and a neighbor of Texas and of the United 
States. Clearly America and Mexico have an equal stake in stopping the 
sale and use of illegal drugs in our countries.
  My goal is to support legislation of the United States that will 
effectively and significantly cut off both the supply and the demand 
for illegal drugs. I recognize the strong commitment of President 
Zedillo and the stand taken by individual prosecutors, of judges and 
law enforcement officials in Mexico to challenge the powerful drug 
cartels. It is a stand which is often life threatening, and more than 
20 times in the past year has resulted in torture, in death, and in 
assassination for our heroic fighters in the international war on 
drugs.
  But what is even more tragic is that the leadership of President 
Zedillo and the sacrifice of these individuals has been undone by an 
all too pervasive corruption within the Mexican Government, within its 
police force, and within the judiciary. It has been undone by an 
estimated $6 billion worth of bribes from the drug cartels, $6 billion 
which General Barry McCaffrey says has severely impaired Mexico's law 
enforcement system and, in his words, are ruining cooperative United 
States-Mexico antidrug operations.
  In hearings before our committee America's Drug Enforcement Agency 
confirms that despite repeated efforts, no Mexican law enforcement 
agency exists today that the United States can trust, no law 
enforcement agency with which the cooperative antidrug operations can 
occur without either compromising the operation itself or the agents, 
honest agents on both sides of the border, in America and in Mexico.
  Now, think about this a minute. Think about how the lack of a single 
law enforcement agency undermines literally every antidrug initiative 
our two countries undertake. Imagine the likelihood in America. If the 
FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, every State police, every law 
enforcement agency could not be trusted, no matter the will of 
Congress, the will of the President, the chance for success in fighting 
drugs in our country would be hopeless.
  I respect Mexico too much to overlook this fatal flaw, and without 
the immediate creation of a law enforcement agency we can trust, that 
both countries can trust, our successes will be isolated, our gains 
temporary, and our cooperation cosmetic at best.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, for years Mexico has served as a gateway 
to the United States for drug traffickers. In fact, just 3 weeks ago, 
Mexico's drug czar was arrested on charges that he took bribes from 
cocaine dealers. This was just after he received highly sensitive 
information from U.S. officials detailing our antinarcotic strategy.
  Thus, if decertification is what happens to those who have hurt our 
efforts in the drug war, we must not only decertify Mexico and 
Colombia, we must also decertify our other unreliable partner in the 
drug war, the CIA.
  Last year the San Jose Mercury News reported that the CIA has had a 
major role in the flow of illegal narcotics from Mexico and other Latin 
American countries into the United States. Former financiers of the 
Nicaraguan Contras, testifying under oath, admitted that the CIA was an 
active participant in the drug trade and then used the profits to fund 
covert military operations.
  The administration's decision to certify Mexico, decertify Colombia, 
and sidestep the CIA has made a joke of the entire certification 
process. I call on the administration and Congress to report to the 
American people what role the CIA has played in moving drugs in our 
country.
  While drug dealers are preying on America's youth in the inner 
cities, millions of dollars are being laundered in American banks. Our 
prisons are brimming over, young people are dying in the streets, and 
the message that the administration sends is that a buck of trade is 
worth more than the tears of our mothers, the deaths of our brothers, 
and the shattered lives of too many American people.

                              {time}  1230

  Some of us have just, quite frankly, had enough.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Ackerman].
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose House Joint 
Resolution 58, as well as the amendment to be offered by the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], because I believe 
the resolution and the amendment send the wrong message to Mexico at a 
very critical time.
  Even with a waiver of the sanctions, the damage will have already 
been done. Clearly the President had and we have a difficult and 
unpleasant decision to make. Mexico has serious problems, which no one 
doubts. The arrest of General Gutierrez-Rebollo, the former 
commissioner of the National Counternarcotics Institute; the release of 
Humberto Garcia Abrego, a reputed money launderer; and the general 
pervasiveness of corruption in Mexico all indicate the depth of the 
problem.
  At the same time, we must recognize the circumstances that President 
Zedillo and the Mexican Government face. Mexico is striving to defeat 
the narcotraffickers at a time of wrenching social and political 
change. It would be naive to assume that any Mexican leader could 
produce the kind of change we want in a short time and without enormous 
effort. So the point of this process ought to be the measurement of the 
progress Mexico has made, not just a regurgitation of the problems that 
Mexico has.
  A few months ago Mexico had a corrupt drug czar and nobody knew. Two 
weeks ago, at a crucial point in the certification process, President 
Zedillo announced that they had arrested their drug czar for bribery 
and corruption. Had their President not taken this step, we would 
likely have certified Mexico without much fuss. Now that he has, he is 
rewarded for his courage with the threat of decertification.
  The message here is, do not expose corrupt officials and do not 
cooperate with the United States. Decertification would have terrible 
consequences for our relationship with Mexico and for the future of our 
reform efforts. Already the Mexican Congress has reacted badly to the 
decertification vote in our Committee on International Relations. With 
midterm elections coming in July, does anyone think that Mexican 
politicians who advocate closer ties with the United States will not 
pay a price? How would a Mexican Congress that we cause to be hostile 
to the United States help us in the fight against drugs?
  And lastly, decertifying Mexico would tell the financial markets that 
there is greater investment risk, which would lead to higher borrowing 
costs, higher inflation, lower growth, undermining the economic 
recovery that benefits us as well as Mexico.
  I believe that the better message to send would be to certify Mexico 
and continue to work with President Zedillo to reduce the flow of drugs 
into the United States. It is just common sense.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about House Joint 
Resolution 58. While I will not support it on final passage, I do 
intend to vote for the Hastert amendment to it.
  Let me begin by saying that I have grave concerns about the whole 
decertification process and whether we should be acting to decertify 
any country. But I do think that the Hastert amendment represents a 
real compromise. It is a good-faith effort to try to make the process 
work better. It stays decertification for 90 days, and it gives the 
United States and Mexican Governments and diplomatic people time to 
work on resolving some of the common problems we have.
  I am not very optimistic about reaching agreement on those, given the 
glare of this amendment--of this bill--by

[[Page H967]]

putting people under the gun. But I do think it is a much better 
solution than full and immediate decertification.
  Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this Congress and everyone in this 
country wants the same thing. We want the eradication of the poison of 
narcotics and the scourge of them in our society. And I think everybody 
agrees we are losing this battle. In the last 4 years we have seen drug 
use double. We have seen that happen after a 12-year decline in drug 
use by adolescents. Over the past 3 years, 227 agent positions have 
been eliminated by the administration from the Drug Enforcement Agency. 
That is 227 fewer agents at a time when drug use among our youth is 
increasing.
  I represent a district in Arizona along the border. Because we share 
this common border with Mexico, we see it; we are right on the front 
lines of this drug war. I can tell the Members from experience, we need 
more DEA agents, not less. We have to get the support we need on the 
front lines, and we need it today.
  Yes, there is a problem of cooperation with Mexico. We saw that the 
Mexican drug czar, Gutierrez-Rebollo, was arrested recently. It shows 
the deep roots of corruption in Mexico. We want to see more progress in 
this area. But I do not think decertification is the solution. In fact, 
it is a big part of the problem. Rather than enhancing international 
cooperation with our neighbors, the process has a boomerang effect. It 
results in a further deterioration in our international relations.
  Like it or not, deterioration of our bilateral relations spills over 
into cooperation or lack of cooperation in a number of other areas, 
including drug control. I think the Hastert amendment, while 
representing a compromise, is likely to prove this out when we come to 
negotiations on these specific issues.
  The conditions placed on Mexico puts them in an almost impossible 
political situation. If progress is made in the six specified areas, it 
will be seen in Mexico as kowtowing to the will of the United States. 
Such a perception puts all reform-minded politicians in Mexico in a 
box. Even if they want to meet the conditions, it will be politically 
impossible for them to do so, and remember they have elections in just 
90 days there.
  Mexico is a proud country. Some might even say it is a nationalistic 
country. There is a saying in Mexico: Every time the United States 
sneezes, Mexico gets the flu. There is no question that today's vote is 
going to have an impact on Mexico and our cooperative efforts to stop 
narcotics trafficking. Let me tell the Members, I think it is going to 
have an adverse impact. That is why, in the end, I will vote against 
the bill on final passage.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, Members are looking at a desperate woman, a woman who is 
worried and distressed by what I see going on in our country. I have 
been elected to do something about this problem. I have tried my very 
best. It has pretty much gone on ears who do not realize what is 
happening in the inner cities of this community, the community of this 
world of ours.
  I applaud the efforts that have been made by the Clinton 
administration, the drug czar. I applaud what Mexico has done. But I 
say to the Members, it is not enough. It is just not enough. The 
cooperation, the safeguards and all, have not been enough. Mexico has 
not fully cooperated. They have cooperated, but not fully.
  Therefore, I beg this Congress to vote ``yes'' on decertifying Mexico 
so the message will be taken that until they straighten up and fly 
right, we are going to stop the flow of drugs coming into our 
communities. My constituents say to me, Carrie Meek, why can't you do 
something to stop the drugs coming into inner cities, into the housing 
projects, killing our senior citizens, killing our children? Why? Why 
can't you do something? We know, they say to me, that this can be 
stopped. Whatever the Government wants to stop, they have the resources 
to stop.
  So as much as I would like to help Mexico and all other countries, 
now we have to save our children, Mr. Speaker. It is just that 
desperate. We have got to take desperate action. We can no longer say, 
let us equivocate and try to help. I do not want to help anymore. I 
want some action. I want to see that the crimes committed in my 
community by addicts who are selling drugs that were dropped off, and 
remember, drugs are not brought into the black community by the store, 
they are brought there by people who are making a living out of this. 
There is a trade. There is trafficking.
  Let us take some drastic action, Mr. Speaker, and see if we can call 
on this country to stop the flow of drugs by decertifying Mexico or any 
other country that is assisting this traffic.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bart Stupak.
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when I came down here I was going to speak 
about extradition and the concerns I have, but as I have listened to 
the debate, what has gone on here, being a former law enforcement 
officer for 12 years, I want to tell the Members a little what I see 
here.
  What I see here today is everybody pointing fingers. Everyone is 
saying this person is corrupt, that person is no good, this policy is 
wrong. Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at it from a law enforcement 
point of view, they are probably very cynical about what is going on 
here. They are probably very frustrated about what they see in the U.S. 
Congress.
  We cannot be changing policy every 2 years and expect to win a drug 
war. It is going to take more than 2 years; it is going to take more 
than 5 years. It is going to take more than 6 or 7 years. From a law 
enforcement point of view, we cannot be fighting a war on drugs or 
crime in the United States if we are changing policy.
  We are going to have an amendment later today, the Hastert amendment, 
which basically condemns the administration. In 1993 the administration 
put forth a crime bill. I did not agree with all of it, but it passed. 
It became the law of the land. So what happened in 1995? We tried to 
repeal it. What is going to happen in 1997? We are going to try to 
repeal it again. What happens in 2000? We will have a new President and 
they come with a new drug policy, a new drug war, a new get tough on 
crime.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about fighting drugs, whether it is 
here in the United States or abroad, we must have a sustained policy. 
By sustained I mean more than 2 years, more than the next election. I 
know it is not politically expedient, but I ask Members to look at the 
long-term effect of what we are doing here. It is going to take more 
than 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as we vote today, I would hope we 
would all recognize there is no magic bullet in the war against drugs. 
If there was, we would have recognized it by now and we would not have 
a drug problem here in the United States. I would hope that we take a 
look at what is going on, that we set a course, a policy, and stick to 
it more than the next election, longer than the next Presidential term, 
but look at it over the long haul and put our resources and our 
investments in education, in economic opportunities for everyone, and 
in working with our partners abroad to fight the drug war.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think Mexico has been there, but let us take a 
bigger view. Let us take a broader view of this whole thing. Again, 
from the law enforcement point of view, we are not helping any of us by 
changing policy every 2 years. The poor ATF agent, the CIA, DEA, ATF, 
the Customs, the Secret Service, they do not know if they are on foot 
or horseback, because we keep changing policy. We share some 
responsibility here.
  Before we all point fingers, I hope we would just at least look at 
what we are doing. I implore the Members to put forth a long-term 
policy, more than one election's worth.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate whether to disapprove the certification of 
Mexico as fully cooperating in antinarcotics efforts I feel compelled 
to voice my concerns on a related matter, the extradition of criminals 
to the United States from Mexico.

[[Page H968]]

  Although I am pleased by recent State Department reports suggesting 
improvements have been made regarding Mexico's compliance to 
extradition agreements, I am still extremely concerned with the low 
number of extraditions being fully carried out. There are currently 110 
pending extraditions that the United States Government has requested 
from Mexico. Fifty-two of these requests are related to drug 
trafficking.
  I am most concerned with Mexico's lack of willingness to extradite 
Mexican nationals. The Mexican Constitution prohibits extradition of 
Mexican nationals except under ``extraordinary circumstances.'' Mr. 
Speaker, no Mexican national has ever been extradited to the United 
States.
  In September of last year, Mexico's President Zedillo delivered his 
State-of-the-Nation address. In this address, he emphasized the need 
for a ``new culture of respect'' for law and law enforcement officials 
in order to fight crime. We need more than just words to foster an 
atmosphere of respect. By continuing to allow these criminals freedom 
from extradition, Mexico is actually endorsing criminal activity. Until 
the Mexican Government fully follows through with their promises to 
extradite criminals, a culture of respect will not be possible.
  I am truly hopeful that recently held talks between U.S. drug czar 
Barry McCaffrey and President Zedillo which did address this problem, 
will result in drastic improvements in the area of extradition. I am 
aware that President Zedillo's administration has made tremendous 
strides. Before President Zedillo's administration we never saw any 
extradition from Mexico, but in 1995 we saw 5, and in 1996 we saw 13.
  If we vote to decertify, there is no reason to believe Mexico will 
continue on their path of progress, or that we will ever see an 
extradition of a Mexican national. Although the Mexican Government is 
far from where it should be, we cannot ignore, and should acknowledge 
the progress they have made. It is because of this progress that I will 
vote against House Joint Resolution 58.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan 
resolution, and I commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] for his strong leadership in this area.
  As my colleagues know, our Nation's chief drug enforcement officer on 
February 25 said, ``There is not one single law enforcement institution 
in Mexico with whom the DEA has an entirely trusting relationship.'' 
Yet on February 28, just 3 days later, President Clinton determined 
that Mexico has cooperated fully with the United States in the war 
against drugs.
  Finding that determination incredible, I asked a DEA official at a 
hearing last week if in fact his drug-fighting agency could cooperate 
in fighting against drugs in this country when there has not been full 
cooperation, and when we cannot fully trust and depend upon that 
particular country and the agencies there. He said absolutely not.
  We have a serious drug problem in this country, and as the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lantos] in committee and I and many others 
recognize, we in this country certainly share some of the blame. There 
is a demand from this country, and we have to fight against that demand 
coming from this country. But we must also understand that the demand 
within our own borders is so much easier to satisfy because of the 
tremendous amount of narcotics flowing across the borders from Mexico.
  The State Department, the very agency that is defending President 
Clinton's decision to certify here on Capitol Hill, reports to us that 
approximately 80 percent of the marijuana entering this country comes 
through Mexico, 70 percent of the cocaine, 30 percent of the heroin. We 
have learned Mexico now dominates the methamphetamine market. Yet in 
recent days President Clinton has stepped up his efforts to uphold his 
determination that Mexico is fully cooperating in the war against 
drugs.
  That, I believe, sends a very bad message to the American people, Mr. 
Speaker, and it sends a bad message to Mexico as well. Mr. Speaker, 
some of those who oppose this resolution maintain that decertification 
of Mexico will lead to destabilization of Mexico. I disagree. In fact, 
I agree with the New York Times, a paper I do not always agree with. 
They say that decertification is certainly something we have to 
consider.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that 25 years ago we had the 
same debate, and Mexico was cooperating then. We have had any number of 
declarations of war, and yet it seems as though we send the DEA, we 
send so many people over there, not with the bullets and the resources 
even to attempt to negotiate a truce as the situation worsens.
  How ironic, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] over there and 
me over here having drafted the bill on which we are working today; and 
I think everyone is saying, it just does not work. For those that join 
with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and some on the other 
side to say, let us get out of the business of certification, let me 
join. It was a good-faith effort. I thought war meant war. But I do not 
throw sand in people's faces unless I am prepared to bury them.
  There is no sense running around insulting people and threatening 
people if you do not intend to do anything. With all the wars that we 
have had, one office has never been on our side in the war, and that is 
Secretary of State, no matter whether it was a Democrat or Republican 
administration.
  I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I have negotiated with them 
on the North American Free Trade Agreement. Do my colleagues think we 
might be able to talk about drugs when we are talking about this 
historic treaty? No, the State Department says, that is apples and 
oranges. The Trade Representative said: You cannot insult the Mexicans 
in talking about drugs when you are talking about legitimate trade.
  So now we have sanctions here. I tell my colleagues who is going to 
get the sanctions: Cuba, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, any country that 
does not matter to us as it relates to trade or diplomatic 
relationships. So what have we done? We have just embarrassed 
ourselves. Now we are just dealing with the sensitivities of the 
offending nations. I do not think a Nation as great as ours should be 
shaking their finger at the people on the other side of the border 
where they know, if we have the decertification or not, nothing, 
nothing is going to change.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 58 and in support of 
Mexico's certification as an ally in our war on drugs. We should not 
see the Government of Mexico as our enemy on the war on drugs but as 
our most important ally. This is a pivotal issue governing our 
relations with one another. If we take steps to counter the President's 
decision to recertify Mexico, we will reverse the progress that we have 
made, even limited progress.
  The Mexican Government has made significant steps in their own 
internal efforts to curb trafficking of illegal drugs. President 
Zedillo's administration has been engaged in a campaign to reform the 
judicial system and crack down on government corruption. Some of our 
colleagues have cited the occurrences of corruption amongst high-level 
Mexican officials charged with drug trafficking crimes and other such 
activities as the basis for decertification.
  However, the record demonstrates that the Mexican Government has the 
political will to purge such characters from its system and that the 
preponderance of the officials risk their lives and work hard to 
cooperate on the war on drugs. We need to show our confidence and 
support of our allies and our friends in Mexico's resolve to counter 
this internal problem, and we do not do that by slapping Mexico around.
  The drug problem runs deeper than the certification and 
decertification of countries as our allies in the war

[[Page H969]]

against drugs. As long as there are large numbers of drug consumers in 
our country, the dealers will have great incentives to seek other 
routes to bring the drugs in. If they do not bring it through Mexico, 
and I know this from representing an island thousands of miles from 
Mexico, they certainly will bring it in from other countries. We need 
to remember that, as long as we have this social scourge in our midst, 
we will continue to have problems regardless of what happens in Mexico.
  We must continue our joint efforts and expand on the progress we have 
already made and not be caught up in a short-sighted, bad neighbor 
policy with one of our friends and closest neighbors.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic vote. In fact, this is the 
first time in the history of the House of Representatives that we have 
voted to decertify a nation. It is our duty under the Constitution to 
protect our citizens against all enemies foreign and domestic, but I 
submit to my colleagues that our Nation, our way of life, and our 
children's future are in fact under attack by the scourge of drugs that 
are entering our lands.
  If Mexico were to lob missiles across our border, they could not do 
as much damage as they have done in expediting the flow of drugs into 
our Nation. I know Mexico is our friend and neighbor, but friends are 
not accomplices in the painful deaths of our children. Neighbors do not 
turn away when crime is committed in their backyard. This is the 
headline from my paper. It has been said by those who support 
certification of Mexico that we may endanger United States trade and 
business. To that argument one must ask, can we ignore the slaughter on 
our streets for the sake of a few dollars on Wall Street? Tens of 
thousands of Americans have lost their lives as Mexico has reached the 
status of a narco capital of the world.
  What has Mexico done to deserve certification? You heard the 
statistics. The cocaine, 70 percent of all the cocaine. I submit to my 
colleagues that a few years ago there was hardly a blip of cocaine 
coming through. They do not even produce 1 ounce of cocaine in Mexico, 
and it is coming in, 70 percent, destroying us. Heroin, marijuana, tons 
of metamphetamines. So my colleagues, I ask, just take a few minutes, 
look at the facts. It is our responsibility and duty under the laws of 
this Nation, under the Constitution to pass this certification and 
decertify Mexico.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the measure that came out of the committee that decertifies Mexico and 
gives a vital national security interest. The issue today is not 
whether we like Mexico or whether we like the Mexican Government. The 
issue today is whether Mexico has fully cooperated with us in trying to 
stop the inflow of drugs into this country.
  I do not see how there is a person in this room who can say they have 
fully cooperated when the fact is 70 percent of the cocaine in this 
country today has come through Mexico. I am sensitive to the concerns 
of offending Mexico. But it is also a reality that, if we were going to 
offend them, if we were going to cause economic damage to them, we 
would not give them a vital national security interest.
  All we are doing today is stating the obvious. The obvious is Mexico 
has not fully cooperated with us. But I am also sensitive to the young 
men and women in the district I represent in the inner city of 
Milwaukee who come to me and say: This Government is not serious about 
the war on drugs; because if this Government were serious about the war 
on drugs, they would be doing more to stop the drugs from coming into 
this country. There are many people in my district who think that the 
Government is part and parcel of this entire scheme. And we have to be 
sensitive to them and we have to do what we can to send the message 
that we do not want those drugs in inner cities. We also have to look 
at this issue in relation to the jobs that have left this country.
  When I look at the people in my district, I see many jobs that have 
now gone to Mexico. What do we get in return? Cocaine on our streets. 
It is time that the companies that have moved their jobs to Mexico 
start putting more pressure on the Mexican Government as well. Yes, 
there is corruption in the Mexican police force. Part of the corruption 
is due to the fact that they are not paid enough. But you have 
corporations that have moved down to Mexico to reap huge profits, and 
they are not paying to increase the professional nature of the Mexican 
police force.
  That is how we are going to end the corruption in the police force in 
Mexico. But to stand here today and say that there has been full 
cooperation simply belies reality. We have to recognize what is going 
on, and we have to send the message that we want full cooperation.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  While I agree with some of what my colleague from Wisconsin just 
spoke about, I have to say this is an emotional resolution. This is 
from the heart and not from the head. That is what the problem is that 
we are dealing with today.
  There is no question we are all frustrated with Mexico. We are 
frustrated that they have not made the progress that we want them to 
make. But if we look at Mexico in this last century, they are a changed 
country. They have made progress. They are moving from a one-party 
dictatorship to a multiparty democracy. For those of us who have lived 
along the border, those of us who have traveled and studied in Mexico, 
the change has been tremendous.
  This resolution does not move us forward. It moves us backward. Yes, 
we do not want more drugs on our streets, we want the Mexicans to do 
more, but we want to engage the Mexicans to do more. We do not want to 
push them back into that corner, and that is what this resolution would 
do. It would do it in a number of ways. First, we would be thumbing our 
nose at them. Second, we would be undercutting them in the financial 
markets throughout the world. We want to maintain confidence in the 
Mexican economy and stabilize the peso so it does not continue to 
devalue against the dollar so it does not create more exports into the 
United States but creates more exports back into Mexico.
  We want to build up their economy so they have a strong middle class, 
so they can pay the police officers, pay the military officers, fight 
off the drug dealers, just like we need to do here in our own country. 
This resolution takes us in the wrong direction for doing it. Why 
should we undercut the Zedillo government when it is the really true 
reform government that is in there trying to make these changes? That 
does not make any sense whatsoever.
  Now, I appreciate that we want to try and do things. I appreciate 
that we want to try and move them, but we are not going to do it with 
this resolution. It is in the wrong direction. It is wrong headed. It 
will not solve the problems with Mexico. It will not belie the fact 
that we will tomorrow, after we pass this, continue to share a 2000-
mile border. They will continue to be our third largest trading 
partner. They will continue to trade with every State here.
  Let us not make this mistake today because of emotions. Let us do 
what is right.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing perhaps more troubling than this 
administration's lack of a true drug strategy is the inconsistency of 
its policies with which it seeks to carry out a nonstrategy.
  We are certifying or this administration is seeking to certify Mexico 
saying they are an A No. 1 full-fledged cooperating partner in the war 
against drugs, and we are decertifying Colombia which although it has 
its problems, I think over the course of the last year during which it 
has been forced to work under the disability of decertification, has 
made progress.

[[Page H970]]

  That is one reason, to bring a little bit more consistency back, that 
I have introduced a bill, with a number of other very distinguished 
proponents of consistency in our foreign policies and in our drug 
policies, that would continue the decertification against Colombia but 
grant a very important waiver.
  Let us talk very briefly about what the debate today concerning 
Mexico is about and what it is not about. It is not about building up 
Mexico's self-esteem. It is not about NAFTA. It is not about loans to 
prop up Mexico's economy. It is not about interfering in a sovereign 
state.
  What we are talking about here is placing limitations on what we are 
giving to Mexico. That is not interfering in anybody's sovereignty. 
There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that when one looks at Mexico's sorry, 
sorry record in the war against drugs that one can reach any conclusion 
other than the fact that they are not a full-fledged A No. 1, fully 
cooperating partner in the war against drugs. And to claim that is to 
lose whatever shred of credibility this administration might have or 
might have able to salvage in the war against drugs.
  Mexico does not deserve the imprimatur of a certified country in the 
war against drugs, and we are not going to do anything whatsoever to 
get it to get its own House in order by certifying it and say that what 
you are doing is just fine with us, keep on giving us more of the same.
  Those who say, what would decertification get us, are asking the 
wrong question. We must ask, what has certification gotten us. Nothing.
  At least it is time to stand up and do something, Mr. Speaker. I urge 
support for the resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Jefferson].
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
administration's certification of Mexico as a country cooperating in 
the war on drugs and to support the bipartisan committee version of 
House Joint Resolution 58.
  Mr. Speaker, my State, Louisiana, is being overrun by drug traffic 
from Mexico. And my city, New Orleans, is fighting the reputation as 
the murder capital of our Nation, largely because drugs entering 
Louisiana from Mexico are driving a spiraling crime rate. Drug 
merchants battling over drug money and drug turf are killing each other 
on the streets of our city and across America, often catching innocent 
citizens, even our children, in the crossfire.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize that because Mexico has been a traditional 
political and economic ally, it is difficult to now declare that it is 
not an ally with us in our war against drugs. But the issue here is not 
politics or the economy. The issue is, how do we find a way to close 
the floodgates out of Mexico through which the vast majority of 
marijuana and cocaine and a large percentage of the heroin flow into 
our country.

                              {time}  1300

  I am not sure how effective our present certification policy is to 
address this question. I do not know if its inflexible requirement of a 
pass/fail grade, an A or an F is preferable to a multitiered grading 
system. And I am far from certain that it makes sense for us to have a 
certification policy that cuts off antidrug support to countries with 
the poorest drug fighting records, ensuring that they will do even 
less, and that punishes the innocent citizens of the decertified 
countries through the imposition of sanctions that cut off 
international monetary assistance to their countries while leaving drug 
kingpins in these countries unaffected and free to continue their 
illegal drug enterprises.
  I do not know, therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we would not be better off 
to scrap the entire approach of the decertification process and replace 
it with a law better designed to achieve a more targeted campaign 
against drug importation.
  But this I do know. So long as we have our present policy of listing 
decertified countries, Mexico deserves its place on that list.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when our country has a better 
and more effective policy to achieve cooperation with Mexico and other 
countries in stemming the flow of smuggled drugs.
  Common sense and compliance with current law demand that we now vote 
to overturn the certification of Mexico, and I urge the Congress to do 
so.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez].
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton was right in certifying 
to Congress Mexican cooperation on narcotics matters with the United 
States. Critics of the President's decision are mistaken in arguing 
that there has been little progress on narcotics cooperation. In 
recommending decertification, they exhibit a limited understanding of 
the fundamental changes that are occurring in Mexico and the enormous 
stakes for the United States of continued cooperation with one of this 
country's most important partners.
  At this delicate time in Mexican history, a decision on the part of 
the United States to decertify Mexico could seriously jeopardize 
Mexico's efforts to strengthen the rule of law and the collaboration 
that we have in the war against the drug lords. It would also dampen 
the Mexico-United States relationship, from trade, to immigration, even 
to border environmental concerns.
  The financial markets would react poorly to a rumble in bilateral 
relations, undermining the painstaking efforts that Mexico has made to 
stabilize its currency and to strengthen its economy. It is the Mexican 
people who would end up paying the economic price for decertification, 
not drug traffickers.
  And as one who has family in Mexico who fights every day to stop this 
drug trafficking, it is an affront that this Congress would think that 
the Mexican people are not working hard to stop drug trafficking. By 
certifying Mexico, the United States can continue the progress achieved 
thus far, mindful of the fact that drug trafficking is as much an 
American problem as it is a Mexican problem.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 58.
  The President's decision to certify Mexico's nonexistent antidrug 
efforts is just one more step in his ongoing retreat from the war on 
drugs. And this Congress should not allow it to stand.
  First he cut funding for our own Nation's antidrug programs and 
emasculated the drug czar's office and now he is saying to Latin 
America, the status quo is just fine with us.
  But take a look at the status quo. It's putrid. Fifty to seventy 
percent of the cocaine entering the United States comes through Mexico. 
Twenty to thirty percent of the heroin coming into our country is 
supplied by Mexico. Eighty percent of the foreign-grown marijuana 
entering our country comes from Mexico.
  With statistics like this staring us in the face, we cannot and 
should not pretend that the Government of Mexico is making any kind of 
good-faith effort to stem the tide of corruption and money laundering 
and drug activity that currently exists in that nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hastert amendment to delay 
certification for 90 days unless the President obtains real assurances 
that the Government of Mexico intends to cooperate in our antidrug 
efforts.
  Certifying Mexico now would send the wrong message to our friends in 
Latin America and around the world. If we are serious about fighting 
drugs, we have to show Mexico we are serious now.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I 
especially appreciate his integrity because he knows I am going to come 
up here to speak against the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no difference here in my view of the facts than 
those who are speaking in favor of this decertification resolution. The 
issue is, what is the approach to get the better cooperation of the 
Government of Mexico with the United States in reducing the drug trade 
which affects both of our countries?
  I propose that the best approach is a sense of Congress that would 
embody

[[Page H971]]

many of the statements we have heard here today. I tried to make that 
in order with the Rules Committee. They chose not to make it in order. 
If decertification ultimately is not approved, I will still again 
propose a sense of Congress resolution.
  Why do we vote for decertification? Well, first we have been told it 
is required that we vote for decertification under the law, because 
Mexico is not fully complying with cooperation in the antidrug trade. 
But the definition of being fully cooperative seems to be that every 
official at every level has to be doing his or her utmost, in this case 
in Mexico, to fight the drug trade.
  If that is the standard, Mr. Speaker, there is no country that could 
probably be certified under that kind of guideline. In fact, if one 
looks at the Hastert amendment, which states numerous criticisms of the 
Clinton administration toward fighting the drug trade, one could argue 
that our own Government could be not fully certified under this exact 
same criteria if it were being examined from the outside.
  The fact of the matter is I believe that we should look at the top of 
the government, at the top officials. I have heard both Chairman Gilman 
and ranking member Hamilton say that they believe that President 
Zedillo and his top people in government are committed to fighting the 
drug trade.
  I believe that there are governments in this world where there is no 
such commitment, and for those governments I do support 
decertification. But we have to look at the impact of having the 
President and the top government officials of Mexico on our side.
  Several speakers have already mentioned the fact that the recently 
appointed drug czar in Mexico was removed from that position because he 
might have ties to the drug trade in that country. How was that 
gentleman identified as possibly being involved in the drug trade? It 
was not by our government's intelligence. In fact, my recollection is 
that General McCaffrey, our own drug czar, was lavish in his praise for 
the Mexican drug czar, General Gutierrez Rebollo.
  It was the Mexican Government that identified this person's 
connection to the drug trade in Mexico. It was the Mexican Government 
that removed him publicly from office, knowing that they would take a 
severe international hit for that kind of action, that it would be a 
severe international embarrassment for them. They did it, anyway. I 
believe that we should be working to cooperate with Mexico and not to 
just trade insults with them.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I also thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the 
chairman of the committee.
  I rise in support of the committee resolution and do not wish to 
question whether or not this is the perfect vehicle. It is the only 
vehicle that we have. And though the certification-decertification 
process may not please any one of us completely, at least it provides 
us with a way of ending the denial by both Governments, the United 
States and Mexico, of what is going on with our respective countries.
  In fact, I think we should hold a session of Congress at the border. 
As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I have traveled along that 
border and have had our own border agents tell us, ``Well, 
Congresswoman, you know if you really want to move drugs, you don't do 
it through this checkpoint. You just drive an over-the-road vehicle a 
mile away where there aren't any inspectors. And, by the way, hear that 
airplane up there? We know where that's headed.''
  Our own Government knows that the border is a sieve. We know of the 
corruption throughout Mexico related to the drug trade. And today this 
is the only vehicle that we have to express our displeasure at this 
administration's actions and prior administrations' actions that 
continue denial.
  I ask myself, why the denial, what are we afraid of as a country? We 
know we only inspect maybe 1 of every 100 to 200 trucks and vehicles 
that now come over the border. We have a $40 billion trade deficit over 
the last 2 years with Mexico and it is growing. We cannot possibly 
inspect all of the vehicles that come over that border, and the drug 
traders know it. They are even picking which vegetable crates to put 
the stuff in and whether they put it in steel drums or auto rims. It is 
that cleverly done.
  The GAO tells us that Mexico is the primary transit route for cocaine 
coming in from Colombia. So we decertify Colombia and the 
administration sort of closes its eyes with Mexico. What sense does 
that make?
  Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution, but I hope that we would move 
in more expeditious ways, beginning with a session at the border. I 
would urge the chairman's consideration of that alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following newspaper article for the 
Record:

            [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 4, 1996]

      The Drug Trade Climbs Aboard Shipments of Goods from Mexico

                           (By Peter Andreas)

       Mexico has long been enmeshed in the drug trade, but its 
     involvement has been transformed in the last decade. 
     Primarily, Mexico has emerged as the primary shipping point 
     for Colombian cocaine into the United States.
       The State Department estimates that the percentage of the 
     cocaine bound for the U.S. market entering through Mexico was 
     negligible during the mid-1980s but increased to as much as 
     70 percent by 1995. Mexico also supplies up to 30 percent of 
     the heroin consumed in the United States and up to 80 percent 
     of the imported marijuana, according to a March 1996 State 
     Department report.
       Mexico earns more than $7 billion a year from the illegal 
     drug trade, Drug Enforcement Administration estimates. Some 
     Mexican estimates place the figure much higher. The 
     prosecutor general's office estimates that drug traffickers 
     operating in Mexico accumulated revenues of approximately $30 
     billion in 1994.
       Mexico's growing role in the drug trade has significantly 
     increased the power and wealth of Mexico's trafficking 
     organizations and that has, in turn, exacerbated well-
     entrenched political corruption.
       Corrupt officials sell an essential service to drug 
     traffickers: the nonenforcement of the law. Not surprisingly, 
     as Mexico's role in the illicit drug trade has grown, so too 
     has the buying off of law enforcement--not only within 
     Mexico, but on the U.S. side as well.
       Not coincidentally, Mexico's expanding role in the drug 
     trade parallels the opening of the Mexican economy and the 
     deepening of U.S.-Mexican economic integration.
       Colombian cocaine traffickers began turning to Mexico as a 
     major entry point to the U.S. market in the early 1980s after 
     the United States cracked down on cocaine shipping through 
     the Caribbean. By now a strategic alliance exists between 
     Colombian and Mexican traffickers. The Colombians process the 
     cocaine and ship it to Mexico, the Mexicans smuggle it into 
     the United States.
       Mexican imports of legal goods from Colombia increased from 
     $17 million in 1980 to $121 million in 1985. At the same 
     time, Mexican imports from the rest of Latin America 
     decreased from $768 million to $630 million.
       Legal exports from Mexico to the United States doubled 
     between 1986 and 1993. Hiding drug shipments within the 
     growing volume of goods exported from Mexico to the United 
     States has become an increasingly favored method of smuggling 
     cocaine.
       These trends thrive under the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement.
       A report written by an intelligence officer at the U.S. 
     embassy in Mexico City claims that cocaine traffickers 
     established factories, warehouses and trucking companies as 
     fronts in Mexico in anticipation of the cross-border commerce 
     boom under NAFTA.
       ``If NAFTA provides opportunity for legitimate businesses, 
     it may clearly provide opportunities for illegitimate 
     businessmen,'' Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn MacTaggart has 
     said.
       Trucking provides the most concrete illustration of this 
     trend. According to one senior customs official, to inspect 
     every truck coming across the border would create a traffic 
     jam as far as Mexico City. So only a small percentage of 
     trucks are fully inspected.
       Under the NAFTA agreement, trucking into the United States 
     from Mexico is increasing rapidly. In 1994, 2.8 million 
     trucks crossed over from Mexico. In 1993, on the eve of 
     NAFTA, the number was 1.9 million. The U.S. Southwest Border 
     Capital Improvement Program will upgrade the road network so 
     that it will be able to handle more than double today's 
     traffic level--as many as 8.4 million trucks annually.
       Mexican truckers will soon be allowed to operate throughout 
     the border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and 
     Texas. They will eventually be able to travel anywhere in the 
     United States and Canada.
       Trucks can carry illegal goods as easily as legal goods. 
     One truck that was stopped near San Diego carried 8 tons of 
     cocaine stuffed into cans of jalapeno peppers. Law 
     enforcement officials believe that the cocaine belonged to a 
     businessman who owns one of the biggest trucking companies in 
     Mexico.
       As part of an effort to hide drugs within trans-border 
     shipments of legal goods, some Mexican traffickers have 
     reportedly hired trade consultants to determine which 
     products move most quickly through border inspection under 
     NAFTA guidelines. ``They

[[Page H972]]

     have very specific issues,'' notes Craig Chretien, the 
     special agent in charge of the DEA's San Diego office. ``Does 
     a perishable get through quicker than a load of steel? What 
     kind of cargoes go through faster than others?''
       Concerns about drug control were not discussed during the 
     negotiations over NAFTA. ``This was in the too hot to handle' 
     category,'' says Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Institute 
     for International Economics in Washington, D.C. Reportedly, 
     U.S. customs and drug enforcement personnel openly call NAFTA 
     the ``North American Drug Trade Agreement.''
       Meanwhile, the privatization of state-owned enterprises and 
     the deregulation of the Mexican banking system facilitate the 
     laundering of drug profits.
       And the cutting of government subsidies in Mexico's rural 
     areas are increasing the incentive for peasant farmers to 
     produce illegal crops such as marijuana.
       An internal DEA report--obtained by the National Security 
     Archive through the Freedom of Information Act--concludes 
     that ``increased illicit drug production will probably be a 
     direct result of the discontinuation of subsistence crop 
     subsidies.'' Drug production is expanding in Mexico's more 
     remote rural regions.
       Efforts to cut the foreign drug supply into the United 
     States have a long history of failure. And the likelihood of 
     success diminishes further as market liberalization and 
     economic integration propel ever more extensive cross-border 
     exchange.
       Evaluations of free market reform are largely divorced and 
     insulated from evaluations of drug market prohibition. Thus, 
     congressional committees and government agencies endlessly 
     debate how to attack the drug supply and gain greater 
     cooperation from Mexico and other Latin America countries.
       Meanwhile, those concerned with the implementation of 
     market-based reforms carefully monitor an assortment of 
     economic indicators. The reports they publish rarely even 
     mention the drug trade, let alone discuss its ties to the 
     formal economy.
       It is as if drug trafficking were not an economic matter at 
     all. But while such institutionalized denial may be 
     politically convenient, it perpetuates both a fundamental 
     misreading of the problem and unworkable strategies for 
     dealing with it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the level of drug corruption in Mexico 
is indeed a real and serious problem. I sympathize with many of our 
colleagues who are frustrated with America's own drug addiction and are 
in search of quick solutions. However, Mr. Speaker, humiliating Mexico 
with the threat of decertification is not the answer. Neither is 
cutting off Mexico's bilateral aid and access to multilateral bank 
loans, which decertification mandates, while thrusting Mexico in the 
company of Iran, Burma and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mexican President Zedillo has acted in 
good faith in stating narcotics trafficking is the greatest threat to 
Mexico's own national security. Certainly his administration has taken 
steps to combat the tremendous drug trade.
  Mr. Speaker, in February, Mexico's appointed drug czar, General 
Rebollo, was arrested for ties to drug lords. While many of our Members 
were outraged and saw this as a sign of pervasive corruption in the 
Mexican Government, I see it differently. I believe President Zedillo 
should be commended for his courage in revealing this embarrassing and 
damaging incident at a highly sensitive time, and his administration's 
commitment to pursue corruption at the highest levels should be 
recognized and commended.
  Mr. Speaker, in examining the situation in Mexico, it raises doubts 
in my mind about the entire drug certification process conducted by our 
own country. I find it hypocritical that we sit here and 
condescendingly judge other sovereign nations on their anti-drug 
efforts while America constitutes one of the largest consumer narcotics 
markets in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask, how many Americans, not foreigners, how many 
American drug lords have we prosecuted lately? How would it sit with us 
if other countries suddenly based their relations with our Nation on 
foreign assessments of how rigorously and successfully we are combating 
drug consumption in America? Is it any wonder that this month the 
Mexican Congress voted unanimously to condemn the United States 
certification process as being insulting to their national dignity?
  Mr. Speaker, decertifying Mexico will only deny the real 
accomplishments of President Zedillo, discourage Mexican cooperation in 
the future for joint narcotics interdiction, and alienate the good 
people of Mexico.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime 
and an acknowledged longtime fighter and expert on the drug war.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that everybody here understands that today in 
our history the United States has a supply of drugs that is cheaper, 
more potent and more available than any time in our history. One of the 
primary reasons why that is so is because the Government of Mexico has 
not been fully cooperating with the United States in the war on drugs. 
It is by no means the only reason why we have this problem. I think up 
front we need to say that President Zedillo has been cooperating, he 
personally has been, and some of the top people in his administration 
have been cooperating. They have been encouraging money laundering laws 
to be established, they have been doing things recently to vet the 
situation there for their law enforcement community to get rid of the 
corruption that is rampant. But the truth of the matter is that Mexico 
is not fully cooperating, which is what the certification laws require. 
They have clearly not been fully cooperating when we look at the 
question of the fact that our Drug Enforcement Administration officers 
that interface the most in law enforcement on the drug issue have been 
unable to accept the word or trust anybody in law enforcement in Mexico 
for some time, and when they did put their faith recently in one 
individual, they got burned. It is not fully cooperating when that 
condition exists. And so the resolution is very appropriate today. We 
need to pass it. I believe the Hastert amendment is also appropriate, 
not only because the certification process is flawed in my judgment and 
we need the commission that is in there, but also because it lays forth 
some of the other facts that I think are very critical to us today in 
this war on drugs.
  The fact of the matter is that we cannot win the war on drugs unless 
we have a balanced program. The particular program that we are looking 
for is to say two things: First, in the interdiction area with regard 
to Mexico, there is going to be a 90-day period in this Hastert 
amendment which if the administration, our administration, gets Mexico 
to cooperate more on, then the decertification trigger will not even 
happen.

                              {time}  1315

  One of those things is to get more law enforcement agents of the 
United States inside Mexico. If they will show progress toward doing 
that, that will be one of the things that will help, and that these DEA 
agents, if they are inside Mexico, can carry arms for their safe 
protection, and there are more radar sites to be handled, and so on. If 
certain things happen, then there would not even be a decertification 
of the Hastert amendment occurring and the debate will not even be 
there.
  The other thing is the Hastert amendment shows and spells out the 
fact that we have not been doing enough in the United States in a 
balanced approach to win this war on drugs. Too much emphasis, and I 
think we should have some on rehabilitation, and not enough emphasis on 
education, and most of all not enough emphasis on the interdiction 
program, on the resources we need to supply; our own Government has not 
been doing enough, and it is spelled out in the Hastert amendment.
  So I urge the adoption of the amendment and the adoption of this 
decertification resolution.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, as a former law 
enforcement official I am deeply concerned about the certification and 
the effect that it will have because we do have cooperation on both 
sides, and I wonder how many of us has taken time to travel to the 
border and to talk to judges

[[Page H973]]

from both sides of the border, to talk to police on both sides of the 
border, because believe me, now we have a tier, a level, of cooperation 
that begins here all the way down. We are looking at the top. Well, 
what about the cooperation between State, county and cities? If we 
decertify Mexico, we destroy this foundation that has taken time to 
build.
  I know this. I used to be a sheriff in south Texas. There exists a 
tremendous working relationship between officers who care, officers who 
have given of their life, whose families have been threatened. But they 
have been dedicated to making both countries a better place for their 
children and my children to reside.
  It is not easy; it is hard. But the dedication continues to be there, 
their loyalty to make our areas better. Do we want to destroy this 
foundation that has taken time to build? We cannot afford to do that.
  As my colleagues know, last year Mexico captured and extradited to 
the States, Humberto Garcia Abrego, a world-renown lord, the head of 
the Gulf cartel. Garcia Abrego was recently sentenced to life in 
prison. That was an act of enormous national political courage on 
Mexico's part.
  As my colleagues know, both sides of the border are poor. We have 
enormous problems on both sides of the border. I was in law enforcement 
for 15 years before I came to this House. There is a lot of things that 
go on that we do not see. A lot of information is traded back and forth 
between local, State, county officials on both sides, and I implore to 
my friends: Let us take time before we do anything that we will regret 
for a long time. There is a lot at stake.
  Mexico is a country that has pride, sure. Bad apples? We got them on 
our side, and we continue to lose friends, and I am talking about this 
great country, because we seem to want to appear worldwide as a knight 
in shining armor. Everybody is wrong; we are the only ones that are 
correct and right.
  Let us not make this mistake. Let us not decertify Mexico.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and a senior member of our Committee on 
International Relations, a gentleman who has stood shoulder to shoulder 
in this war against drugs, especially with helping our allies, the 
Colombian National Police.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there is 
enough blame to go around. Obviously we do have a consumption problem 
here in the United States, but a major part of the responsibility for 
the drug problem in America rests in Mexico, and for people to deny 
that and say that it is all our problem is in my opinion a ludicrous 
argument. Let me just give you some facts:
  Seven hours after the President's certification of Mexico was made 
public Mexico's attorney general issued a statement that its own senior 
officials had allowed Humberto Garcia Abrego, a reputed money launderer 
and brother of convicted drug kingpin Juan Garcia Abrego, to walk free 
from police custody. They waited until the certification took place, 
and then they released this known drug dealer.
  Thomas Constantine, the administrator of the U.S. DEA said on 
February 25, ``Historically, corruption has been a central problem in 
DEA's relationship with counterparts. In short, there is not,'' now get 
this, ``In short, there is not one single law enforcement institution 
in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship,'' not 
one in all of Mexico.
  According to the DEA, 70 percent of the cocaine entering the United 
States comes across the Mexican-American border, and that is up from 50 
percent just about 3 or 4 years ago, a huge increase. Despite an 
apparent increased level of production in transit, Mexico's cocaine 
seizures in 1996 are less than half of what they were 5 years ago. 
There has been an increase, but the seizures are down by more than 50 
percent, 23.8 metric tons in 1996 compared to 50.3 metric tons in 1991.
  The bottom line is they are not cooperating. Should we reward that 
kind of activity? It makes no sense to me. The Mexican Government takes 
credit for firing 1,200 officials for corruption, but not one of those 
people has been prosecuted, not 1 out of 1,200. U.S. extradition 
documents cite evidence in a single case that the attorney general and 
90 percent, get that, 90 percent of the police, prosecutors and judges 
in Tijuana and the State of Baja California are on the payroll of a 
major drug cartel, 90 percent of them. That is amazing.
  Although the United States Department of Justice has submitted 
provisional warrants for the arrest of Mexican drug kingpins, only one, 
Juan Garcia Abrego, a dual national, has been sent to the United States 
to face justice.
  And finally, drug-related arrests in Mexico are down dramatically, 
dramatically down in the last 4 years; 11,283 in 1996 compared to 
almost 28,000 just a few years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to send the strongest possible message to Mexico 
right now. Let them start helping us. America is fighting a losing 
battle against drugs, and we need their help.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Gilman-Hamilton 
bipartisan committee proposal and in opposition to the Hastert 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 8 the Mexican police and the State of Chiapas 
illegally detained two Jesuit priests and two Mayan Indians. The two 
priests, Fathers Rosas and Hernandez, had been beaten, tortured and 
continued to be imprisoned on the outrageously false charges of 
participating in the deaths of two policemen. The priests were actually 
at a religious conference at the time the deaths occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter into the Record at this time the 
announcement of this abuse by the Society of Jesus in Mexico and a 
summary of the news articles. We can no longer turn a blind eye to such 
human rights abuses in Mexico, and again I urge a no vote on the 
Hastert amendment in order to get to a yes vote on the Gilman-Hamilton 
proposal.
       Yesterday, the 8th of March, the Government of Chiapas 
     illegally detained two priests of the Society of Jesus, 
     Gonzalo Rosas Morales and Jeronimo ALberto Hernandez Lopez, 
     as well as Francisco Gonzalez Gutierrez and Ramon Parcero 
     Martinez whom it attempted to like to a supposed ambush in 
     which two members of the State Public Security Police were 
     supposed killed.
       The Society of Jesus in Mexico utterly rejects the version 
     of the events that has been given out by the State Government 
     of Chiapas. It similarly rejects that these detained persons 
     had any responsibility in the illicit acts of which they are 
     accused. The State Government of Chiapas has falsified 
     reality and in so doing has given serious provocation against 
     the rule of law and order, against the peace and against 
     human rights.
       Fathers Rosas and Hernandez have distinguished themselves 
     in their work of several years of pastoral accompaniment in 
     solidarity with the Indian peoples of the northern part of 
     Chiapas State. In like manner, they have participated in 
     processes of organization and initiative that the indigenous 
     communities have been furthering in their search for a 
     greater justice, welfare and fraternity between peoples. We 
     affirm categorically then they had no involvement in the acts 
     for which they have been wantonly accused.
       For its part, the Coordinator of Social Organizations, 
     Xi'Nich',--and not ``Arriera Nocturna'' which the State 
     Government mentions--is a legal group made up of indigenous 
     people who are struggling peacefully to satisfy their most 
     basic needs. The false accusation against Xi'Nich' and 
     against its detained members represent an aggressive message 
     against those who keep within the legal framework to find a 
     solution to their demands.
       In the difficult context of violence that is being 
     experienced in the State of Chiapas, this provocation is 
     extremely irresponsible.
       We ask for the immediate and unconditional release of all 
     the detained persons. We ask for the truthful clarification 
     of the events and the cessation of all police harassment. We 
     repeat that, despite the defamations of this type, the work 
     of the Jesuits will be maintained, faithful to our mission in 
     the service of the faith and the promotion of justice.
       Reuters News Service reported today that two Jesuits had 
     been arrested, beaten and charged ``with leading a deadly 
     ambush against police'' in the Mexico state of Chiapas.
       Arrested were Frs. Gonzalo Rosas and Jeronimo Hemandez. The 
     arrests took place on Saturday afternoon at Palenque, a 
     tourist city 150 km. east of the state capital Tuxtla 
     Gutierrez.
       Two Mayan Indian leaders were also arrested--Francisco 
     Gonzalez and Ramon Parcero. The four were charged with 
     ``taking part on Friday in an ambush of state police who 
     hours earlier forcibly removed peasants

[[Page H974]]

     from farms they had illegally occupied. In the ambush two 
     policemen were killed and five others injured.''
       Diocesan officials in San Cristobal de las Casas 
     contradicted the police version, however, saying the two 
     priests were in that city ``at the time of the ambush after 
     having taken part in a religious conference.''
       Reuters reported that dozens of plainclothes and uniformed 
     police violently yanked the pair from their car. The police 
     showed no arrest warrant and have since added false weapons 
     possession charges against one of the priests.
       According to Reuters, after the police removed the peasants 
     on Friday from two local collective farms they had occupied 
     since 1994, members of a local Indian rights group called Xi-
     Nich blocked a local highway to protest the police operation 
     and demand the release of their arrested comrades. Police 
     claim they peacefully broke up the protest and were later 
     ambushed by the priests and the two Xi-Nich leaders.
       Xi-Nich, however, said in a statement on Sunday that 
     police, backed by helicopters, began firing at the highway 
     protesters, who fired back.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
House Joint Resolution 58. As one of the 10 original cosponsors of this 
bill, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Florida for 
his leadership in sending this important message that the status quo on 
the war on drugs is not good enough.
  The deadly tide of illegal narcotics, much of which flows to the 
United States through our southern border, should be a top national 
health and security priority. What other external threat has such a 
direct impact on our communities, our streets, and our children every 
day?
  The President's decision on February 28 that Mexico had fully 
cooperated with the United States in the battle against illegal 
narcotics sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Mexico sadly has 
simply failed to make the progress in joining us in the war on drugs 
that we had every right to expect.
  Our message today is that this is totally unacceptable. Much of the 
violence on our streets of our cities is related to the torrent of 
illegal narcotics flooding into our country. This is a matter of life 
and death for many of our citizens.
  As the gentleman from Georgia earlier noted, the  President felt it 
was important to send a message to Colombia again this year by 
decertifying them and withholding assistance. If this was a good drug 
policy, then I believe it is critical to make clear to Mexico that our 
assistance to them is conditioned on strong bilateral cooperation and 
domestic action. To do otherwise is to hold out a double standard, 
which is not in the long-term best interests of the citizens of Mexico 
or the citizens of the United States.

  In my view this resolution finds the appropriate balance between an 
honest assessment of Mexico's performance in drug interdiction efforts 
and continued support for those in Mexico committed to arresting, 
prosecuting, and convicting drug traffickers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join in support of this 
important resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for House Joint Resolution 58, 
Disapproving the Certification of the President Regarding Foreign 
Assistance to Mexico. As one of 10 original cosponsors of this bill, I 
want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Florida for his 
leadership in sending this important message that the status quo in the 
war on drugs is not good enough.
  The deadly tide of illegal narcotics, much of which flows to the 
United States through our southern border, should be a top national and 
security priority. What other external threat has such a direct impact 
on our communities, streets, and children each day? The President's 
decision on February 28, that Mexico had fully cooperated with the 
United States in the battle against illegal narcotics sends the wrong 
message at the wrong time. Mexico, sadly, has simply failed to make the 
progress in joining us in the war on drugs that we had every right to 
expect.
  Our message today is that this is unacceptable. Much of the violence 
blighting the streets of our cities is related to the torrent of 
illegal narcotics flooding our country. This is a matter of life and 
death for many of our citizens. As the gentleman from Georgia noted, 
the President felt it was important to send a message to Colombia again 
this year by decertifying them and withholding assistance. If this is 
good drug policy, then I believe it is critical to make clear to Mexico 
that our assistance is conditioned on strong bilateral cooperation and 
their vigorous domestic action. To do otherwise is to hold out a double 
standard which is not in the long-term best interests of the citizens 
of Mexico or the citizens of the United States.
  This resolution finds the appropriate balance between an honest 
assessment of Mexico's performance in drug interdiction efforts and 
continued support for those in Mexico committed to arresting, 
prosecuting, and convicting drug traffickers. Thomas Constantine, 
Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, told a 
congressional committee on February 25:

       Historically corruption has been a central problem in DEA's 
     relationship with Mexican counterparts. In short, there is 
     not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with 
     whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship.

  We should not make a mockery of the annual certification process by 
turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of Mexican efforts.
  Mexico's criminal cartels are now our No. 1 threat when it comes to 
drugs; 70 percent of the cocaine that enters the United States comes 
from the southwest border and we even see this poison in my district on 
the U.S. northern border. Increasingly we are seeing larger levels of 
methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin moving across our border. Last 
year, Mexico's drug cartels shipped approximately 300 tons of cocaine, 
150 tons of methamphetamine and 15 tons of heroin to the United States. 
Moreover, the Mexican Government has refused to let the 20 new DEA 
agents Congress appropriated money for to enter Mexico, and barred U.S. 
law enforcement agents from carrying weapons. This is inexcusable and 
vitiates any argument about full cooperation and partnership.

  Omniously, illegal drug use has been on the rise in recent years 
among our young people in America. It is clear that the wrong response 
to this tragic increase is to be satisfied with where we are. While as 
some have argued here we need to work harder in our communities to 
limit the demand for narcotics which kill dreams and kids, we should 
not be telling our children that the status quo is adequate, when it is 
not. We should not be telling Mexico and the predatory drug cartels 
which operate in Mexico, that our Nation is apathetic to outcomes. We 
are no longer satisfied with an annual public relations gesture; the 
time has come to condition assistance on results not promises. This 
resolution does just that and has my wholehearted support.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, oppose the Clinton 
administration's ill conceived policy of expediency, and send a message 
that Congress won't tolerate the Mexican drug trade any longer.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Reyes], a distinguished new Member and a good friend.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to come again 
for the third time, I think, today to urge my colleagues to stop and 
think about the ramifications and the serious consequences of what we 
are doing in this great institution today. I say that with a tremendous 
amount of trepidation because, having firsthand experience, having the 
background that I share in common with my colleague from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw], my colleague from Texas [Mr. Ortiz], it is difficult to sit here 
and watch what is going on here in terms of the statements that are 
going on the Record that will be scrutinized not only by our 
constituents in respect to our districts, but also will be scrutinized 
very carefully by the people of Mexico, by the Government of Mexico and 
the people of Latin America.
  I think there have been a number of points that have been made here. 
I think there have been way too many statistics that have been thrown 
around. I think we have obfuscated the real issue and the real context 
of what we ought to be doing in this body representing the people of 
this great Nation.
  I know that all of us share a frustration about what the scourge of 
drugs has done to our neighborhoods, what it has done to our children, 
what it is doing to our institutions, but no one understands these 
issues better than the Government of Mexico, better than the citizens 
of Mexico. Certainly nobody has paid a higher price than the Government 
of Mexico, nobody has paid a price and continues to pay the price and 
will continue to pay the price

[[Page H975]]

if we stand here and allow the amendment or the resolution to go 
forward to decertify Mexico.
  I am proud to tell this body that I was probably the first to urge 
the President to certify Mexico. I think to not certify Mexico would be 
very counterproductive. Not only does it send the wrong message to the 
Mexican Government, but it sends clearly the wrong message to the 
Mexican people, a people that collectively have paid a very high price.

                              {time}  1330

  I ask my colleagues in this Congress to listen to the implications, 
to listen to the consequences. For anyone to think that a 
decertification move on Mexico would not have serious political 
consequences and would not destabilize the country and would not lead 
to economic destabilization, is to me incredible. But then in the 
context of the argument, in the context of what we have discussed, in 
the context of what I have heard in this Chamber today, that, for me at 
least, would not be surprising.
  Mr. Speaker, I just hope that sanity and reason prevail. I hope that 
we understand the implications of what we are about to do if we do not 
stand with the President and agree to certify Mexico.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to strongly emphasize that all of us in 
this Chamber take the responsibility to listen to this debate, to come 
to some resolution. We are missing the mark, and I think to a large 
extent overpoliticizing this statement about certifying or 
decertifying.
  We have got to get together, decent, honest Americans, must get 
together with decent, honest Mexicans. It is as simple as that.
  There are drug profiteers in Mexico; there are drug profiteers in the 
United States. It is an external problem; it is an internal problem.
  Let us be clear on just a couple of points. The United States is 
responsible for 60 to 70 percent of the world's consumption of drugs. 
It is a lucrative, lucrative business.
  The Mexican Government is spending billions of dollars trying to 
fight this. They are confronted with tens of billions of dollars on the 
other side which we, the American consumers of drugs, are supplying to 
Mexico.
  As has been documented, Mexico's problems arise because the shift in 
the drugs from the Caribbean up from Colombia through Mexico has taken 
place in dramatic proportions in the last few years. Amazingly, we are 
now discussing at a point when Mexico is moving into an arena where 
they can begin, however small, in a very small way, to begin to resist 
the drug cartels. We are talking about decertifying Mexico as though it 
was somehow Mexico's problem, Mexico's problem, to save us from 
ourselves.
  We have all these laws which say just say no. Now, we say it with our 
laws, but we do not seem to say it with our noses. We always seem to be 
pointing the finger at the wrong people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is always politically convenient to blame somebody 
else. It is time that we demand from Mexico what we must demand from 
ourselves.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of 
the committee for yielding me time.
  I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 58 in its 
totality and to all amendments. This effort to disprove the 
decertification of Mexico as a fully cooperating partner in the fight 
against drugs is misguided. If Congress adopts this resolution, the 
United States is sending the wrong message to the government and the 
people of Mexico.
  We should be strengthening our ties to Mexico and helping the Mexican 
Government in its fight against drugs rather than punishing them with 
punitive measures that will hurt, not help, the fight against drug 
trafficking.
  By any reasonable standard, the efforts and policies that President 
Zedillo has instituted over the last several years to combat the 
scourge of drugs in his country have been a success. Marijuana, 
cocaine, and heroine seizures are all up by 40 percent since 1994. 
Drug-related arrests are up significantly. The extradition process has 
been strengthened. Major anticrime legislation dealing with money 
laundering and organized crime in Mexico have been passed and adopted 
into law.
  I know many Members see the arrest of General Rebollo on ties to the 
Mexican drug cartels as an indication of systematic, systemwide failure 
on the part of the Mexican Government. If nothing else, the swift 
arrest of General Rebollo is a strong indication of President Zedillo's 
commitment to punish corruption and to ensure that no one else is seen 
as above the law.
  The United States Government must continue to keep the pressure on 
and work with those elements of the Mexican Government that are on the 
side of change. But decertifying Mexico and cutting off the minimal 
assistance we do provide would be a major mistake.
  We have made great strides with Mexico in the last several years, and 
we should not undermine that success with this vote. Decertifying 
Mexico will only hurt the Mexican economy, fuel nationalistic 
resentment, and set back United States-Mexican relations.
  We have to be aware of the fact that it is the insatiable craving for 
drugs in this country that does as much to undermine Colombia and 
Mexico and others who have developed these huge narco-drug trafficking 
involvements. These folks are suffering far more than many Americans 
who we represent here on the House floor.
  We have got to get our House in order. We have got to reduce our 
demand through every possible means, not just in terms of corrections 
and law enforcement, but in terms of helping people in this country 
through education and treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, when we take those steps, then perhaps we will be in a 
better position to take an attitude of somewhat self-righteous 
criticism toward our friends to the south.
  So I urge a no vote at this time on H.R. 58 and on the Hastert 
amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first came to the Congress during the Presidency 
of Ronald Reagan, that President faced a situation in which he needed 
to have our Congress commit an additional $10 billion to the 
International Monetary Fund.
  You might say what does that have to do with the issue at hand? But 
it laid the background for this Member on how I finally cast my vote on 
the pending measure.
  The President saw that many of us were reluctant to commit additional 
American dollars for an International Monetary Fund where we could not 
see immediate benefits or additions to the national security. But the 
President then, Ronald Reagan, at a meeting we had in the Oval Office, 
termed it and turned the question into one of foreign policy. He felt 
that support for the additional $10 billion was to support the 
President in a foreign policy initiative.
  That was enough for many of us. We turned around and did support the 
infusion of new American dollars into the International Monetary Fund.
  Faced with that same configuration here, at first my inclination was 
to support the President, because I termed it first in my own heart as 
a foreign policy question, should we not support the President in a 
foreign policy initiative? But that would mean I would have to overlook 
the statute, which is the organ at issue here. And in doing so, I would 
be, in trying to support the President, flaunting the congressional act 
which is at the core of this entire issue.
  So, reluctantly here, I differentiated from a foreign policy 
question, and I simply term it as one of implementation of current law 
as we, the Members of Congress, fashioned it, and as we are bound to 
enforce it.
  Mr. Speaker, with that background, I support the resolution at hand.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H976]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are here today engaged in a 
debate about whether the government of Mexico has fully complied in 
their efforts to cooperate with the United States of America in the war 
against drugs.
  We seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the word ``fully.'' I want 
to ask the Members of this body, have we fully cooperated with 
ourselves? How many Members of this body have a drug testing program in 
their office? One, two. I have got mandatory, and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw] has one. That is 2 out of 435.
  How many Members of this body have a full-time antidrug coordinator 
on their congressional staffs in their district and how many Members of 
this body have done everything possible in terms of education and 
outreach in their congressional districts?
  I think we should first look at ourselves before we look south of the 
border. But let us look south of the border, and look at what happened 
just in the last year.
  Is Mexico trying to do its part? In 1996, they eradicated 56,000 
acres of marijuana production. How many did we eradicate in this 
country? In 1996, they eradicated 36,000 acres of poppy production. In 
1996, they seized 24,000 kilograms of cocaine, they seized 363 
kilograms of heroin, and they seized 1,006 of marijuana.
  Let us look at extradition. There seems to be quite a bit of concern 
in the Congress about extradition. Before 1995, the Government of 
Mexico had never extradited anyone, nada, zero. In 1995, they 
extradited 5 non-Mexicans. In 1996, last year, 16, of which 2 were 
Mexican nationals. In the 2 months of this year, January and February, 
they have extradited six people.
  We have pending 135 active requests for extradition, of which we 
classify 14 as priority. Eight of those are drug related, three are 
murder related, and two are violent crimes-related. Eleven of them are 
Mexican nationals, one is a United States citizen, and one is a Cuban. 
I feel very confident that throughout the legislative process this 
year, many of those people will be extradited once they have been 
apprehended in Mexico.
  Let us look internally. In 1996, Mexico arrested within their borders 
28 major drug kingpins. They made over 11,000 total arrests. Within 
their own law enforcement agencies they arrested, detained, or 
dismissed 1,200 of their 4,500 national antidrug force.
  They have passed and changed their Constitution to have the first 
organized crime statutes on their books. That was not passed until 
October 1996. They changed their Constitution and changed their penal 
code to make money laundering illegal. That was done in the latter part 
of this year, begun in May 1996. They have decided they cannot totally 
cleanse their antidrug law enforcement agencies as they are, so they 
are starting from scratch to rebuild in totality. Overall, they spent 
$1.7 billion, which is double as a percent of their Federal budget what 
we spent on antidrug efforts.
  Are they doing enough? No, they are not. Should we decertify them 
because they are not doing anything? No, we should not. Please vote 
against these resolutions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman who just left the 
well that not one of those extraditions has been a Mexican national on 
a drug offense. That is the problem that we are facing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman New 
York [Mr. Paxon].
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
58, a resolution to reverse the President's February 28 certification 
of Mexico as a nation fully cooperating with the United States in its 
war on drugs. The facts, unfortunately, show otherwise.
  Mexico is the entry point of most of the drugs that are sold in the 
United States. It is the transfer point of 70 percent of the cocaine 
and up to 80 percent of the marijuana brought into this country and 
sold on the streets of the United States.
  However, this is not and should not be just a debate about Mexico and 
its failed war on drugs. Rather, unfortunately, this debate is 
underscoring the lack of leadership from our own administration in the 
war on drugs.
  One of the President's first actions was to slash the budget of the 
drug czar. Then his Attorney General suggested we reduce mandatory 
minimum sentences for drug traffickers. But the icing on the cake if 
you will remember back was when one of the top leaders of his 
administration suggested legalizing marijuana.

                              {time}  1345

  It is ironic, I believe, that the President was claiming success in 
the war on drugs during his press conference certifying Mexico at the 
exact same time that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America was 
releasing a study showing that the domestic war on drugs is a total and 
utter failure.
  Mr. Speaker, what are the results of this failed leadership? Well, 
let me tell my colleagues. The war on drugs was successful in the 
1980's, and drug use went down steadily for 11 years prior to 1992. 
Since 1992, drug use by teenagers has risen 105 percent. The 
Partnership study released last week showed that in 1 year drug use 
doubled amongst teenagers, from 1995 to 1996, doubled amongst 
teenagers. We have now found, according to the Partnership, that 1 in 4 
children nationwide was offered drugs in 1996.
  Most of these drugs end up in the hands of children in our 
communities, in our home towns. But let me emphasize, this is not a 
debate on statistics, this is a debate on real lives, the lives of the 
children in our country today.
  I believe very strongly that the sponsors of House Joint Resolution 
58 are right on track. We need to make very clear to the Government of 
Mexico we are serious, but it must not stop there. If the 
administration in this country is not willing to take the leadership in 
fighting the war on drugs, this Congress will have to step up to the 
plate and exercise our leadership to make sure that the war on drugs is 
real and that the future of our children is saved for the generations 
to come.
  Before I yield back I would note that the attorneys general of both 
Arizona and California, Attorney General Grant Woods and Attorney 
General Dan Lungren, have sent a letter to the President, of which we 
have obtained copies, underscoring their support for the effort to 
decertify Mexico and to take this very strong and clear stand today.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the committee's 
resolution and against the Hastert amendment. I have to say that I come 
to this floor reluctantly. I regret that I and many other Members find 
themselves in the unfortunate position of having to support the 
decertification and waiver for Mexico as an ally in the drug war.
  Over the last several weeks, Democrats and Republicans working 
together authored legislation that would decertify, but waive 
sanctions. I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for their hard work.
  The bill also includes language requiring that the administration 
begin to consult and work with Congress in addressing the problem 
facing both of our countries with regard to drugs.
  There are many who oppose this effort and I deeply respect their 
opinions. But I believe that under the law, we have to respond, and the 
response that I think has to be given is decertification, but waiver. I 
hope that in the days ahead we get a chance to consider changing the 
underlying law. I am uncomfortable with certifying or decertifying 
Colombia or Mexico or other countries, or our own efforts with regard 
to the war against drugs.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership yesterday chose to allow an 
amendment to be offered that gratuitously attacks the President's 
actions to address the problem of drugs in this country. To me, this is 
simply an effort to gain partisan advantage from the fear that we all 
share about the impact of drugs in our country.

[[Page H977]]

  The war on drugs should not be a political football. Parents across 
America deserve to know that their leaders are working together to 
solve these problems. They want to be able to send their kids to school 
and to play with their friends free from the fear that drugs will be 
offered.
  The question before us today is whether or not Mexico has fully 
cooperated to fight the war on drugs. This is not a question of motive. 
It is a question of fact. I deeply respect those who are valiantly 
fighting against the drug lords and cartels in Mexico. Many valiant 
police officers and prosecutors and government officials in Mexico are 
giving their lives and fighting on a daily basis to stop this problem. 
They must be honored in all that we do.
  Mostly, we cannot validate the status quo. None of us can be 
satisfied with what we are doing, what America is doing, what Mexico is 
doing, what Colombia is doing, what we are all doing to fight this 
problem of drugs. It is an evil influence that is stalking our people. 
What we are doing is not working. Blame is everywhere.
  I hope that if nothing else comes out of this debate and this action 
today, that in the days ahead we can find new ways and more effective 
ways of fighting this problem of drugs. If all we do today is place 
blame, we have failed again. If what comes out of today is renewed 
vigor and enthusiasm to fight this problem in Mexico and to fight it in 
the United States, then this will have been a day well spent.
  I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra], my friend, and the other members of our caucus who have 
worked on this. I congratulate the ranking member, I congratulate the 
chairman, and I hope that we will come out of this today with a renewed 
sense of purpose to work together to solve the problem and to change 
the facts of today.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minority leader [Mr. Gephardt], for 
his strong arguments in support of this legislation, and hopefully, by 
working together on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of the 
border, we will find a better way to fight this war on drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is important in the decertification 
process that we not only look toward the future but, indeed, that whole 
process has to look somewhat toward the past as well, not only on what 
Mexico has been doing but acknowledging in the Hastert amendment some 
things that we did not do. We cut back our interdiction funding, we cut 
back our source country funding, so we acknowledge that we have made 
some mistakes in our country, too.
  But the evidence and the facts are staring us straight in the face. 
If indeed we are going to have a decertification process, if the drugs 
coming into our country increase, if up to 90 percent of the police 
forces in Tijuana and Baja California are corrupt, so corrupt that we 
have pulled our DEA back; if we have questions about the top leadership 
of the country, I mean one of the things even that the administration 
passed out said that the defense department and the national police in 
Mexico cooperated more together last year. Yes, they moved a guy who 
was on the payroll of the cartel from the defense department over to 
the drug czar, and they cooperated in giving the information to the 
drug dealers.
  I personally believe that President Zedillo and his top staff are 
committed to changing their Nation. He understands the terrorist threat 
of the narcotraffickers there. But we have to make this decision today 
based on the facts that are in front of us, and the facts that are in 
front of us say a 90-day delay is helpful, they have more time to do 
that; we are not putting the sanctions in effect with the 
decertification in the Hastert amendment. I support that in the sense 
of giving them additional time.
  When I met with President Zedillo, along with the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and Senator Coverdell, he expressed his concern 
about his son being approached by drug dealers in Mexico and what was 
happening to his country. I am concerned about my sons being approached 
at school as well. I am concerned about my daughter in college.
  We cannot, in Fort Wayne, IN or anywhere else in this country, we 
cannot get enough drug dogs, we cannot get enough prisons, we cannot do 
enough in prevention programs and treatment programs if the supply 
keeps pouring in the way it is. We have to work in partnership with our 
friends in the south. We need maritime agreements, we need DEA 
agreements, we need extradition agreements, and then they do not have 
to fear decertification.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
distinguished ranking member of his kindness, and I would like to thank 
the Committee on International Relations for its hard work, and 
certainly the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rose on the floor earlier to express my opposition to 
the rule because I believe there is much more opportunity for us to 
discuss what is really at issue, and that is the devastation of drugs 
in our community. I just had an opportunity to talk to a constituent, a 
banker in our community, and he spoke the truth: Find the money and you 
will find the drugs.
  So I rise today to make this an issue about drugs and the abuse that 
is going on in our Nation. I want to see us discuss real laws dealing 
with money laundering. I want to see us have real legislation that 
helps to eradicate drugs in our community. The inner cities see young 
African-American men convicted 55 percent on drugs charges, most of 
them under 25 years old. I would like to see legislation that truly 
helps to eliminate the crossing over of drugs over the border into our 
inner cities and communities, eradicating the transfer of drugs that 
come from the border into my city and community. I would like to see 
the eradication of the viciousness and the travesty that it impacts on 
the lives of citizens.
  I will vote for a drug czar proposal by General McCaffrey to be able 
to fight on two fronts, and that is to be able to fight the illegal 
utilization of moneys that help to create opportunities for drugs in 
our community, and to fight for hard-core, no-nonsense prevention and 
treatment with money that directly gets to the victims of drug abuse 
and not to the bureaucrats.
  I will not vote, however, for drug bashing, and I will recognize that 
it is extremely important that this debate be turned around to make it 
a debate on how we can end the ravages of drugs in America. I hope we 
will turn to that.
  With that in mind, maybe we will help solve the problem and begin 
real legislation that faces what I am concerned about, which is the 
loss of lives in our Nation.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is no secret that this Member 
came from the southern parts of San Diego County to this institution, 
in no little way to try to sensitize this institution in Washington, 
DC, to the extent and the massiveness of the problems along our 
frontier and the problems that we encounter, those of us that live 
along the border.
  I find myself in a very, very interesting position here today, 
because I have to say quite frankly that I think that we are seeing 
this week Washington and Congress finally starting to talk about and 
realize the magnitude of the problem that lies across our border to the 
south, and along our border and the entire area that we call the 
Frontera.
  I have to say to my colleagues that I find it hard to believe that 
this institution did not realize, and does not realize today, the 
magnitude of the quest and the challenge the people of the Republic of 
Mexico have faced for many years and face today in trying to liberate 
their country from the tyranny of drug traffickers. Their national 
sovereignty is being threatened not by a force from outside, but from 
within. I think for us to underestimate the magnitude of that impact 
and that challenge is really demeaning to both of us.

[[Page H978]]

  Mr. Speaker, let me point out, Mexico has done things to fight drug 
trafficking that we in the United States have not been brave enough to 
do. Mexico has not found it easier to put only half as many agents at 
the border as has been authorized by Congress. So I will say that about 
the administration. But I will also say this about the majority in 
Congress. Mexico has put troops at the border, not because they want 
armed troops at the border, but because they realize the problem is so 
big that they cannot find excuses not to do everything humanly 
possible.
  So I would ask the administration, put the resources to cooperate 
with Mexico along the frontier, but I would also ask the majority, look 
at the bipartisan Traficant-Hunter bill and tell me, have we done 
everything, everything possible to be certified as being one who is 
willing to take on this battle and be able to judge Mexico?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we do not judge those who are doing more than 
we have ever dreamed. Let us cooperate with them and move forward.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is certainly not intended to bash Mexico 
or to insult the Mexican people. Millions of Mexicans are in the cross 
hairs of the drug cartels, just as a number of our people are in the 
same situation. We stand together with those honest Mexican officials 
in facing the fact that their government is simply not doing enough to 
help us front the scourge of drugs on both sides of the border.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we have been doing 
something in our own Nation about drug use. When we fought the scourge 
on the supply as well as on the demand side simultaneously, we reduced 
monthly cocaine use by nearly 80 percent between 1985 and 1992. We 
reduced monthly cocaine users from 5.8 million in 1985 down to 1.3 in 
1992, so the old argument that nothing works is not true, and that we 
must reduce demand is pure nonsense. It has to be fought on every 
level.
  In a recent letter by the Mexican Ambassador, Silva Herzog, said to 
me in concluding his letter, ``It is important to stress three basic 
points: First, Mexico and the United States have carried on with an 
intense agenda of cooperation against drug trafficking. It has been, 
despite political and external interests, an uninterrupted work at all 
levels of government. Second, to truly fight drug lords and drugs 
present on both sides of the border, we have to work effectively on 
both sides; third, regardless of any circumstances,'' he states that 
Mexico will continue to fight against drug trafficking.
  We want to enhance that cooperation. What we are seeking is a more 
effective policy on both sides of the border.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also take this opportunity to thank our 
courageous DEA agents who, day in and day out, fight the battle for 
future generations. We have lost a number of them in the drug battle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, even on its own terms I 
think the variants of this resolution are kind of silly.
  As I understand it, what they say is we will decertify Mexico but we 
will immediately then waive the decertification so it will have no 
tangible effect. This is a new policy. It is called substituting insult 
for injury. We will not deny anything substantive to Mexico, we will 
just call them some names. People seem to think somehow that this will 
help. I do not understand how they think it will. It may help some 
people politically. It clearly will not help promote cooperation with 
Mexico.
  What it says is, we will decertify you and immediately thereafter 
make sure the decertification has no effect except to hurt your 
feelings and make you angry. We spent all last week congratulating, 
this is our first step on the way to legislate, and as of now I would 
say that my colleagues seem to be better congratulators rather than 
legislators because I do not understand what this does, except make it 
worse.
  Second, it is fundamentally flawed. The notion, and my friends have 
forgotten, particularly on the other side, what they, I thought, knew 
about a free market. The notion that in a free society, where tens of 
millions of people come and go on a regular basis monthly, where goods 
come and go, the notion that you can physically keep something in great 
demand out as your main strategy is seriously flawed.
  The resolution that came from the Republican leadership denounces 
drug treatment, untested drug treatment, and says we should rely 
instead on physical interdiction. That has it absolutely backward. The 
notion that this country points the fingers of blame and objects to 
others because they meet an unfortunate high demand in this country 
absolves us of responsibility, plays political games. It does nothing 
to really advance the problem.
  What we ought to do is to allow the President to go forward, change 
our legislation, and focus our resources on the kind of efforts within 
our own country, which is the only place we can deal with this problem.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the main sponsor of this provision.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Lee Hamilton], and I want to congratulate 
both the Democratic ranking member and the chairman for working so hard 
to bring this legislation forward and in doing it in such a bipartisan 
manner. I hope the spirit of that bipartisanship continues through the 
amendment process and that we get a good, unified vote out of here. I 
will have more to say about the amendment when my turn comes to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the certification process 
itself on the House floor. Let us turn our attention just a moment to 
whether or not this is really interfering within the internal affairs 
of Mexico. The question has been made, why would we insult them, why 
would we embarrass them? Let us look at some of the things we use to 
judge our foreign policy toward other countries and what we look at in 
determining what our foreign policy is to be.
  Every year we go through a debate on the human rights in China, and 
the human rights and the way people treat their own citizens is always 
a consideration in our own foreign policy. We even look at the economic 
system that other countries have. We look at how they vote in the 
United Nations. We look at what their trade laws are, whether they 
protect our copyrights, their banking laws. We look at all of these 
things. We even look at the way they treat dolphins in deciding what 
our foreign policy and trade law is going to be with other countries.
  Surely we can also judge them as to how they treat our kids, how they 
treat our drug laws, how they assist us in a problem that is tearing 
the fabric out of America today.
  We have long worried about hostile countries throughout the world and 
the weapons of giant destruction they have. We go in and take out and 
bomb plants that have the ability to create and build weapons of great 
destruction. Surely we can enforce our own laws.
  We are talking about has Mexico fully cooperated. Fully cooperated. 
The answer under any measure, as the gentleman said in his opening 
statement, is of course not; they have not fully cooperated. In fact, 
it could be argued whether they have hardly cooperated.
  Let me run down a few items that I think must be placed on the table 
and must be considered by this body when we go to our vote today on 
decertification. Well over 50 percent of the illegal drugs coming into 
the country today come in through Mexico. They supply 20 to 30 percent 
of the heroin in the United States. Eighty percent of the foreign-grown 
marijuana comes in from Mexico, and they supply it.
  The corruption in Mexico and their law enforcement is monumental. A 
nation with between $10 and $30 billion in an annual drug trade, this 
is Mexico we are talking about. Almost half a billion dollars a year is 
spent in bribes, and they have failed to extradite one single Mexican 
national on a drug offense.
  Mr. Speaker, surely we should not tiptoe around and worry about 
offending them. I want every Member of this body this afternoon, when 
they come

[[Page H979]]

down to vote, to think about looking in the eyes of their children, 
their grandchildren, the innercity kids, the kids whose future is being 
destroyed, look at those who are struggling to get out of welfare 
today. Over 1 million of them are going to need drug rehabilitation 
before we can even find jobs for them. Think of all the people who are 
flunking drug tests and cannot be hired today because of policies that 
corporations have. Then look and see where these drugs are coming from.
  For a moment, dream with me about a drug-free America. Should this 
not be the No. 1 issue on our foreign policy today? The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel] talked about it a few moments ago. There was a 
question of where does it stand on the priority list of our State 
Department. I am not talking about just the Clinton administration, I 
am talking about previous administrations, too.
  It should be No. 1. It should be No. 1. There should not be one 
single issue that should rise above the question of the drug problem 
here in the United States. That is where we are going to lose our 
country. That is where we are going to lose our future if we do not get 
serious about it.
  This is a small step. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
said this is only an insult. Let us begin with an insult. But we have 
to bring about the reality of what is going on, what is going on in the 
world today. We have a certification process. Let us use it. Let us go 
forward. Let us continue this bipartisan effort that we have to pass 
this most important piece of legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time on general 
debate to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Chambliss]. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] is recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the administration policy 
on Mexico. I certainly do not agree with their policy on NAFTA. But I 
am going to support the committee proposition because I think this 
entire process is ridiculous.
  Under the certification process, what happens is that the Congress 
requires the President to certify that the world is perfect and the 
conduct of other people in the world is perfect. Then when he has to do 
that to further the interests of American foreign policy, the Congress 
as an institution then poses for political holy pictures because he has 
to do it when we put him in a box and virtually require him to do it in 
the first place.
  It seems to me the question is not whether Mexico has cooperated. Of 
course they have not, certainly not to the degree we would like to see 
them cooperate. But the question is whether or not we will take an 
action which will make it more difficult to obtain the goal we want 
with respect to drug control, because we give additional arguments to 
those in the struggle against drugs who are not our friends.
  That is the issue. The issue is simply what action can be taken by 
the Congress today which will produce the best results for our kids and 
for our country. I submit that that action is to stick with the 
committee, not to get into other political arguments. So I would 
strongly urge that we support the committee's position.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me begin by first thanking the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations and also the ranking member for having yielded 
me time for this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also take a moment to give appreciation to all 
those who have risen today and spoken against the political Goliath 
that is decertification. Let me begin by saying that our goal, I hope 
our goal here, is to keep the drugs off of the streets and out of the 
homes of America. Decertifying Mexico, however, dampens our cooperation 
with Mexico, and I fear will do just the opposite of keeping those 
drugs out of those homes and off of those streets.
  Let me call Members' attention to some statistics and some studies. 
Almost 13 million Americans today use illicit drugs, and they spend, by 
most estimates, somewhere between $50 billion to perhaps as much as 
$150 billion to satisfy that desire.
  According to a 1994 Rand Corp. study, if we want to reduce the 
consumption of drugs, we are going to have to spend a ton of money, but 
for every $1 million we spend on trying to reduce the demand on 
our side, drug rehabilitation, trying to keep kids off of drugs to 
begin with, to do the same amount of work we do with keeping the demand 
down, we have to spend $23 million to try to stop or help do the 
eradication in some of the foreign countries that are producing the 
drugs in the first place; $1 million to try to curtail the demand, $23 
million to try to do the eradication.

  If Members think that is bad, how much do they think it costs to 
eradicate, as opposed to trying to reduce the demand? For every $1 
million you spend to reduce the demand domestically, you have to spend 
$11 million to try to interdict those same drugs that otherwise would 
be used.
  Certainly it is more cost-effective for us to try to reduce the 
demand, make sure they never hit the streets, those drugs never hit the 
streets, and that we do the best job we can to rehabilitate those who 
are using drugs.
  Third, a former DEA official has been quoted to say that the average 
drug organization can afford to lose between 70 to 80 percent of its 
product and still be profitable. With that type of losses being 
sustainable, it is going to take a lot to stop someone from producing 
and shipping drugs into this country. When you can lose fully 70 to 80 
percent of your product and still come out ahead, you know there is 
going to be a big supply.

                              {time}  1415

  Well, what helps make that supply so efficient? There are estimates 
that somewhere between $10 billion, or 60 percent, of the annual 
proceeds that drug cartels receive is placed by them into corruption 
financing, buying off elected officials, buying off law enforcement, 
buying off business people to help them launder the money, $6 billion 
available to drug cartels just to buy people off. Is it any wonder that 
on both sides of our border and not just the United States-Mexican 
border but the United States-Canadian border, we find that there are so 
many people willing to help allow these drugs to flow into our borders.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is one that goes beyond the issue of 
who is right, who is wrong, who is helped, who is not helped. Let me 
talk for a moment about the issue of cooperation. I know many folks 
have cited already some of the work that has been done by the Mexican 
Government and of course our own Government to try to stop the flow of 
drugs. But I should note for the record that, since President Zedillo 
took office in 1995, the Attorney General from Mexico has dismissed 
more than 1,250 Federal law enforcement officers and technical 
personnel for corruption or incompetence and placed those individuals' 
names on a national register to ensure that they would not be rehired 
by any other agency.
  Further, Mexico has eradicated per year more hectares that have 
marijuana than any other country in the hemisphere. Those are all 
statistics that point out that cooperation is necessary, not attacks. 
If we go the route of cooperation, what we will find is that we will be 
able to do a better job of interdicting the drugs that come into our 
country.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I prepare to conclude our arguments, I would like to note some 
thoughts expressed by an experienced drug fighter, DEA Deputy 
Administrator Stephen Green, who recently stated that the Mexican 
nationalism is no excuse for its failure to stop drugs and went on to 
say, I always question the argument that United States law enforcement 
is infringing on Mexican nationalism and that they do not need United 
States help. He went on to say, if that is the case, they should do 
what they say they are capable of doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the committee 
of jurisdiction, the gentleman from New York, chairman of the 
committee, and

[[Page H980]]

our distinguished colleague from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], who recently 
disappointed us all with his announcement that he may soon retire from 
this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand how difficult it was for the committee to 
deal with this issue. There are a great many facets of this action that 
deserve consideration, and there are many troubling things, not the 
least of which is the point made just a few minutes ago by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin that perhaps the whole process of 
certification is a process we might want to reexamine.
  But we really have to address things where we are. As we do that, we 
have to have a really sharp focus about what is it really about. We are 
concerned about the political stability of Mexico, and we are concerned 
about the economic prosperity of Mexico. And I think I can say that 
this Congress, this body has on many, many occasions expressed their 
concern on both those points with concrete actions. We want for the 
people of Mexico everything we want for the people of the United States 
in political stability and economic well-being.
  So the possibility that an action that we take on this floor might 
impair either of these two goals for the people of Mexico is a 
possibility that weighs heavily on our hearts as we bring a resolution 
to the floor. But that, Mr. Speaker, is not what this resolution is 
about. This resolution is about whether or not this Congress will put 
its stamp of approval on a certification of an effort by the Government 
of Mexico to control the flow of drugs through their nation and into 
our Nation.
  We are concerned with our focus here about the adequacy of our own 
Government's effort to control drug usage in this country, and there 
have been many statements in this debate about the inadequacy of that 
effort. I do not have to recite chapter and verse. So the essential 
question is, is this Congress going to demonstrate a resolve to save 
not only our children but the children of Mexico as well from what can 
only be described as the horrors of drug usage and drug trafficking, 
the attendance crime, the attendance violence, the personal and 
critical danger that each child faces if they are lured into this trap 
of drug usage or drug trafficking? Can we demonstrate a resolve to the 
children of this Nation and the children of our friends and neighbors 
south of the border by doing anything less than saying with this 
resolution that this Congress believes too much about the importance of 
these children, cares too much about the outcome in their lives, 
demands too much in the effort that would be made by any government in 
the interest of protecting these children to allow a certification by a 
government that has failed in its own responsibilities on behalf of 
another government that, too, has not fulfilled all its 
responsibilities for those very same precious children in both 
countries?
  That is what it is about, Mr. Speaker. That is what it is about. It 
is not about this Congress's duty to this Government. It is not about 
this Congress's duty to the Mexican Government. It is not about this 
Congress's duty to things that are real and yet somewhat abstract in 
the lives of real people in their ordinary business of life called 
political stability and economic growth. It is about the safety, 
security, happiness of the children of both countries, and the sacred 
moral obligation of all governments, all places to protect the children 
from harm, violence, moral decay, and personal tragedy.
  We must stand in support of both the Hastert amendment and the 
resolution brought by this committee because the children are precious, 
and the children is why we address this issue; in doing so, do so in 
all respect and a wish of Godspeed for the prosperity of the Mexican 
people and a tranquil stability in the politics of our friends to the 
south as well as a resolve to fulfill our responsibility in this 
Congress and this government for all these children.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for his supporting arguments of our proposal, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I supported House Joint Resolution 58 
today to decertify Mexico as fully cooperating in the war on drugs. 
There are few threats to the health and welfare of our country more 
dangerous than the flood of illegal drugs which is inundating our 
borders. President Clinton was correct when he decertified Colombia as 
a fully cooperating partner in the international war on drugs, but his 
certification of Mexico's efforts is completely unjustified.
  My constituents and all Americans face a very grave danger from 
illegal drugs from Mexico. Let's examine just a few of the facts. In 
each of the last 4 years Mexico has been certified as fully cooperating 
in the war on drugs. But, in 1993, 50 percent of all the cocaine 
entering the United States came from Mexico. During this period of 
fully cooperating, the amount of cocaine entering the United States 
from Mexico increased by 40 percent. Today, Mexico is the source of 70 
percent of all of the cocaine entering the United States. I do not 
understand how any thinking person can characterize this as fully 
cooperating.
  There are many examples of the corruption within Mexico's law 
enforcement agencies, but the two most recent examples, which occurred 
in the days just before the State Department certified Mexico's 
cooperation, are nothing short of outrageous. Gen. Jesus Gutierrez 
Rebollo, the top official in Mexico's counternarcotics program was 
arrested last month because of his close association with one of that 
country's most notorious drug lords. How can this happen? The man who 
was commanding Mexico's war on drugs is an associate of a drug lord? 
Unbelievable.
  Or, take the example of Humberto Garcia Abrego, the brother of the 
head of the Gulf Cartel. He was arrested on a money-laundering charge, 
released by a local court because it was an illegal arrest, taken into 
custody again on another court order, and then he simply walked out of 
the National Institute for Combating Drugs. The explanation from the 
Mexican Government was that Abrego ``left * * * before the 
investigation was completed. These are examples of Mexican behavior 
during a period of heightened sensitivity toward the impending 
certification deadline.
  This level of cooperation is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. 
Certification of Mexico at this time will only send the message that 
the United States is more than willing to give a wink and nod to 
Mexico's corruption and inadequate law enforcement. If our war on drugs 
is going to succeed, we must vigorously enforce our policies and hold 
Mexico accountable for its clear lack of cooperation in our efforts.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the 
final passage of House Joint Resolution 58, the decertification of 
Mexico. This is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, this 
is indeed an American problem. I do not think we need a resolution 
passed by the House castigating the administration's drug policy. My 
colleagues, this problem should be solved in a more constructive 
manner. I propose that we pass a sense of Congress resolution that does 
not attack the President of the United States but that is critical of 
Mexico. In the case of Mexico, it is generally estimated that the 
illegal drug trade generates $30 billion per year and the U.S. Treasury 
estimates that Mexican financial institutions launder in the 
neighborhood of $10 billion per year. It is true that at least four-
fifths of all the illicit drugs consumed in the United States are of 
foreign origin, including all the cocaine and heroin. It is also true 
that most of the cocaine is produced and transported through Mexico. 
However, the real problem is not what is going on in Mexico, but what 
is going on with the drug trade in America, and in my own 18th 
Congressional District of Houston. In 1994, 47 percent of all drug 
arestees nationwide were in the city of Houston. We must combat the 
drug problem at home and we must impress upon our Mexican neighbors 
that if they want to continue a good working relationship with the 
United States, then they must improve their enforcement of the drug 
trafficking into the United States. However, decertification in this 
case might not be the best answer. Mr. Speaker, I am calling for a 
sense of the Congress resolution that would compel Mexico to cooperate 
with the United States when it comes to extradition of major drug 
traffickers, cutting down on organized crime, and arresting and 
convicting Mexican drug lords. There are other and more constructive 
ways the Congress can act in this matter, but decertification right now 
might not be the way to go. Cutting the source of money through tougher 
money laundering laws, however should be one of our major 
considerations.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
administration's decision to certify Mexico. If we are serious abut 
combating money laundering and drug trafficking, we must help Mexico 
and keep them as our ally. They should not be expected to fight this 
war alone.
  Money laundering and narcotic trafficking are a global epidemic--not 
just Mexico's. The Mexican Government--itself--recognizes these 
activities as the principal security risk to that nation. It is up to 
us to help Mexico constructively, instead of slamming the door on a 
strong and close friend.

[[Page H981]]

  My colleagues, if we do not support the administration, we will be 
sending the wrong message to the Government of Mexico. We should make 
it clear to our neighbor that we truly intend to fight this war 
together. I urge all of you to support the administration's Mexico 
certification decision and to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the legislation to decertify Mexico, 
reflects the failed practice of legislating foreign policy. My friends, 
history has clearly demonstrated that doesn't work. This Congress has 
no authority over foreign nations and our efforts to legislate another 
country's actions will either be ignored or fan the flames of anti-
Americanism.
  The fact is that the normal diplomatic process provides the tried and 
true means to voice our concerns. Traditional actions such as 
withdrawing our Ambassador, limiting or stopping cooperation, opposing 
loan requests and a variety of other measures that impact the day-to-
day relations between nations are by far the most effective means of 
forcing other nations to consider our concerns.
  What we really should be voting on today is scraping the entire 
failed certification process. Policies, like decertification, which are 
waived once they are implemented only serve to increase contempt, while 
lessening respect, for American power. Decertification has not stopped 
the flow a single dollar's worth of drugs from Colombia and 
decertification of Mexico will prove no more effective. I represent 
well over 600 miles of our border with Mexico. I know first hand that 
our current domestic policies are not working. Too many of my 
constituents are living in fear of the drug smugglers. This must stop.
  Our Government needs to take substantive action to get more 
cooperation from Mexico. Further statements, such as decertification, 
promise only to deliver further failures in the war on drugs while 
possibly threatening the stability of the Mexican economy leading to 
increasing illegal immigration. My colleagues, please join me in 
rolling up your sleeves and do the hard work of stopping the flow of 
drugs rather than continuing the business-as-usual decertification 
approach of empty promises.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 58, and the Hastert amendment. The President failed to 
exercise good judgement when, on February 28, he certified Mexico as a 
fully cooperating ally in the war against drugs. Some 30 percent of the 
heroin, 70 percent of the marijuana, and 60 percent of the cocaine 
imported into the United States originates in or is shipped through 
Mexico.
  That fact alone demonstrates that the brave men and women of Mexico 
and Latin America who are our allies in the war against drugs face 
tremendous odds. They face corruption in their governments. The evil 
influence of drug kingpins threatens their lives, livelihoods, and 
families day after day. We should recognize the very real and personal 
sacrifices they make to fight an enemy who, by every measure, is 
stronger, richer, and more brutal than they are. All of us salute those 
allies south of the border who fight individual wars against illegal 
drugs not because the financial and professional rewards are great, but 
because they believe it is right. Though they are not Americans, they 
are fighting on behalf of our children, our families, and our country. 
We owe them a debt of gratitude.
  These allies in the war against drugs simply do not get the support 
they need from north of the border.
  The enormous global enterprise that is the illegal drug trade simply 
would not exist if there was not an available and willing American 
market to purchase its deadly product. If there was no domestic demand 
for illegal drugs, if illegal drug abuse was seen by all of us socially 
unacceptable, these international drug kingpins and their ill-gotten 
wealth would vanish.
  Unfortunately, there is a domestic market for illegal drugs. It is 
our young people.
  Among 12- to 17-year-olds, since 1992:
  Marijuana use has doubled. More importantly for our children, today's 
marijuana is far more potent than the drug abused in the 1960's.
  LSD use has climbed to record highs.
  And the number of young people who have used any illegal drug has 
risen an appalling 78 percent.
  Furthermore, while teen drug abuse has climbed the past 4 years, 
leadership in Washington has been pulling in different directions. A 
parent whose child has lost a life to drugs does not care which 
politicians bicker for partisan advantage. They want to know what has 
been done, and what needs to be done.
  What kind of leadership has President Clinton exercised in the war 
against drugs?
  In 1992, an MTV interviewer asked Bill Clinton whether he would 
``inhale'' given the chance to ``do it over again.'' Of course, we're 
talking about inhaling a marijuana joint. Bill Clinton's reply: ``Sure, 
if I could. I tried before.''
  President Clinton slashed the drug czar's office 83 percent.
  When President Clinton had a Democratic Congress, they cut Safe and 
Drug Free Schools, by $111 million in fiscal year 1994, and by an 
additional $21 million in 1995. Meanwhile, lack of oversight at the 
Department of Education gave over the program to waste and fraud. Safe 
and Drug Free Schools money was spent in Michigan on giant plastic 
teeth and toothbrushes, on the idea that kids who brush don't abuse 
drugs. In Fairfax County, it was spent on a $176,000 staff retreat, on 
Funds for Lumber for a step aerobics class, and on a field trip to Deep 
Run Lodge.
  The President's negotiating team, seeking to expand antidrug 
activities in Mexico just days before the President's 1997 
certification was due, came away from those negotiations emptyhanded--
and then recommended recertification of Mexico as an ally in the war on 
drugs.
  The President's National Security Council placed the war on drugs as 
its 29th priority out of 29--dead last on its list of national security 
priorities.
  Faced with these facts, Lee Brown, the President's drug policy 
director, wrote in 1995 about a ``troubling'' decline in drug 
prosecutions. And a senior Democratic Congressman, Charlie Rangel, who 
is very active on the drug issue, said ``I have never, never, never 
seen a President who cares less about this issue.''
  Despite the ambiguous message from the White House, Congress has 
taken decisive action in the war against drugs.
  We have provided level funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
Program, while fighting fraud and abuse. No cuts.
  We increased the drug czar's office, the DEA budget, Coast Guard 
antidrug operations, the State Department's international narcotics 
control program, the Southwest Border States Anti-drug Information 
System, and several other programs like military drug interdiction over 
the President's request.

  We are taking action against crystal meth, which is a major problem 
in California and the Southwest, and against trafficking of so-called 
roofies, otherwise known as the date-rape drug.
  Without a doubt, more must be done. The Border Patrol and the Customs 
Service should be provided additional resources, beyond the essentially 
status-quo levels in the President's budget, to fight illegal drugs at 
the border and at our ports of entry to combat the supply of illegal 
drugs. And domestic demand for illegal drugs can be reduced through 
more stringent law enforcement, random drug testing campaigns, and a 
relentless campaign of public education. No one will help our children 
better than those closest to them--their parents, pastors, neighbors, 
teachers, local police, and community leaders. When we all publicly 
agree that drugs kill, and that their use will not be tolerated, and 
repeat that message with clarity over and over and over again, only 
then will we make headway in the war on drugs.
  We cannot win the war on drugs with the Keystone Kops. The unsung 
heroes who are fighting drugs every day, in Mexico and across Latin 
America, and in homes and schools across the United States, demand a 
vote of confidence in their work. Let us take up their battle and fight 
to win.
  I am attaching two articles that Members may find of interest. The 
first outlines the Clinton administration's complete failure to 
properly advance the war on drugs in Latin America. The second is an 
op-ed I wrote last fall, making a call to arms against illegal drug 
abuse.
                                  ____
                                  

           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 12, 1997]

           U.S. Failed to Get Mexico to Reshape War on Drugs

                           (By Marcus Stern)

       Washington--Eight days before President Clinton's Feb. 28 
     decision to give Mexico's anti-drug program his seal of 
     approval, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno issued a tongue-
     lashing to Mexico Foreign Minister Jose Angel Gurria.
       The icy rebuke delivered in her stately conference room and 
     Gurria's angry reaction to it set a confrontational tone for 
     the next eight days as U.S. officials tried--and ultimately 
     failed--to wring meaningful concessions from Mexico to 
     reshape the fight against drugs.
       Mexico's refusal to grant immediate concessions could 
     influence a House vote expected this week to try to overturn 
     Clinton's controversial decision to label Mexico a 
     cooperative partner in the war on drugs.
       Throughout the week leading up to Clinton's decision, Reno 
     and other U.S. officials aggressively pushed Mexico on 
     numerous nettlesome issues, such as a broader extradition 
     policy and permission for U.S. anti-drug agents to carry guns 
     in Mexico.
       But, even though they came away empty-handed at the end of 
     the week, senior Clinton administration officials nonetheless 
     walked into the Cabinet Room of the White House on Feb. 28 
     and urged the president to certify Mexico. Those who were 
     troubled by continuing signs of corruption in Mexico, 
     including Reno, nonetheless concluded that certification was 
     the only realistic political option.

[[Page H982]]

       ``Some people thought it was the right thing to do,'' said 
     one of those in attendance, ``and some people thought it was 
     the only choice.''
       But many members of Congress are rejecting the 
     administration's view that yanking Mexico's certification 
     could jeopardize its economic recovery, undermine President 
     Ernesto Zedillo's political standing and lead to less 
     cooperation.
       With sentiment running heavily against the president, the 
     House is expected to vote this week on whether to overturn 
     Clinton's decision, and the full Senate is expected to 
     consider similar legislation as soon as next week.
       Clinton administration officials insist that no effort was 
     made to pressure Mexico into concessions in exchange for 
     certification. However, the discussions have been shrouded in 
     secrecy and confusion. Conflicting and ambiguous statements 
     have been issued by both sides about what transpired between 
     the two countries during the days leading up to the 
     president's decision.
       Unofficial accounts of the flurry of diplomatic exchanges 
     suggest that concerted efforts were made to win concessions 
     from Mexico during that period. However, the tone of the 
     exchanges became marked by confrontation rather than 
     conciliation, and by the end of the week there were no 
     signals coming from Mexican officials that they were ready to 
     consider clear concessions.
       The U.S. push for them began when Foreign Minister Gurria 
     landed in Washington on Feb. 20 for two days of talks with 
     administration officials.
       It was his first visit since U.S. officials had been 
     stunned by news that Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, the newly 
     installed coordinator of Mexico's anti-drug program, had been 
     arrested after allegations that he had maintained a long 
     association with one of Mexico's most power drug cartel 
     leaders.
       After making a stop at the State Department, Gurria headed 
     to the Justice Department for a 45-minute meeting with Reno, 
     who would play the role of the bad cop during the U.S. 
     negotiations with Gurria that week.
       ``It was not a pleasant meeting,'' said a senior Mexican 
     official. ``The attorney general was very tough. She said 
     they were very upset about the whole incident of Gutierrez 
     Rebollo. She said it turned the whole question of 
     certification upside down.''
       Reno raised a range of issues on which quick progress was 
     needed.
       ``We clearly understood them as requirements the U.S. 
     administration felt it needed either to certify or to justify 
     a decision to certify,'' the Mexican official said. ``We knew 
     there was a lot of infighting within the administration and 
     without some of these issues being resolved it was going to 
     be very difficult for them to certify us.''
       The next morning, Gurria met Clinton's drug czar, Gen. 
     Barry McCaffrey.
       ``The tone was the same,'' said a White House official. 
     ``Gen. McCaffrey expressed how extremely distraught he was 
     with what happened with Gutierrez Rebollo. He told Gurria we 
     face a problem with Congress and that progress in some areas 
     would be extremely helpful.''
       Gurria flew back to Mexico City and during the days ahead 
     he publicly warned the Clinton administration that anything 
     less than full certification would ``make us doubt whether 
     cooperating with the United States would bring anything other 
     than a lot of grief.''
       The tough rhetoric was partly a precaution to avoid public 
     impressions in Mexico that he was yielding to demands from 
     Washington, but it was also a genuine statement of his pique 
     with the pressure from U.S. officials, said officials close 
     to Gurria.
       ``I don't think he was happy with the way things were being 
     played out,'' said a senior Mexican official. ``All of his 
     statements in Mexico City are a clear indication of that.''
       At one point during the week, Gurria reportedly called Reno 
     and gave her an unusually blunt piece of his mind over the 
     pressure being applied.
       The night before Clinton was to announce his decision on 
     whether he would certify Mexico, there were still no signs 
     from Mexican officials that they intended to act on the 
     points raised by Reno, McCaffrey and others. Officials in 
     Mexico City remained in the dark about whether Mexico would 
     be certified the next day.
       Shortly after noon Feb. 28, a group of senior officials 
     filed into the White House Cabinet Room, where they soon were 
     joined by the president. Among those in the room were Reno, 
     McCaffrey, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Secretary of 
     State Madeleine Albright. She would make the official 
     recommendation to the president.
       Despite the failure to conclude any concrete agreements 
     with Mexico during the previous eight days, the president 
     accepted Albright's recommendation that he certify.
                                                                    ____


           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 24, 1996]

                A Call to Arms Against Youth Drug Abuse

                     (By Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham)

       America's young people are in danger.
       Alarming new statistics show drug use skyrocketing among 
     teen-agers. Drugs have invaded our classrooms, our homes and 
     our communities. They have destroyed promising young lives, 
     torn families apart and crushed hope. We can continue to go 
     down this destructive path, or we can act now to save our 
     children's future.
       Illustrating the depth of this crisis are reports from the 
     Department of Health and Human Services that show overall 
     drug use among 12- to 17-year-olds has increased an appalling 
     78 percent from 1992 to 1995. Among 14- and 15-year-olds, 
     marijuana use has jumped 200 percent. Use of LSD and other 
     hallucinogens has nearly tripled among young people during 
     the same time.
       In 1994, emergency-room reports of cocaine-related episodes 
     were at their highest level over. And emergency room reports 
     for methamphetamine (``meth''), a powerful and deadly drug 
     widely popular among teens in San Diego and the western 
     United States, are up a whopping 308 percent.
       These are not mere statistics. Behind every number is a 
     young person whose life has taken a dangerous turn. We must 
     take this crisis seriously. We must strengthen America's 
     families by having a real war on drugs at our borders, in our 
     communities, schools and homes. We can win this war, but only 
     with a serious commitment from everyone--parents, teachers, 
     clergy, local police, entertainers, the media, Congress and 
     the president of the United States.
       We cannot, however, win this war with the current cavalier 
     attitude toward illicit drug use. It has sent a powerful and 
     dangerous message to America's children that drugs are OK. We 
     don't need parents or society saying drugs are just a passing 
     fancy that we all go through. We don't need the entertainment 
     industry to falsely romanticize drugs in movies or TV shows. 
     And we don't need President Clinton to maintain the attitude 
     of candidate Clinton, who told teens on MTV that he would 
     inhale if he had the chance to do it again.
       What we need from our policy leaders and law enforcement is 
     a real war on drugs. We must get tough on drug dealers, fully 
     fund the war on drugs, and stop drugs at the border. We must 
     reverse the Clinton record: 80 percent cuts in the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy staff, fewer drug-enforcement 
     agents, reduced drug-interdiction efforts, declining drug 
     prosecutions, reduced mandatory-minimum sentences for drug 
     trafficking and ``soft on crime'' liberal judges.
       Congress has already begun to revitalize the drug war by 
     pumping $7.1 billion into anti-drug programs. We are going 
     right to the source, focusing our efforts on countries where 
     drugs originate. And to help halt the flow of drugs into 
     America, our immigration-reform bill doubles our Border 
     Patrol over the next five years. We also passed a law that 
     stops activist federal judges from ordering the early release 
     of violent criminals and drug traffickers. Those who would 
     peddle destruction on our children must pay dearly.
       To give states the resources and flexibility to crack down 
     to juvenile drug use and violent crime, I introduced the 
     Juvenile Crime Prevention Act. It established mandatory-
     minimum prison sentences for juveniles who use firearms 
     during drug-trafficking offenses.
       And the bill gives states the tools they need to hold youth 
     accountable for their actions before they become serious, 
     violent criminals. We recognize that if we turn troubled 
     young persons around, we give them another chance at the 
     American Dream.
       Crucial to winning the war on drugs and education and 
     community campaigns. So on Thursday, my House Subcommittee on 
     Early Childhood, Youth and Families will team up with 
     Government Reform Oversight to send a strong message to 
     Americans: Drugs kill. We will hear from health and community 
     experts on what can be done to reverse the drug crisis. And 
     we will also examine ways to marshal community leadership and 
     resources to start local anti-drug coalitions.
       Finally, I believe we must revive in word and deed the 
     simple phrase, ``Just Say No,'' coined by Nancy Reagan in the 
     1980s. While cynical elites once joked about its 
     effectiveness, I believe it played a significant role in 
     reducing drug use.
       Many successful community-based initiatives were modeled on 
     this campaign. It helped establish the mind-set among 
     America's teens that zero tolerance for drugs was ``cool,'' 
     an attitude that is in jeopardy today.
       While Washington sets a standard and provides resources to 
     fight the drug war, no one can help our children better than 
     those closest to them--parents, teachers, local law 
     enforcement and community leaders. We cannot fail our 
     children by dismissing drug use with a wink and a nod, 
     ignoring it, or slashing funds to fight it. We must meet the 
     challenge head-on. We must let our children know that drugs 
     kill, and their use will not be tolerated. Only then will we 
     be victorious.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 95, the joint resolution is considered 
read for amendment.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 58 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 58

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That pursuant 
     to subsection (d) of section 490 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), the Congress disapproves the 
     determination of the President with respect to Mexico for 
     fiscal year 1997 that is contained in the certification 
     (transmittal No. 97-18) submitted to the Congress by the 
     President under subsection (b) of that section on February 
     28, 1997.

  The Clerk will designate the committee amendment printed in the joint 
resolution.

[[Page H983]]

  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

                              H.J. Res. 58

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, 

     SECTION 1. DISAPPROVAL OF DETERMINATION OF PRESIDENT 
                   REGARDING MEXICO.

       Pursuant to subsection (d) of section 490 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), Congress 
     disapproves the determination of the President with respect 
     to Mexico for fiscal year 1997 that is contained in the 
     certification (transmittal No. 97-18) submitted to Congress 
     by the President under subsection (b) of that section on 
     February 28, 1997.

     SEC 2. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT TO WITHHOLD ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   MEXICO.

       (a) Waiver.--Notwithstanding subsections (e) and (f) of 
     section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the 
     requirement to withhold United States assistance and to vote 
     against multilateral development bank assistance contained in 
     such subsection (e) shall not apply with respect to Mexico 
     until March 1, 1998, if at any time after the date of the 
     enactment of this joint resolution, the President submits 
     to Congress a determination and certification described in 
     subsection (b) of this section.
       (b) Determination and Certification.--A determination and 
     certification described in this subsection is a determination 
     and certification consistent with section 490(b)(1)(B) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that the vital national 
     interests of the United States require that the assistance 
     withheld pursuant to section 490(e)(1) of such Act be 
     provided for Mexico and that the United States not vote 
     against multilateral development bank assistance for Mexico 
     pursuant to section 490(e)(2) of such Act.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       For purposes of section 490(d) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, this joint resolution shall be deemed to have 
     been enacted within 30 calendar days after February 28, 1997.

     SEC. 4. CONSULTATIONS WITH THE CONGRESS.

       (a) Consultations.--The President shall consult with the 
     Congress on the status of counter-narcotics cooperation 
     between the United States and each major illicit drug 
     producing country or major drug-transit country.
       (b) Purpose.--
       (1) In general.--The purpose of the consultations under 
     subsection (a) shall be to facilitate improved discussion and 
     understanding between the Congress and the President on 
     United States counter-narcotics goals and objectives with 
     regard to the countries described in subsection (a), 
     including the strategy for achieving such goals and 
     objectives.
       (2) Regular and special consultations.--In order to carry 
     out paragraph (1), the President (or senior officials 
     designated by the President who are responsible for 
     international narcotics programs and policies) shall meet 
     with Members of Congress--
       (A) on a quarterly basis for discussions and consultations; 
     and
       (B) whenever time-sensitive issues arise.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider the further 
amendment specified in House Report 105-20, as modified by the order of 
the House of today.


             amendment, as modified, offered by mr. hastert

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment, as modified.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as 
modified.
  The text of amendment, as modified, is as follows:
  Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Hastert:

       Page 2, after line 7, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS; DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       (a) General Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) International drug traffickers, aided by individuals in 
     the United States and across the Western Hemisphere who sell 
     and distribute deadly drugs, pose the largest threat to 
     Americans since the end of the Cold War.
       (2) The United States is faced with a supply of drugs that 
     is cheaper, more potent, and more available than at any time 
     in our history.
       (3) The drug cartels are becoming wealthier, bolder, and 
     closer to the United States, and their corruption of 
     officials is beginning to reach inside the United States.
       (4)(A) No single action is a sufficient response to the 
     threat posed to our society by illegal drugs.
       (B) The goal of the United States is to save our children 
     by eliminating the illegal drug trade.
       (C) The United States Government must set forth a 
     comprehensive strategy that dedicates the resources necessary 
     to decisively win the war on drugs.
       (b) Threat Drugs Pose to our Children.--The Congress 
     further finds the following:
       (1)(A) Casual teenage drug use trends have suffered a 
     marked reversal over the past 5 years. Casual teenage drug 
     use has dramatically increased for virtually every childhood 
     age group and for virtually every illicit drug, including 
     heroin, crack, cocaine hydrochloride, lysergic acid 
     diethylamide (LSD), non-LSD hallucinogens, methamphetamine, 
     inhalants, stimulants, and marijuana (often laced with 
     phencyclidine (PCP) and cocaine).
       (B) Specifically, illicit drug use among 8th and 10th 
     graders has doubled in the last 5 years. 8 percent of 6th 
     graders, 23 percent of 7th graders, and 33 percent of 8th 
     graders have tried marijuana. Since 1993, the number of 8th 
     graders using marijuana has increased 146 percent and overall 
     teen drug use is up 50 percent.
       (2) Rising casual teenage drug use is closely correlated 
     with rising juvenile violent crime, as reported by the 
     Department of Justice.
       (3) If rising teenage drug use and the close correlation 
     with violent juvenile crime continue to rise on their current 
     path, the United States will experience a doubling of violent 
     crime by 2010, according to the Department of Justice's 
     Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
       (4) The nature of casual teenage drug use is changing, such 
     that annual or infrequent teenage experimentation with 
     illegal drugs is being replaced by regular, monthly, or 
     addictive teenage drug use.
       (5) Nationwide, drug-related emergencies are at an all-time 
     high, having risen for 5 straight years by increments of 
     between 10 and 30 percentage points per year for each drug 
     measured.
       (6) The nationwide street price for most illicit drugs is 
     lower than at any time in recent years, and the potency of 
     those same drugs, particularly heroin, crack and marijuana, 
     is higher.
       (c) The Failed Antidrug Policy.--The Congress further finds 
     the following:
       (1) United States Government strategy has dramatically 
     shifted precious antidrug resources away from United States 
     priorities set in the 1980's--away from the prior emphasis on 
     drug prevention for children, drug interdiction, and 
     international source country programs.
       (2) United States Government strategy has been weak in 
     responding to statutory deadlines, has been characterized by 
     an absence of statutorily mandated measurable goals, lack of 
     effective coordination and program accountability, and often 
     untargeted and insufficient funding, from the smallest 
     agencies involved in the drug war up to and including the 
     White House Drug Policy Office.
       (3) It has been reported that United States Government 
     policy reduced the national security priority placed on 
     international drug trafficking from the top tier (number 3) 
     to the bottom tier (number 29).
       (4) United States Government policy has emphasized 
     additional funding for unproven drug treatment techniques at 
     the expense of accountable drug prevention programs that 
     effectively teach a right-wrong distinction.
       (5) The United States Government has failed to assess the 
     outcomes of $3,000,000,000 spent per year in drug 
     rehabilitation and has failed to shift resources from 
     ineffective programs to programs that save lives.
       (6) United States Government policy has not offered 
     sufficient flexibility to local and State law enforcement 
     agencies to combat drug abuse through measures such as 
     additional block grant funding.
       (7) United States Government strategy has not properly 
     emphasized the important, increased role that can 
     legitimately be played by the National Guard, the United 
     States military, and United States intelligence agencies in 
     confronting the rising drug trafficking threat.
       (8) United States Government strategy underemphasizes 
     community and parental actions and the need to engage 
     children at an early age in prevention activities.
       (9) For the past four years, United States Government 
     strategy has failed to use the media to communicate a 
     consistent, intense antidrug message to young people.
       (d) Declaration of Policy.--The Congress declares that--
       (1) a thorough review of the United States counternarcotics 
     strategy is urgently needed; and
       (2) the establishment of a commission on international 
     narcotics control in accordance with section 6 will assist in 
     such review.
       Page 2, line 8, strike ``section 1'' and insert ``sec. 2''.
       Page 2, line 10, strike ``Pursuant to'' and insert ``(a) In 
     General.--Pursuant to''.
       Page 2, line 11, insert before ``Congress'' the following: 
     ``effective 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     joint resolution''.
       Page 2, after line 16, insert the following:
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not take effect if, 
     within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this joint 
     resolution, the President determines and reports in writing 
     to the Congress that the President has obtained reliable 
     assurances of substantial progress toward--
       (1) obtaining authorization from the Government of Mexico 
     to allow additional agents of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, or other United States law enforcement agents 
     (as of February 28, 1997), for critical narcotics control 
     operations in Mexico, including authorization of appropriate 
     privileges and immunities for such agents;
       (2) obtaining authorization from the Government of Mexico 
     to allow United States law enforcement agents in Mexico to 
     carry firearms for self-defense in areas where required to 
     cooperate with the Government of Mexico on narcotics control 
     efforts;
       (3) obtaining assurances of substantial progress by, and 
     commitments from, the

[[Page H984]]

     Government of Mexico that the Government will take concrete 
     measures to find and eliminate law enforcement corruption in 
     Mexico and will cooperate fully with United States law 
     enforcement personnel on narcotics control matters;
       (4) obtaining assurances of substantial progress by, and 
     commitments from, the Government of Mexico that the 
     Government will extradite Mexican nationals wanted by the 
     United States Government for drug trafficking and other drug-
     related offenses;
       (5) obtaining assurances from the Government of Mexico that 
     the Government is making substantial progress in securing 
     aircraft overflight and refueling rights that are necessary 
     for full cooperation with the United States on narcotics 
     control efforts, including adequate aircraft radar coverage 
     to monitor and detect all aircraft entering and transiting 
     through Mexico that are suspected of involvement in drug 
     trafficking; and
       (6) obtaining assurances from the Government of Mexico that 
     the Government is making substantial progress toward a 
     permanent maritime agreement with the United States to allow 
     vessels of the United States Coast Guard and other 
     appropriate vessels to halt and hold drug traffickers pursued 
     into Mexican waters.
       Page 2, line 17, strike ``sec. 2'' and insert ``sec. 3''.
       Page 3, line 12, strike ``sec. 3'' and insert ``sec. 4''.
       Page 3, line 17, strike ``sec. 4'' and insert ``sec. 5''.
       Page 4, after line 12, add the following:

     SEC. 6. HIGH LEVEL COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS 
                   CONTROL.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The consumption of narcotics in the United States is a 
     serious problem that is ravaging the United States, 
     especially America's youth.
       (2) Despite the dedicated and persistent efforts of the 
     United States and other nations, international narcotics 
     trafficking and consumption remains a serious problem.
       (3) The total eradication of international narcotics 
     trafficking requires a long-term strategy that necessitates 
     close international cooperation.
       (4) The annual certification process relating to 
     international narcotics control under section 490 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) is flawed 
     because--
       (A) the process addresses only whether or not the source 
     country is cooperating with United States narcotics control 
     efforts and does not take into account all underlying 
     factors;
       (B) the process reviews narcotics control efforts only on 
     an annual basis; and
       (C) the process fails to account for the divergent 
     economic, political, and social circumstances of countries 
     under review which can influence the decision by the United 
     States to decertify a foreign nation, thereby leading to 
     unpredictability, non-transparency, and lack of international 
     credibility in the process.
       (5) The problem of international narcotics trafficking is 
     not being effectively addressed by the annual certification 
     process under section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j).
       (b) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the High Level Commission on International Narcotics 
     Control (hereinafter referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (c) Duties.--The Commission shall conduct a review of the 
     annual certification process relating to international 
     narcotics control under section 490 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) to determine the effectiveness 
     of such process in curtailing international drug trafficking, 
     and the effectiveness of such process in reducing drug use 
     and consumption within the United States.
       (d) Membership.--
       (1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall consist 
     of 14 members, as follows:
       (A) The Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee.
       (B) The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's 
     designee.
       (C) The Attorney General or the Attorney General's 
     designee.
       (D) The Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy or the Director's designee.
       (E) The Governors of the States of Arizona, California, New 
     Mexico, and Texas, or their designees.
       (F) The following Members of Congress appointed not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this joint 
     resolution as follows:
       (i)(I) 2 Members of the House of Representatives appointed 
     by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       (II) 1 member of the House of Representatives appointed by 
     the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (ii)(I) 2 Members of the Senate appointed by the majority 
     leader of the Senate.
       (II) 1 member of the Senate appointed by the minority 
     leader of the Senate.
       (2) Terms.--Each member of the Commission shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission.
       (3) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (4) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall 
     be elected by the members.
       (5) Basic pay.--Each member shall serve without pay. Each 
     member shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in 
     lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 
     5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (6) Quorum.--A majority of the members shall constitute a 
     quorum for the transaction of business.
       (7) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson.
       (e) Director and Staff; Experts and Consultants.--
       (1) Director.--The Commission shall have a director who 
     shall be appointed by the chairperson subject to rules 
     prescribed by the Commission.
       (2) Staff.--Subject to rules prescribed by the Commission, 
     the chairperson may appoint and fix the pay of such 
     additional personnel as the chairperson considers 
     appropriate.
       (3) Applicability of certain civil service laws.--The 
     director and staff of the Commission may be appointed without 
     regard to title 5, United States Code, governing appointments 
     in the competitive service, and may be paid without regard to 
     the requirements of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 
     53 of such title relating to classification and General 
     Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so appointed 
     may not receive pay in excess of the maximum annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (4) Experts and consultants.--The chairperson may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals not to 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (5) Staff of federal agencies.--Upon request of the 
     chairperson, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of the agency to the 
     Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its 
     duties.
       (f) Powers.--
       (1) Obtaining official data.--The chairperson may secure 
     directly from any Federal agency information necessary to 
     enable the Commission to carry out its duties. Upon request 
     of the chairperson, the head of the agency shall furnish such 
     information to the Commission to the extent such information 
     is not prohibited from disclosure by law.
       (2) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.
       (3) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the chairperson, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its duties.
       (4) Contract authority.--The chairperson may contract with 
     and compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     the purpose of conducting research, surveys, and other 
     services necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its 
     duties.
       (g) Reports.--
       (1) Interim report.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this joint resolution, the Commission 
     shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress an 
     interim report on the following:
       (A) The overall effectiveness of the annual certification 
     process relating to international narcotics control under 
     section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C 
     2291j) in curtailing international drug trafficking.
       (B) The impact of such annual certification process in 
     enhancing international counternarcotics cooperation.
       (C) The transparency and predictability of such annual 
     certification process in curtailing international drug 
     trafficking.
       (D) Recommendations for actions that are necessary--
       (i) to eliminate international narcotics trafficking;
       (ii) to improve cooperation among countries in efforts to 
     curtail international narcotics trafficking, including 
     necessary steps to identify all areas in which inter-American 
     cooperation can be initiated and institutionalized; and
       (iii) to improve the transparency and predictability of the 
     annual certification process relating to international 
     narcotics control under section 490 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j).
       (E) Any additional measures to win the war on drugs.
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this joint resolution, the Commission shall 
     prepare and submit to the President and the Congress a final 
     report that, at a minimum, contains the following:
       (A) Information that meets the requirements of the 
     information described in the initial report under paragraph 
     (1) and that has been updated since the date of the 
     submission of the interim report, as appropriate.
       (B) Any other related information that the Commission 
     considers to be appropriate.
       (h) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 6 months 
     after the date on which the Commission submits its final 
     report under subsection (g)(2).
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

[[Page H985]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 95, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and a Member opposed, each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and certainly the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for the fine 
work that they have done on this issue.
  Let me say that my amendment, first of all, does not change the 
decertification of Mexico. What we do is to stay that decertification 
for 90 days. What we are trying to say is there has got to be a 
commonsense approach with our Government, who is not without fault, 
certainly, in the drug program, we have the demand problems and, 
certainly, with the Government of Mexico who I do not think anybody can 
argue that they have fully cooperated over the years and deserve 
certification.
  What we are saying is that our President and our State Department 
reach out to the people of Mexico and the President of Mexico to get, 
over a 90-day period, assurances of substantial progress in several 
areas, several areas such as our law enforcement agents being able to 
work in Mexico and being able to defend themselves, assurances that 
Mexico does not become a safe haven for dangerous drug felons who 
commit crimes. We need to be able to, both countries, get the 
extradition agreements that we need to have.
  We need to get vital antidrug radars in place in the south of Mexico. 
That needs to happen. We need to get permanent maritime agreements to 
stop drug traffickers who are skirting our law enforcement agencies and 
duck into Mexican waters. Twenty out of twenty six countries in the 
Caribbean have that agreement.
  And we need to get concrete progress on rooting out corruption, not 
only on our side of the border but also on the Mexican side of the 
border. That needs to happen.
  Who benefits from this? Is it the Mexican Government? No. Is it our 
Government? No. But let me tell Members about my district.
  I have the cities of Aurora and Elgin, IL. Aurora, IL, where my 
brother teaches in junior high, has had one of his Mexican American 
children, Hispanic children killed this year by narcotics traffickers, 
shot down in the streets next to his home. Why? Because the drugs come 
across our borders. It is not just American kids who get killed. It is 
kids that are of a Hispanic origin, American and Mexican origins. We 
need to work together to solve the problem.
  People have said that this whole issue of certification is flawed. We 
need to have a commission to take a look at it and find a commonsense 
way to treat it. This amendment is a commonsense way that our 
Government can work together, that we stay the decertification for 90 
days, that we find a way to solve the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. Is the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton] opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, let me say that what we are faced with 
here is a diversion from Hershey. We have great discussions about 
bipartisanship and rather than dealing with the responsibilities that 
are before us, we take up the campaign rhetoric over the debate on how 
to proceed internally in this country on the issue of fighting drugs. A 
legitimate issue, we ought to take it up.
  You are in the majority. Bring a bill to the floor that provides a 
new drug policy. But the challenge before the Congress, as it came from 
the Committee on International Relations, is a challenge that has to 
deal with the issue of whether or not we feel that our Mexican neighbor 
has met the requirements in laws established in this Congress to deal 
with fighting of drugs and fighting the shipment of drugs and the 
operations in the drug industry.
  When we look at the bottom of page 3, page 4 and page 5, we are not 
dealing with Mexican certification. We are taking the Dole campaign 
language or some variation on it. We are going after the Clinton 
administration. You may want to go after the Clinton administration and 
maybe you ought to be after the Clinton administration on drug policy. 
Maybe you have differences.

                              {time}  1430

  That is not what we ought to be doing here today. What we ought to do 
here today is fulfill our responsibilities. There are some people here 
that say the Mexicans have tried, they maybe have not made it, but it 
would be very damaging to reject the Mexicans altogether.
  Some of us on the Committee on International Relations understand the 
pressure the President was under to help a President of Mexico he was 
working with, and he certified them. Some other people, myself 
included, joined with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] to say, 
``Maybe they tried but they haven't met the law and we don't think 
they've met certification, they haven't really fulfilled their 
responsibility, but we think it is in the vital national interest to 
continue to work with the Mexicans.''
  That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about 
bashing the administration. That is a great sideshow. But we ought to 
make a decision here. If we are going to have speeches about 
bipartisanship, about sticking to the substance, then we ought to do 
it. There are legitimate positions to argue here. Some people argue, 
``Certify them, they're trying, they've lost lots of police officers, 
they're making an effort and this would hurt the Mexican Government if 
we don't do it.''
  Some feel, ``Yes, you've made an effort, you haven't met the law, we 
ought to use our vital national interests of both countries to 
certify.'' That is not what this amendment is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle to reject 
this amendment if we want to do the work we were sent here to do. If we 
want to play politics and rerun the Presidential campaign, then vote 
for this amendment. If we want to deal with the national policies on 
how we fight drugs here in more than political rhetoric, bring the bill 
forward, bring the budget forward. If we want to deal with the 
responsibilities we have, then let us deal with this issue in the way 
it was meant to be dealt with.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert]. He has worked long and hard 
in the fight against illicit narcotics from abroad.
  Staying the effect of decertification for 90 days until we see 
evidence presented by the President of increased Mexican cooperation in 
fighting drugs is a sound idea.
  Extraditions of Mexican nationals on real drug charges so that they 
can stand trial here in the United States, maritime boarding 
agreements, and the effective assignment of more DEA agents to Mexico; 
these are significant efforts forward. They can seriously help fight 
the war on drugs along our long Mexican border to the South.
  For far too long, the administration has been satisfied with business 
as usual in this serious drug situation with Mexico, and glossed over 
it with high-level official photo ops, while these items languished 
unresolved.
  No more. Congress wants to see real, concrete action by the 
administration to bring about real change in stemming the flow of 
nearly 50 to 60 percent of the illicit drugs coming to our Nation 
across Mexico, and later destroying our kids.
  For those critics who might say nothing works, and the United States 
demand is the major factor in the crisis of drugs, let me remind them 
of a little recent history.
  Not long ago, this nation was able to reduce monthly cocaine use by 
nearly 80 percent during a sustained period from 1985 to 1992. We went 
from 5.8 million monthly cocaine users down to just 1.3 million cocaine 
users, each month. Few Federal programs can point to such success.

[[Page H986]]

  Nancy Reagan's ``Just Say No'' policy, combined with tough 
eradication, interdiction, and strong law enforcement on the supply 
side, along with education, treatment, and rehabilitation on the demand 
side, worked.
  The administration needs to get back to basics.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Hastert amendment to 
House Joint Resolution 58.
  Let's send a message both to this administration and to the Mexican 
Government that the American people have spoken, enough is enough. Let 
our children and our future generations not have to endure the scourge 
of illicit drugs from abroad.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman] who is well noted for his work on both supply and 
demand reduction in this country.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am rising today because I am in strong support of this 
approach, the Hastert amendment. I think it is a balanced and 
reasonable approach. As the gentleman said, I have been involved in 
this issue, actually not on the supply side, on the demand side. I have 
focused more on prevention, on education, on trying to help in our 
communities to change kids' attitudes so they do not do drugs, trying 
to make a real difference in reversing what is a very tragic trend 
around our country of younger and younger kids using drugs more and 
more.
  One thing I like about this amendment is I do not think it does point 
the finger at Mexico. Let me read something in the amendment. It 
clearly states in the findings, ``No single action is a sufficient 
response to the threat posed to our society by illegal drugs.'' It goes 
on. It talks about the need to emphasize in our drug control policy 
prevention, education, community action, parents, getting our parents 
to talk to their kids about the dangers of drug abuse, why it is wrong. 
If we do that, we are really going to make a difference. I do not think 
anything is more important.
  But this fight also needs to be fought at every level. How can we say 
we are really serious about fighting the drug war if, in the face of 
all the evidence we have, we simply certify Mexico? It just does not 
make any sense.
  It does not need to be partisan, it should be bipartisan, but how can 
we in our communities push this, do everything we can in Congress? And 
I was just testifying on the bill we have got before a subcommittee on 
the community side of this thing. We need to do more, all of us, both 
sides of the aisle. And Congress needs to do more.
  But how can we with any legitimacy be out there pushing this drug war 
and then say Mexico deserves certification? They cannot get a clean 
bill of health. It just does not make sense.
  Instead we need to do something reasonable. I think this is 
reasonable. We do not decertify Mexico. Instead we give the President 
90 days. We say the President can work with Mexico for 90 days on 6 
what I think are very tangible, very concrete and legitimate concerns. 
If the President works with Mexico during this 90-day period, 
certification can result. The effort to reduce drugs in this country, 
the future of our kids, is too important for us not to do all we can to 
get Mexico to do the right thing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise both 
Members that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has the right to 
close on this amendment.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, in the years that I have been in Congress, I cannot 
think of one time that I have disagreed with the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] on a 
question having to do with the war on drugs. Both of these gentlemen 
have been in the forefront of every worthwhile project. And I must say, 
in looking at the amendment that has been filed and that is before the 
House at this time, that the 6 points are very well thought out and 
should be in this bill.
  However, going on to the second provision in the bill, we find what 
for many of our Democrat friends will be a poison pill. It is 
unnecessary. It does not add to the meaning of the bill and it should 
not be part of this particular bill. I regret that it is in there, and 
therefore I must reluctantly oppose this particular amendment.
  I think it is time for us to build an alliance on what we agree upon 
and not try to, when we find that we are coming together on an issue 
and working on such an important issue, with Democrats and Republicans 
working together and building an alliance, we should not trample on 
that alliance by putting something into an amendment that is going to 
be a difficult poison pill for our friends on the Democrat side to 
swallow. Therefore, I disagree with this particular provision within 
the amendment.
  I think it is vitally important, and I would speak now to my 
Republican side, it is vitally important that we come out of this 
particular session and this vote with a huge majority. We need to send 
a message down to the Senate that we are serious about what we are 
talking about on decertification.
  We need as many on the Democrat side as we can possible get. It is a 
difficult vote for them voting to override the certification that the 
Democrat President has placed upon Mexico. Let us not make it tougher. 
Let us work together.
  These 6 points, I am confident that they add so much to the bill that 
they will end up in the bill that will finally come back after the 
conference, because it is a good amendment until you get to the poison 
pill. But we do not have the ability here to separate the amendment. We 
do not have the ability under the rule to separate out that particular 
portion. But we do have the ability in conference to put back the good, 
sound thinking of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] on the part 
of the amendment that really makes sense and has substance to it.
  Therefore, I would ask that the Republicans look at this as a chance 
to build bridges to the other side and to build on this alliance. Drug 
policy has never been and should not be a partisan issue. We will have 
plenty of times to talk about the record of Mr. Clinton as far as the 
drug issue. As a Republican, I cannot say that anything I disagree with 
is in the bill, but this is no place for it. It should not be in this 
amendment. Therefore, I ask all the members to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair how much time do I have 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are here, of course, is that last 
month Mexican President Zedillo had a tough decision to make and he 
made it. The arrest of General Gutierrez at the same time makes it 
impossible for us today to say that Mexico has met the standard in our 
statute that would permit us to certify them as fully cooperating in 
the war on drugs. That is because, according to our own administrator 
of the Drug Enforcement Administration, General Gutierrez's damage, the 
damage that he did to ongoing operations in the United States and in 
Mexico, was so serious that it ranks with the damage caused to our 
international intelligence operations by admitted spy Aldrich Ames. The 
conditions in the law have not been met, and we cannot certify. And yet 
the President has already done so.
  There is some talk on the floor of the need for bipartisanship, but 
every Democrat and every Republican on the committee that sent this 
bill to the floor, even though there was unanimity, found himself or 
herself in direct opposition to the Clinton administration because the 
President and the administration have already certified Mexico even 
though all of us agree that is wrong.
  If, therefore, the committee bill is passed, we have this inexorable 
result. Not only will the Senate not take it up, and we know that our 
colleagues in the other body have told us that nothing will come of 
this if we pass it unamended, but the President will ignore it, and the 
committee itself put a waiver in it which if somehow this

[[Page H987]]

were to become law, the President would exercise. So after a lot of 
sound and fury and possibly injury to our bilateral relations with 
Mexico, we would have accomplished precisely nothing. But with this 
considered amendment, we have an opportunity to do significantly more 
than nothing. We have an opportunity to take the decertification 
process, itself a blunt instrument, and make it a more delicate one, 
one that will encourage both the United States and Mexico to redouble 
their efforts in the war on drugs. Our goal should be not simply to 
decertify Mexico as a partner in the war on drugs but in fact to fully 
certify them, to bring them to the point where they are in compliance 
and to bring the United States efforts up to par where we will not have 
to admit honestly to ourselves that drug use among adults has gone up 
every year in this country since 1992, the first sustained increase 
since the 1970s; where we will have to no longer admit to ourselves 
that marijuana use among teens is doubling.
  We and Mexico both have steps that we must take. By decertifying, as 
this amendment will do, because it leaves the committee bill intact in 
that respect, and staying that for 90 days during which time the 
administration of President Clinton and the administration of President 
Zedillo can work and take positive, constructive steps to satisfy our 
concerns that cause us now to say we cannot certify, we will have done 
far more, both in fighting the war on drugs and for improving our 
relations with Mexico.
  Our goal should not be in the end even to have Mexico as a fully 
certified partner in the drug war, but to have Mexico as a full partner 
in all matters, civil, societal, cultural, defense, and national 
security. They should be our close ally. Many people in Mexico intend 
for that indeed to be our relationship.
  The arrest of General Gutierrez and the exposure of all the damage he 
caused is the reason we are here today. Let us make sure that this is 
an opportunity for us to move forward and not a permanent setback.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I think we have the right to close. We 
have only one other speaker here. I believe they have time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] 
has 1 minute remaining and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] 
has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague from Illinois for allowing me this 
opportunity to close the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I was down in Mexico last weekend when the headlines 
appeared in the newspaper and President Zedillo said that the 
sovereignty of Mexico was at stake. What became apparent to me is that 
this country (Mexico) would react very unfavorably to a motion to 
decertify. I think the motion that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hastert] has outlined is an able compromise that we should all get 
behind, particularly on this side of the aisle. For those Members who 
are considering that this is not a compromise, it is a compromise, 
because we could get something that could be much more damaging to 
economic progress in Mexico and to their feeling that their integrity 
is being questioned. There is no doubt we could improve our 
relationships, improve our drug programs between the two countries. We 
need to improve our drug program here too. So I pose this question to 
all my colleagues. How does the money get from the people who use drugs 
here in the United States back to the Mexican drug cartels? Does the 
United States not have a level of responsibility here? These are huge 
sums of money, billions of dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I honestly think the best solution is to vote for the 
Hastert amendment.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First let me say a word of appreciation to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the House International Relations 
Committee. He has cooperated with me and with the minority throughout 
this process and I am deeply grateful to him. I think the work product 
of the committee is still the best option before us, and he deserves a 
lot of credit for that. Second, although I am not able to support the 
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], I recognize 
that he has tried very hard to build a consensus on a critical issue, 
he has done it in a very nice manner, and I want to let him know that I 
appreciate his willingness to talk with me and try to develop a 
consensus.

                              {time}  1445

  I am not able, however, to support the Hastert amendment. Before I 
mention specifically the reasons, I think it is important to recognize 
in this debate that there really are a lot of areas of agreement. 
Debate tends to emphasize the areas of disagreement.
  We all want to stop drugs flowing into this country. We all know we 
need the cooperation of the Mexican Government in order to stop the 
flow. We all know we are wrestling here with a difficult law in many 
respects. We are applying a present law here more than we are drafting 
a new law, and that law puts us in some difficult positions.
  There are two reasons I think why I cannot support the Hastert 
amendment. One of them is that I really think it is highly partisan and 
will not permit us to adopt a bipartisan posture which I think is most 
important here. In many ways the amendment is a vehicle for criticizing 
the President's drug policy.
  I do not need to quote a lot of things here, but it talks about the 
U.S. Government strategy being weak, it talks about our policy reducing 
the national security policies, it talks about supporting unproven drug 
treatment techniques, and in general has a pretty strong attack against 
the President. I think it ensures that the President would not be able 
to sign it, and that means the amendment that we are debating and 
discussing and will vote on in just a few minutes will not be enacted 
into law.

  I say to my colleagues, ``If you adopt the Hastert amendment, you 
abandon the opportunity we have had under the bill reported by Chairman 
Gilman for a clear bipartisan message to the world about the 
seriousness with which the Members of Congress on both sides of the 
aisle consider narcotics.''
  Now, second, I want to say on the substance of the Hastert amendment 
that I think it puts President Zedillo in a real box. The U.S. national 
interest here is clear. We want to stop the flow of drugs through 
Mexico to the United States, we have got to have the cooperation of 
Mexico, but what this does is to require the President to report to the 
Congress in 90 days that he has obtained reliable assurances and 
substantial progress toward 6 critical areas of United States-Mexican 
cooperation on counternarcotics.
  I want to remind my colleagues that 90 days from now we have national 
elections in Mexico. The United States congressional decertification 
debate has generated a nationalist fury in Mexico, and we can be sure 
that no one in Mexico, and especially not the President, will be able 
to advance these critical initiatives without being accused of 
conspiring with the United States to infringe on Mexican sovereignty. 
What we do here is we put President Zedillo, I think, in a box by 
detailing the demands for Mexico in this amendment, and he simply 
cannot be seen, especially in these next 90 days, as capitulating to a 
long list of American demands. And during that 90-day period we put him 
in the spotlight, and anything that he does to cooperate with the 
United States will be revoked and criticized by opposition politicians 
and by nationalists within his own party. And so I think we threaten 
the prospect of cooperation.
  Let me urge if we defeat Hastert, then we will vote immediately on 
the committee product, and I urge that course.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time having expired, 
pursuant to House Resolution 95 the previous question is ordered on the 
joint resolution and on the pending amendments.
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H988]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 205, answered ``present'' 9, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 46]

                               YEAS--212

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--9

     Becerra
     Filner
     Gutierrez
     Lofgren
     Ortiz
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Torres
     Velazquez

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clayton
     Etheridge
     Kingston
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Price (NC)
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1507

  Messrs, KIND, CLEMENT, and MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SHUSTER, GILLMOR, PARKER, BILBRAY, and DAN SCHAEFER of 
Colorado changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 46, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 195, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 47]

                               AYES--229

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings

[[Page H989]]


     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clayton
     Dellums
     Etheridge
     Harman
     Kingston
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Payne
     Price (NC)

                              {time}  1525

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. HAMILTON moves to recommit the joint resolution, House 
     Joint Resolution 58, to the Committee on International 
     Relations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251, 
noes 175, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               AYES--251

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--175

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clayton
     Conyers
     Etheridge
     Kingston
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Price (NC)

                              {time}  1546

  Mr. DICKS, and Mr. STRICKLAND changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________