[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H778-H784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OUR BATTLE AGAINST ILLEGAL NARCOTICS IN THIS COUNTRY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I and others tonight will be using most of
this hour to talk about the drug issue and our battle against illegal
narcotics in this country, but I wanted to take a few moments at the
beginning here to kind of put some of the other issues in context.
For the last hour we have heard from the Blue Dog coalition, and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) put an offer on the table that I
think we should consider in the weeks and months to come, and that is
to use some of this special order time, perhaps each splitting some of
our time, to have an honest discussion and frank discussion about how
we can actually work through and address some of these Social Security
tax cuts and those issues. But I wanted to make a few comments based
off of what I have been listening to for the last hour in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, that is, I think, there is still some, and first let me
pay tribute to most of the Blue Dog Coalition. It has had a strong
track record here of working towards a balanced budget. Sometimes I
wonder if they are called the Blue Dogs because they have turned blue
holding their breath waiting for the President and most of their party
to agree with them. But the bulk, the truth, is that a number of them
have joined with the Republicans indeed to have a bipartisan effort
since 1995 to rein in what is now an at least annual surplus. It is, as
was mentioned by my colleagues across the aisle, an artificial surplus.
We really do not have a surplus because we have not accounted for the
Social Security Trust Fund.
Former Congressman Neumann, a fellow member of the class of 1994, put
a budget in front of this Congress numerous times which many of us
voted for that would have taken Social Security off and provided the
tax cuts and lived within the balanced budget amendment, but if you
make every current program protected and then argue against tax cuts,
you are taking a bunch off the table.
Now we have to be able to work through here because part of the
reason we finally achieved an annual surplus is because for the first
time we actually proved that the Reaganomics theory worked, and that
combination is if you cut taxes but slow the growth of spending below
the rate of the growth of the economy plus inflation, you, in fact,
will at least wind up with annual surpluses.
Now it is a legitimate question of at what point do we replace them
out from the Social Security Trust Fund, and how fast, and how do we
invest that. Does it go in the market? Does it go back to individuals
to invest? Do we put it in certain types of bonds? And we need to work
that through because now, because of the combination of controlling
spending and the tax cuts that this Congress and the past Congress
implemented, we have economic growth without at least targeted tax
cuts.
And let me make one other comment here. Sometimes the other side
loves straw men. There was a proposal never formally proposed but a
number of individuals were debating for 10 percent across the board. It
has been stated in the media, and it is certainly the opinion of most
of our conference, that that is not going to have enough votes to pass
and, in fact, was never adopted by our conference nor put forth as a
Republican position. That is a straw man. Perhaps it will be, but we
have not had a vote on that yet. It is unlikely that that will be in
the budget or a Republican position.
We will probably, however, have some tax cuts. Without tax cuts such
as capital gains cuts or other inheritance tax changes or investment
tax
[[Page H779]]
changes, you will not have the economic growth to sustain the surpluses
that keep Social Security going.
If you do not have the economic growth in the high-paying jobs, we
will not have the FICA taxes with which to do that. It is both sides of
the coin have to work.
How do we keep enough money in investment and in businesses and in
individual's hands plus so we stimulate the growth plus control the
spending so that there is enough money there when baby boomers like
myself, and I am sorry to say, turning 49 this summer, I have no hope
right now of seeing Social Security unless we can combine economic
growth with spending.
Earlier this afternoon we also heard from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce of which I am a part. There is no question. Not only we are
looking at Social Security in tax cuts as a primary problem for this
country in sustaining economic growth but how to improve the quality of
education. Because if we are going to compete internationally, if we
are going to have good jobs in Indiana and Florida and in Texas and all
over this country, we need to have the premier education system in the
world. How much of that is the Federal role, State role or local role
we are going to debate.
I favor ed flex, giving more flexibility to the local levels, but
through the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce you are going to see
innovative proposals coming out as we look at the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and for creative things there.
You have also been hearing over this week and you will hear in the
weeks to come about the devastating decline in our national defense,
particularly our missile systems, and we are going to have to address
that in our budget because we have been wandering around for good
humanitarian purposes with our troops all over the world, but that puts
a tremendous squeeze on our readiness in our military.
Furthermore, we have not kept up with these terrorist groups, these
rogue nations, whether it is Bin Laden, whether it is Iraq, whether it
is who knows who with some kind of chemical, biological and nuclear
weapon. It is not just the communists any more that we have to worry
about with that threat to the United States, it is all sorts of
terrorist groups. So we are going to be looking at national defense.
But without a doubt at the grassroots level every single person in
this country knows that back home they are facing rising crime and this
pressure in crime. Yes, we have had decline in homicides in some cities
and up in other cities, but when you are at home and you are on the
street, you know that drug and alcohol abuse has put your family at
risk, your kids at risk, you at risk driving down the highway, whether
it is your kids at school, whether it is trying to go to the mall or go
to the parking lot at a mall, regardless where you are in America,
whether it is a rural area, whether it is a small town, whether it is a
suburban area.
Here on the Washington TV last night we are hearing about a rapist
who is out there threatening numbers of people. In my hometown, in Ft.
Wayne, we have had numerous articles in the last week on the drug and
alcohol abuse related things. There is no question that this problem is
everywhere. Let me share you with a few statistics:
From 1993 to 1997 youth ages 12 to 17 that used illegal drugs has
more than doubled 120 percent, and there has been a 27 percent increase
between 1996 and 1997 alone.
Now the key variable there was youth between 12 and 17, because the
drop in crime and the drop in drug uses we are seeing is among older
individuals, but we have a rising problem among our younger generation
that has not gotten the message on usage. That is from the 1998
National Household Survey.
In 1999, a study shows that over the past 10 years, fueled by illegal
drugs and alcohol, the number of abused and neglected children has more
than doubled, from 1.4 million in 1986 to more than 3 million in 1997.
That is consistent in this study. We hear at every county from the
prosecutors, from the sheriffs, that 70 to 85 percent; it varies by
county; of all crime including child abuse, including spouse abuse,
including neglect as well as traditional drug and alcohol related
crimes are related to drug and alcohol.
The 1997 Dawn Report said that between 1992 and 1997 drug related
emergency room episodes nationwide increased 25 percent, and they
increased 7 percent between 1996 and 1997.
The 1998 National Household Survey said the overall number of past
month heroin users increased 378 percent from 1993 to 1997, and we
particularly had that heroin risk heightened in certain areas,
including the chairman's area we will hear from in a minute in Florida.
One other comment on heroin. When I was in Miami with the Coast
Guard, they have machines now that can take your, and usually I do not
have a 20, but actually I have a 20 and take your money through and
test it to see if there are traces of drugs on this that can be up to 2
years old. They took a 20 from my billfold and, admittedly, even though
I got this 20 from an ATM machine in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, it could have
come from somewhere else. But they ran it through the machine to see if
my $20 bill, and you need to know I have never even smoked or I have
inhaled because other people smoke, but I have never even smoked a
cigarette, yet alone marijuana, heroin or cocaine, but on my $20 bill
from Ft. Wayne they not only found cocaine, they found heroin.
{time} 1730
Heroin has soared in every part of the country as a high risk drug.
I see we have also been joined by the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations and I will yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), our distinguished chairman, who has been not only since
we have taken the majority a leader in international efforts through
drug prevention, through interdiction and eradication but, before that,
with the Republican leader on the Narcotics Special Committee and has
been a crusader against illegal drugs for his whole career here in
Washington, D.C. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) for yielding, and I want to commend him for his continual
efforts and commitment to our war on drugs. I want to compliment the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for taking the time to discuss some
recent success stories on fighting drugs.
Too often we hear nothing but the voices of doom and gloom and
despair. The other morning, when we were at a meeting that was arranged
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and our Senate narcotics
caucus committee, Mr. Bennett was there, our former drug czar, and he
leaned over and said what we should be doing is focusing attention on
some of the success stories and some of the victories that we have had.
Too often, of course, we hear only the doom and gloom stories and it
is time we did focus, and we are making some progress in many areas. We
must fight this scourge of narcotics, both on the supply and demand
side and we have to do that simultaneously, without emphasis of one to
the detriment of the other.
Too many voices that we often hear say nothing can be done, and
therefore we should throw in the towel. Why do not we just legalize it?
We have all heard that too often. Of course, that is all wrong and that
is not the way to go.
The five major battle fronts in the real war on drugs include
reduction of supply through eradication at its source and providing
alternative crops to replace the illicit coca or opium use for drug
production.
Secondly, interdiction of the drugs once they have left the source
nation before those drugs can reach our shorelines and destroy our
communities and impact our young people.
Third, strong law enforcement, once these drugs reach our shorelines,
to be able to arrest, to prosecute and lock up the drug dealers who
traffic in these deadly substances.
Then in addition to that, educating to reduce demand as well supply
by educating our young people on the dangers of drugs so we can prevent
them ever from using drugs in the first place. Teach them that drugs
are not just recreational; they are deadly.
[[Page H780]]
Finally, treatment and rehabilitation of those who have become
addicted so that we can help restore them as productive members of our
society. We have to do all of those at the same time and not neglect
one for the other.
When we fought the war on drugs that way, along with President Reagan
and the First Lady, Nancy Reagan, she told us just say no, taught us
about the just say no policy, between 1985 and 1992 we reduced monthly
cocaine use by nearly 80 percent here in our own country, results that
very few Federal programs can point to today.
Around the world, things in many places are going equally as well.
For example, today in Peru we have a 56 percent reduction in coca leaf
production in just 3 years; 56 percent reduction. Poor Peruvian coca
farmers are walking away from their coca fields in droves since the
price has fallen below the cost of production. Those results flow from
a no nonsense policy adopted by the administration in Peru of shooting
down planes that carry illicit coca base for coca production in nearby
Colombia.
Another example, in Bolivia, the story is the same. A government
committed to eliminating coca production in just a few years has cut
production by nearly 20 percent.
In Colombia, another one of the Latin American producers of drugs,
under the outstanding leadership of General Jose Serrano of the
Colombian National Police, nearly 70,000 hectares of coca were
eradicated last year, 70,000 hectares eradicated despite the lack of
proper equipment, especially helicopters that have been so sorely
needed.
In one port city alone, Cartagena, Colombia, the CNP, the drug
police, seized 18 tons of cocaine. We used to think a seizure of a few
grams was important. Imagine, 18 tons of cocaine, almost more than what
the entire country of Mexico seized in the way of cocaine during the
same time period. In one city, 18 tons. If that was marketed on the
streets of New York, it would inure millions and millions of dollars.
Here at home, where we hurt today, when a no-nonsense approach is
taken to crime and drugs, good things can happen as well. Our New York
City mayor, Rudy Guiliani testified before the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources chaired by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica), that getting tough on crime and drugs has reduced
murders by nearly 50 percent in the city of New York and overall crime
by nearly 70 percent. He reminded us that 70 percent of the prison
cells are filled by drug people, who have been criminally charged with
drug possession or drug trafficking.
In cities like Baltimore, where those who argue that we ought to take
a hands-off approach, the results are exactly the reverse. The mayor of
Baltimore for many years has said that we should legalize and not go
after the drug people. Murder and crime are soaring in Baltimore and de
facto legalization has solved nothing, just made things worse.
One set of figures tells the whole story. While population declined
from 950,000 in 1950 to 675,000 in 1996, the heroin addict population
went from 300 to 38,000 in 1996, the city of Baltimore. That is what
despair and the wrong message can do from city leaders who throw in the
towel.
The voices of doom and gloom do not speak from a true understanding
of what is going on today and what can be accomplished in most of the
world. Yes, we can and we will win this war on drugs if we do it right
and if we have the international community working with us. There has
to be full cooperation throughout the world.
As Pino Arlacchi, the UNDCP director of the United Nations drug
agency, said just a few days ago when he appeared before our committee,
we have not lost the war on drugs; we never began to wage one.
So I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for their continual efforts in this
direction.
We cannot say enough to the entire world, that there is an
opportunity to do something about this drug situation if we all work
together and we focus on what the accomplishments are that have
occurred when people work together and put their shoulder behind the
wheel.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on International Relations because he has
frequently been down in these countries that he has complimented and
seen firsthand the successful efforts or the progress being made in
Peru and Bolivia. Without his help in Colombia, where people are
fighting and dying, we would have lost that country and we are going to
lose it unless we continue to help them. He has been at the forefront
in particular in Colombia and in struggling with these other nations.
There are good news stories, as well as more difficult ones.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the
distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Just recently he headed a
CODEL, a congressional delegation, to Central and South America, and we
want to review some of that.
First, partly what we need to understand as Americans, with what the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) just talked about, what I alluded
to, is we are facing on our streets some progress here and there but
net as a country, particularly among young people, a terrible threat.
To understand why we are focusing on the Indian countries and why we
are looking at the problems in Mexico and other places, we have to
understand what is happening to us first.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to take this opportunity
to thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for
yielding. He reserved the time tonight. He has been a tireless worker
in the effort to bring to the attention of the Congress and the
American people the situation that we face as a nation and communities
relating to illegal narcotics.
He has been at the forefront of trying to save our children, trying
to save the resources of life that are being drained and sapped by this
problem and crisis that we face across this land, the scourge of
illegal narcotics, and I salute the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder)
on his tremendous and tireless effort since he has come to Congress.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the
Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman). I had the opportunity to see the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman) when I was a staffer. I worked for the United States Senate
back in the early eighties. The gentleman from New York was there when
they helped put together the drug programs that we have today. The
gentleman from New York was there when drug use among our population
was increasing in a dramatic fashion and he helped turn that around and
decrease it.
The gentleman from New York was there when they developed an Andean
Strategy to stop drugs very cost effectively at their source. The
gentleman from New York was there when I worked with him and others to
create a certification process by which countries that did not
cooperate do not receive foreign assistance, do not receive trade
benefits, do not receive international assistance, all benefits of the
United States. The gentleman from New York, myself and others said
these countries should not receive these benefits if they are not
cooperating in stopping drugs and illegal narcotics at their source and
also in international trafficking. Again, the gentleman from New York
was there.
Again, the gentleman from New York has taken up the cause. I remember
when I came as a freshman in 1993 and they would not listen to us. This
administration would not listen. The other side of the aisle would not
listen, and they controlled the other body, they controlled this House
and the White House. What happened is they cut those programs. They
slashed the participation of our military in interdiction. They cut
dramatically the source country programs. They denuded the programs
that stopped the growing of illegal narcotics in these foreign
countries.
The Coast Guard was kept from participating as the head in keeping
drugs away from our shores in particularly places like Puerto Rico
which became a sieve through which the drugs have flowed.
So the gentleman from New York and others, their voices were heard.
My
[[Page H781]]
voice was not heard then. In 2 years from 1993 to 1995, and I had
bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats signed a request for
hearings on a national drug policy that was headed for disaster. One
hearing was held; one hearing was held on a drug policy that was
leading to disaster.
Let me say the disaster is here. Ladies and gentlemen, we have 1.8
million Americans behind bars. The estimates are somewhere between 60
and 70 percent of those individuals incarcerated in our prisons, in
jails across this land, are there because of drug-related offenses. I
am not talking about purchasing a small amount of narcotics. I am
talking about drug dealing. I am talking about major drug transit. I am
talking about murders and heinous crimes committed while under the
influence, who were trying to obtain illegal narcotics.
Our entire nation has been devastated and now one can almost ask
anywhere, at any level, the inner cities, the affluent, the rich, every
family in this country can point to someone who has been involved and a
victim of illegal narcotics and narcotics abuse.
What concerns me is this problem has grown from a minor problem to,
again, a major problem. Who is it affecting? Well, the apologists would
say it is not affecting the adult population. They are sort of leveling
out, and maybe those statistics are true but the fact is, this is
causing devastation among our young people.
{time} 1745
Now listen to this statistic: 14,200 young people, mostly, died in
this country from drug overdoses or related effects last year. Over
14,200. That figure has nearly doubled since 1993. The heroin deaths
have doubled in a short period of time from 2,000 to 4,000.
Let me talk about the national drug crisis that we have and how it is
affecting particularly the most vulnerable in our society, our young
people. In 1998, more than three-quarters of our high school teens
report that drugs are sold or kept at their schools, a 6 percent
increase over 1996. Are drugs increasing with our youth or decreasing?
From 1993 to 1997, youth age 12 to 17 using illegal drugs has more
than doubled, 120 percent. And there has been a 27 percent increase
between 1996 and 1997 alone. Has drug use and abuse among our young
people increased or decreased? That is a 1998 national household
survey.
The overall number of past month heroin users increased from 1993 to
1997 by a whopping 378 percent. Between 1993 and 1997, LSD emergency
room incidents increased 142 percent. That is a 1997 Dawn report. And
during 1997, statistically significant increases in heroin emergency
room incidents were observed in Miami, a 77 percent increase; in New
Orleans, a 63 percent increase; in Phoenix, a 49 percent increase; and
in Chicago, a 47 percent increase. Just a small sampling of dramatic
increases in a drug that is deadly and devastating.
These are the hard, cold facts about what has happened. The most
astounding figure to me is for kids from 12 to 17, first-time heroin
use, first-time heroin use, which is proven to kill so many of these
young people, surged a whopping 875 percent from 1992 to 1996.
Mr. Speaker, I come from central Florida. This is the headline from
my newspaper. Read this headline. This is a recent headline, the last
few days of last year: ``Drug deaths top homicides.'' We are not
talking about Detroit. We are not talking about New York City. We are
not talking about Los Angeles. We are not talking about some inner city
population. No one should die or suffer from illegal narcotics. We are
talking about one of the most affluent, one of the most economically
advanced, one of the highest educated populations in the State of
Florida, and drug deaths top homicides.
Again, what is devastating about this, again what should shock the
conscience of everyone in this Nation is most of these deaths are young
people.
I was asked to take on the responsibility of chairing a subcommittee
to oversee our national drug policy. I inherited that position, was
requested to take that position by the Speaker of the House, Mr.
Hastert.
Mr. Hastert, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), myself, all
served on a subcommittee in the previous Congress that had that
responsibility. We did everything we could to put back together the
programs that had been taken apart and destroyed during the 1993 to
1995 period. I took on that responsibility because of this headline and
because of other headlines in my State. I took on that responsibility
because, and maybe for a selfish reason, because of the drug crisis in
my State and my community. But I also see what it is doing to our
Nation.
In central Florida, I will tell a little bit about what has happened
in my area. Heroin killed twice as many people in 1998 as it did in
1997. The death toll is expected to break 50 when the final results are
in. And we are just getting those results now from autopsies and other
reports.
Sampling of heroin tested in central Florida revealed purity levels
ranging from 58 to 92 percent. The national average for heroin has been
about 40 percent. High purity levels and increased drug availability is
contributing to the increase in heroin deaths in central Florida and
across our land.
Now, if young people are listening, if Americans are listening and
Members are listening, the heroin that is on our streets, the crack
cocaine that is on our streets, even the marijuana that is on our
streets, is not the drug that was on our streets 10 or 12 years ago.
These are drugs that are deadly. These are drugs that are pure. These
are drugs that will kill. And they are killing. They are killing our
young people.
Mr. Speaker, what is shocking is that in my area in 1995, there were
1,500 teenagers between the age of 12 and 15 arrested in central
Florida for using or selling illegal drugs. This number has doubled
over the last 5 years. Now, when we let down our guard, when we stop
the eradication programs, when we stop the interdiction programs as
they did again from 1993 to 1995, when we take the military and the
Coast Guard out of the effort to stop drugs before they reach our
shores, what happens?
In 1991, the cost of 1 kilo of heroin was $210,000. In 1997, the cost
of one kilo of heroin was $80,000. So what we have done is increased
the flow, decreased the price, made it available to our young people.
Let me talk, if I may, a little bit about the pattern of what has
taken place with illegal narcotics trafficking. This chart here shows
from the 1970s to the 1980s, the flow of illegal narcotics, primarily
from Colombia and primarily cocaine. Cocaine or coca is only grown in
three countries in the world. It is grown in Peru, it is grown in
Bolivia, and it was grown a little bit in Colombia, but most of it came
from Peru and Bolivia.
That cocaine came up, some to Miami. As I said back in the 1980s, we
had a crisis which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others
addressed through different legislative initiatives, including the
Andean Strategy, stopping drugs at their source, and the certification
process.
That cocaine and other drugs also went to New York and also to Los
Angeles. That was the 1970s and the 1980s. Ronald Reagan and George
Bush developed programs, and people like the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), Senator Hawkins who I worked for, developed programs to
stop those drugs, and we saw a decline in the flow of drugs and the use
of drugs.
Then look at what has taken place in the 1990s. In the 1990s, we now
have Colombia producing more and more cocaine, growing coca. We have a
decrease in Peru and Bolivia where we have started and working in
cooperation, as we heard just a few minutes ago, we have a cooperative
effort, a restart of those Andean eradication and crop substitution
programs. A few millions of dollars to again stop drugs at their
source. Very cost-effective.
Mr. Hastert, the Speaker of the House who chaired this
responsibility, helped restart those programs; the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); myself;
and others. And we have found dramatic decreases in the production of
cocaine and coca in Peru and Bolivia through the cooperation of
President Fujimori in Peru, through the courage and cooperation of
President Hugo Banzer in Bolivia.
Now Colombia has, for the last several years, become a source. In
fact, it is now producing, the statistics we heard when we visited
these areas last
[[Page H782]]
week, it is now producing more coca and more cocaine than any other
region in the world, Colombia.
Now, why did Colombia suddenly become a source of narcotics? What is
interesting, again, if we look at the history of what took place, this
administration has blocked consistently any assistance to Colombia to
eradicate drugs at their source, to go after drug traffickers and to
stop the production of drugs. So what has happened is they are now
becoming producers.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), myself, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the previous chair of this responsibility when
the Republicans took over the Congress, we went down to Colombia some 4
years ago. Four years ago, there was almost no heroin being produced in
Colombia. They told us then, unless the administration freed up the
constraints on sending ammunition, helicopters, eradication resources
into that country, there would be a flood of poppies and heroin
produced. Guess what? That is exactly what has happened. An incredible
amount of heroin is now being produced, and it is now flowing from
Colombia.
Look at this chart. Into Miami. Some came through Puerto Rico,
because the administration cut the Coast Guard's budget. The Coast
Guard protects the air around Puerto Rico. They cut that in half. So it
came into Puerto Rico, it came into Miami and came into central Florida
and also is coming in through a weak link in the chain which is Mexico.
This is the new pattern that we see. Mexico has approximately 60 to
70 percent of the hard narcotics coming into the United States, coming
in through Mexico, transiting through Mexico.
Now we have a new development. In addition to a failed policy in
Colombia which this administration, over the objections of Congress,
the new majority in Congress, we repeatedly sent letters, requests, we
passed resolutions, we did everything we could to get them to give
General Serrano, the head of the National Colombian Police, and others
the resources and ammunition, eradication equipment to do away with
drugs at their source. Cost-effective. When they get into our streets,
into our schools and law enforcement in this country tries to go after
narcotics, that is the most expensive solution to an expensive problem.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is now a quarter of a trillion dollar
problem. And that is just the dollars and cents, not the lives lost,
the families destroyed, and the terrible scourge, again, of illegal
narcotics.
This is the new pattern. Now, what concerns me as chairman of this
new subcommittee and with the responsibility given to me by the Speaker
is the presentation just over a week ago of the national drug control
strategy by this administration. One would think that they would learn.
One would think that if we had an experience and had a bad experience,
that one would learn from that experience.
What disturbs me, and tomorrow we are going to hear from the national
drug czar, and I think General McCaffrey has tried to do a good job. I
think the former drug czar, Mr. Brown, did a horrible job. He presided
over death and destruction of this land unparalleled, unequal to
anything except an attack that we had in Pearl Harbor. But this is the
proposal by the administration to deal with the problem.
Now, again, one would think that they would learn. Let me tell what
is in this. First of all, they have one of the most clever charts I
have ever seen in my life. It is, I guess, Clintonesque in its
explanation. But last year this Congress appropriated $17.9 billion for
the war on drugs. Now, they managed to develop a chart that showed us
going from $17.9 billion to $17.8 billion, a net decrease of $109
million, and show it on a chart as an increase. Now, that is clever in
its presentation, but it is disastrous in its effect.
{time} 1800
Where do the cuts come in? Let me tell you where these cuts are that
disturb me, that concern me. Again, have we not learned? Interdiction
has been cut dramatically again. Crop substitution programs cut again.
International programs cut again, cut from last year to this year in
this proposal.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is saying,
it is not what passed Congress; this is the administration's proposal
coming to Congress that is actually to reduce interdiction and
eradication efforts.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, that is right. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) and my other colleagues, we requested of the administration to
put some specifics in their budget that we know will work, that we know
will be effective.
For example, we have been promoting a microherbicide program and
research and development because we know we have the technical
capability to destroy drugs as a crop. It is a simple process. It can
be done. We are making advances in that. We asked for a few dollars to
effectively develop the final techniques to make this happen. Is it in
the President's budget? No. Is it cost effective? Yes.
Now, the other thing that the administration did back in the 1970s
and 1980s and 1990s, in the 1970s and 1980s, as my colleagues heard, we
increased our Customs, our air interdiction, our going after drug
traffickers.
We must have learned that, from 1993 to 1995, when we decreased that,
when this administration, this Congress decreased that, that a mistake
was made. Here we go again. Customs interdiction program, funds
lacking. We know that is effective. We know it stops drugs before,
again, it gets into our streets and our communities.
Counterintelligence. If I have learned nothing else in dealing with
this problem, I have learned that the most effective means of stopping
drugs, of getting drugs close to their source before they get into our
country is counterintelligence. I intend to speak with the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss), who chairs that committee. But, again, they
have not learned.
We requested more funds in this area, and they are not in the
President's budget; and that disturbs me because it is cost effective.
If we have the intelligence, we can get large quantities, we can get
the production facilities, we can stop the routing of drugs into our
Nation even before they get close to our border. So, again, lacking in
this budget, in this proposal is a concrete expenditure or program for
counterintelligence.
My colleagues heard about stopping the Coast Guard and cutting their
involvement, particularly around Puerto Rico and other places around
the United States. The Coast Guard was very actively involved.
I remember working with Admiral Yost and others back in the 1980s who
helped develop programs that stopped drugs again before they got to our
streets. In this budget, here it is, folks, in this budget, this
proposal, the Coast Guard operation and maintenance again not properly
funded.
We have the most serious problem facing me as chairman of this
subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) who chairs our Committee on International
Relations; and that is the question of Mexico.
Mexico has become the sieve. Look at this. Just take a moment and
look at the drugs coming through here. Sixty to 70 percent of all the
narcotics, the hard drugs coming into this Nation are coming in through
Mexico. Mexico is the tough enchilada in this whole equation.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in addition, when the
gentleman earlier focused on cocaine and talked about the shift of
cocaine to Colombia, and the gentleman presumably gets into some of
this here, too, but we have seen a shift in heroin, because we were
getting it from the Golden Triangle, in Asia, and other places. We have
now seen this move to Mexican brown in some part of our country.
So while it looks like, and one of the things that we are hearing is
that, oh, this Colombian problem is huge and disguising some of the
problems in relationship to Mexico, the fact is that, simultaneously,
because of a shift from Turkey and Southeast Asia, we have two places
that have become the pivotal points.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) makes an excellent point in what I was going
to lead up to. With this signature heroin program results, we see a
dramatic increase in Mexican heroin. This is heroin produced in Mexico.
Just a one digit several years ago is now double digits, 14 percent.
[[Page H783]]
We see South American heroin 75 percent, most of it coming from
Colombia. But if my colleagues remember the other chart, most of it is
flowing through Mexico. Almost all of it is transversing through
Mexico.
What does this budget have as far as dealing with the Mexico problem?
U.S.-Mexico border security funds, again not adequately provided for.
So do we have in the President's budget a proposal to deal with the
problems, to deal with the narcotics, and to deal with it in a cost-
effective manner? We can throw money at problems. This Congress is an
expert at throwing money at problems. But are we solving the problems?
Are we putting the money into it, and sometimes small amounts of money?
The program we started in Peru and Bolivia, those countries in the
next several years, will almost totally eliminate cocaine production.
Will we start? We need to get our program started back in Colombia. We
have a new president there, a new opportunity. We need to get equipment
resources and assistance to stop that production there.
So this budget is a little bit scary to me because they have not
learned. We have paid a high price. Thousands and thousands of our
young people have died. One could not do more damage if one had
launched a chemical attack on the United States. Over 14,200 died last
year from drug-related deaths. If we add that up, probably since I
served in Congress, it is probably close to 100,000 people dead. Most
of the narcotics are now coming through Mexico.
That leads up to this past week when the President went to Merida and
presented this document. This document is a whitewash of the entire
Mexican-United States drug problem. I have read through it. Some of the
proposals, some of it, the cooperative efforts are almost laughable.
I stood on this floor, and we debated decertification of Mexico 2
years ago. This House voted to decertify Mexico. We made several
minimal requests 2 years ago asking for Mexico's cooperation. What were
those items? Let me repeat them if I may.
First of all, we asked Mexico to sign a maritime agreement. Have they
signed a maritime agreement? No. We asked Mexico to extradite major
drug traffickers. Have they extradited major drug traffickers? No. We
have had one minor drug trafficker who actually killed a border
patrolman, but not one major cartel trafficker extradited to the United
States, despite countless requests.
We asked for the protection of our DEA agents. Why would we do that?
I would like to have my colleagues come and read with me sometime the
autopsy report of what Mexican drug traffickers did to our agent, Mr.
Camarena. It is the most frightening thing that I have ever read.
But our DEA agents asked for the ability to protect themselves, not
only with arms, but also insulation in a crime- and corruption-ridden
country to have basic minimal protection while they operated.
We have a cap, I cannot talk about the exact number, I do not want
to, but it is just a few DEA agents in that country. We have requested
additional DEA agents. Only a minimal number have been allowed in.
Quite frankly, to allow them in without adequate protection does not
make a lot of sense.
Next, again, we passed this here in the House by an overwhelming vote
in the decertification 2 years ago. We asked simply that Mexico start
to put radar and some protections across its southern border. Have they
done that? No. Not until the threat of decertification just a few weeks
ago and the President must present his certification proposal in the
next few days.
Have we seen any action from Mexico? They are now proposing to do
what we asked them to do 2 years ago as far as protecting that southern
border where all those drugs are coming through, and we will see even
more drugs.
Then we asked them to execute some of the laws that they had passed
relating to money laundering and corruption. Money laundering and
corruption. What have they done? Last year, United States Custom agents
conducted a sting operation in Mexico. They found incredible
corruption. We had briefings on it, and it involved hundreds of
millions of dollars in corruption throughout the financial
institutions.
We went after some of those traffickers. Do you know what Mexico had
the nerve to do? They threatened to indict our Customs officials. It
was called operation Casa Blanca. The nerve. So instead of enforcing
and helping us to go after the drug traffickers, they made our Customs
officials the villains.
Only because of the threat of decertification has there been a
resolution within the last 30 to 60 days on the matter called Casa
Blanca and the threat to indict our officials for doing work to help
save their country.
These are some of the items we asked for 2 years ago. This is the
report. This report again is almost laughable. It was done with great
fanfare. Do you know where it was done? It was done in Merida. I have
been to Merida, a beautiful place in Mexico. Merida is located in the
Yucatan Peninsula.
Do my colleagues know what we have been told by our Federal agencies
and those dealing with intelligence and this whole international drug
trafficking situation? They told us that the Yucatan Peninsula in
Mexico is lost. It is a narcoterrorist state. They are quivering now
whether or not to even arrest the governor of that state who is up to
his eyeballs in illegal narcotics trafficking. So the Mexicans have
lost the Yucatan to a narcoterrorist state.
Then we found that, in the Baja Peninsula, another cartel has taken
the entire Baja Peninsula. Not only have they taken it, they have
slaughtered and intimidated. They lined up 22 people just recently,
women and children, to create in the Baja Peninsula a narcoterrorist
state. They have killed 315 people in the last year and lined up 22
women and children and taken that region.
As we go over the map of Mexico, we see more and more of Mexico that
has now been encircled by drug traffickers. So we have a friend, we
have a neighbor, we have a trading ally who we have provided financial
assistance, who we have provided trading benefits, who is now being
taken over by drug trafficking. It is a very, very serious problem.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and I and other members of
our subcommittee visited and we met with the president of Colombia,
President Pastrana, last week. He is doing and committed to an
eradication crop substitution and going after drug traffickers at every
turn. He is committed to that.
We met with President Fujimori and President Hugo Banzer who are both
not only committed but also have dramatically reduced the production
and trafficking of illegal narcotics.
{time} 1815
Now we have the big problem of Mexico. Will the President, will this
administration certify a country that is not meeting its
responsibility; who has not followed through on the requests of
Congress from 2 years ago; who does not have before us any requests or
plan to deal with what has happened with their country being taken over
by narcoterrorism?
So we are in a very difficult situation. Wall Street will not be
happy if we decertify Mexico, because now we are doing business with
them. But is it worth it to sell our souls for a few bucks?
We have some very serious questions to answer before us in the next
few days and the next few weeks. The President must certify or
decertify this major drug trafficking Nation, Mexico, by Monday, March
1, and the Congress has 30 days to act.
I will continue to review the information. I will continue to extend
my hand to the Mexican government and officials to come up with a plan
that has some measurable objectives on how to deal with this horrible
problem. But right now I do not see in this budget a plan to deal with
this situation. I do not see in this proposal that was presented in
Merida anything concrete to deal with the situation that has grown out
of control.
Now, we can whitewash this, we can forget it, or we can address it.
The results are going to be pretty dramatic for our young people and
for our Nation.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. SOUDER. I would like to conclude, Madam Speaker. We are about out
of time here.
[[Page H784]]
If the gentleman could put the one chart up there that had Colombia
on it. And let me thank the gentleman for laying out systematically the
background of the problems that we have and the immediate pressure that
we have in front of us.
Just yesterday, right before I did my 5-minute speech, they delivered
a report on the Western Hemisphere Drug Alliance and the President of
the United States. It is in yesterday's Congressional Record. Not only
do they not have the dollars to continue the interdiction efforts, but
in this document we are seeing more of what the Speaker, myself, and
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) heard when we went down to the
Summit of the Americas. We heard at that point that the proposal that
the President is holding out is a counternarcotics multilateral
evaluation mechanism in the hemisphere. Basically, what they want to
eliminate is what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) first developed
as a staffer for Senator Hawkins, the drug certification process.
What we have seen in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, and others is
that because of this annual review, not of whether or not they are good
people, not of whether or not they are a good government, but whether
we as the United States should use taxpayer dollars in the United
States to invest in their countries, that we have a legitimate review
on the part of our country of their policies, because it is our money
that we are proposing to deal with, it is our trade policies that we
are looking at, and they are trying to, in effect, water this down.
We strongly believe that we do need to work with these countries. We
applaud the administration's efforts to work on drug prevention and
drug treatment programs around the world and to encourage these
countries to engage. That is not the question here. Furthermore, this
is not really a question of motives at this point. It is not like what
was happening in Colombia, where we saw the narco dollars going
directly into the campaign of then President Samper. What we have is a
lack of results in Mexico.
When we were down there the last few days we saw lots of plans. Over
the next few days we will be looking at those and debating those and
trying to see if we can work out something, because we believe that
their leadership is, in fact, working towards solutions. What we need
to see, however, are some results.
The facts are that all of our intelligence was compromised. The facts
are we do not have certain agents in certain parts of the country. We
saw many of the things that the gentleman from Florida outlined. So we
have a real dilemma in our face. How much do we want the trade dollars
versus the ability to use that as a leverage? The fact is that as we
used that as a leverage with Colombia, they engaged more aggressively.
It enabled those people in Mexico, like those people in Colombia, who
are fighting this problem, to have their hand strengthened relative to
those who would undermine it.
We are all for drug prevention. The drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, has
done an amazing job of getting this administration back engaged. But
there is drug prevention in education, drug prevention in treatment,
drug prevention in law enforcement, and there is also drug prevention
in elimination. Every coca leaf, every lab that we destroy is less
drugs coming into Illinois, to Indiana, to Florida, wherever. That is
one of the best ways to prevent it, is to keep it from getting there.
Similarly with eradication.
One last point here. That map is drawn in a way to show the Colombia-
Mexico traffic. But there is actually not blue water between Mexico and
Colombia. That is Central America. Next to Colombia is Panama, the
Darien Peninsula, which used to be part of Colombia. As we are turning
the canal over in less than a year and pulling our troops out, we are
in danger of having our trade threatened through the canal.
On the other side of Colombia it is not blue water either. It is
Venezuela. Our number one oil supplier. I think it is roughly 18
percent. And Colombia is number two in by-products. We have had money
intended for eradication and interdiction diverted to Bosnia. We have
had it diverted into all sorts of humanitarian well-sounding goals.
This is a compelling national interest. We can argue whether Kosovo
is a compelling national interest, we can argue whether Bosnia is a
compelling national interest, we can argue whether Somalia was a
compelling national interest, we can argue whether Iraq is a compelling
national interest, but this is a compelling national interest. It has
drugs coming in to my hometown, my kids' schools. It is threatening our
oil and energy. It is threatening our trade in Panama. This is a
compelling national interest.
Are we going to help these people fight? Are we going to get them the
weapons they need? They are increasingly willing to carry the battle,
which is in large part caused by our consumption. But when we went to
move Black Hawk helicopters 4 years with the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) and my colleague with me here tonight, because they could
not get to where they were starting to plant the poppy in the higher
parts of the Andes, we would not give them the mechanisms to go get it.
So now we are shocked that 40 percent of their country is inundated and
controlled by terrorist groups.
We have to give them the resources necessary or the danger is they
are going to ask us to come in, like other countries throughout the
world, to help fix these problems that are clearly in our national
interest.
So as we head into these certification processes, we are going to be
bringing, in the education bill this year, drug-free school stuff; and
we are going to work with education programs to try to figure out how
to reach these kids. We will look at the prison population, as the
President is talking about, because if we can get people who are
heavily addicted off, that will benefit us in the drug war.
But there is only so much the kids can do in our schools and the
teachers and the school boards and the police departments when the
price drops, when the purity soars, as it did in 1993 through 1995, as
the gentleman pointed out. There is only so much they can do on the
streets of Fort Wayne when that price is dropped down. It is both ends
of supply and demand here that are responsible.
We need to encourage and build up those governments' efforts and also
hold them accountable when they are falling behind.
The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. In closing, I thank the gentleman.
____________________