[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.
____________________