[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H881-H885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          AMERICA'S BIGGEST SOCIAL PROBLEM: ILLEGAL NARCOTICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House tonight and the 
American public to talk about a problem which I believe is our biggest 
social problem as a country, our biggest social problem as a Congress. 
That is the problem of illegal narcotics and the damage it is doing to 
our population, and particularly to our young people across this land.
  Some people in Congress or some people in leadership positions would 
have us think that the Y2K problem is the major problem, or that other 
dotting I and crossing T of legislation is the major problem facing 
Congress. But I believe that we have no more important responsibility 
as legislators of this Nation than to see that we do the best job 
possible in addressing a problem, an epidemic that is ravaging havoc, 
particularly among our young people.
  The statistics are mind-boggling. Last year over 14,200 Americans 
lost their lives because of drug-related deaths. Let me cite a few 
other statistics that every Member of Congress and every American 
should be aware of, when they turn away from the question of a drug 
problem, when they are given some other problem, smoking or Y2K or 
whatever the issue of the day may be that rates in the polls. Let me 
talk about the hard facts of what illegal narcotics are doing to us as 
a Nation.
  The overall number of past month heroin users increased 378 percent 
from 1993 to 1997 in this country. Between 1992 and 1997, drug-related 
emergency room episodes nationwide increased 25 percent, and they 
increased 7 percent between 1996 and 1997. Between 1993 and 1997, LSD 
emergency room incidents increased 142 percent; not declined, but 
inclined.
  Additionally, from 1993 to 1997, our youth aged 12 to 17 using drugs 
has more than doubled. It has increased 120 percent. There has been a 
27 percent increase between 1996 and 1997. This is a 1998 national 
household survey.
  In 1998, more than three-quarters, actually 7 percent, of our high 
school teens reported that drugs are sold or kept at their schools, an 
increase of 6 percent over 1996.
  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.

[[Page H882]]

  Let me also add this statistic. Significant increases in 
methamphetamine, speed, emergency room incidents were observed in 
Detroit, a 233 percent increase; Seattle, a 207 percent increase; 
Atlanta, a 151 percent increase; and St. Paul, Minneapolis, 110 percent 
increase.
  Mr. Speaker, we have, as a result, 1.8 million Americans behind bars, 
and the estimates are 60 to 70 percent of those Americans behind bars 
are there because of a drug-related offense. What is absolutely 
staggering is the cost of all of this to the American taxpayers. Let me 
tell the Members, from the drug czar's office in a recent report, what 
the cost is to the American taxpayers.

                              {time}  1845

  American taxpayers footed a $150 billion bill for drug-related 
criminal and medical costs in 1997 alone. That is more than what we set 
in our 1997 Federal budgets for our programs to fund education, 
transportation improvements, agriculture, energy, space and all foreign 
aid combined. That is the cost to this Nation.
  One of the most staggering statistics, and I have quoted this before 
on the floor of the House of Representatives, is that our young people, 
our kids from age 12 to 15, in this population range, first-time heroin 
use, which has proven to kill, deadly heroin, surged a whopping 875 
percent from 1991 to 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, what concerns me as someone from a wonderful district in 
central Florida, my district runs from Orlando to Daytona Beach, is not 
just the national statistics, the national impact, the national lives 
that are lost, but the local devastation that this problem has imposed 
on my rather affluent, good economy, highly educated population. A 
wonderful placid area.
  Mr. Speaker, every time I pick up the paper, and here is the latest 
newspaper, another individual, this one the latest, a death of a woman, 
age 38, died of a heroin overdose this weekend in central Florida. And 
this is in addition to another young man who died a horrible death, the 
sheriff told me, in a central Florida restroom of a heroin overdose.
  A recent headline in my area newspapers stated that drug overdose 
deaths exceeded homicides, and most of these were heroin, a very deadly 
drug which has come across our border and into our streets in record 
numbers.
  Now, how did we get ourselves into this situation? Let us go back to 
1993 when the Clinton administration took over and they had a majority 
in both this House and the other body. What did they do? They changed 
our national drug policy.
  Under the Reagan administration, and I was there, I worked as a 
staffer for Senator Hawkins in the 1980s, there were many initiatives 
adopted by Congress that tried to get a handle on the national and 
international drug problem that at that time was facing Florida and our 
country. What we did was a number of things. First, we tried to stop 
drugs at their source. Then we created an Andean Strategy, eradication 
of crops of coca and heroin at their source.
  We also tried to interdict drugs using the military, using whatever 
means we had available, our Coast Guard, to stop drugs before they got 
into our border. And then we tried tough enforcement.
  What happened in that period of time, from 1992 to 1995, is that the 
Clinton administration made a policy decision to cut some of those 
programs. They cut interdiction from $2 billion to $1.2 billion in 
1995. So, they went down 37 percent in the period from 1992 to 1995.
  The international programs to stop drugs at their source, the Andean 
Strategy, stopping drugs by eradicating the drugs and by crop 
substitution programs and other programs that stop drugs as they were 
being produced in the fields, was cut from $633 million to $289 million 
in 1996, a 54 percent decrease.
  These are the figures. Let me put these up here. Again, a 37 percent 
decrease in drugs interdiction budgets and the source country programs, 
the international programs. These are the exact figures, a 53 percent 
decrease.
  So what happened there? We had, in fact, a flood of drugs coming into 
this country. For example, with those decisions came some 
administrative decisions and let me cite some of those again that took 
place in the period of 1994 and 1995.
  National Guard container searches using the military to help in the 
war on drugs dropped from 237 in 1994 to 209 in 1995. Other National 
Guard workday drug interdictions fell from 597 in 1994 to 530 in 1996.
  Drug interdiction budget and asset cuts in the Department of Defense 
in 1995. The flight hours devoted to counterdrug missions was decreased 
from 51,000 to 50,000 in one year, and also shipdays active in drug 
interdiction were cut from 2,268 in 1994 to 1,545 in 1995.
  As a result, we have seen a flood of illegal narcotics coming into 
the United States. Additionally, there were some policies at that time 
that did incredible damage to us as a Nation. In addition to the source 
country decreases, in addition to drug interdiction cuts in the 
activities of the military, the administration first out cut the office 
of the drug czar and the drug czar's budget.
  The next really offensive move by the administration was to appoint a 
Surgeon General who sent a message to our young people of ``Just say 
maybe.'' Additionally, what hurt us tremendously in the effort to 
curtail cocaine production, coca production and also heroin production, 
was the abolition and the decision by the administration to stop a 
shootdown policy. We had provided information and assistance to South 
American countries, primarily Peru, Bolivia and Colombia, which were 
engaged in trying to curtail illegal narcotics trafficking and we 
provided them some information and assistance. A liberal decision out 
of one of our agencies stopped that type of assistance and, in turn, 
there was a period in which this shootdown policy was shot down by this 
administration, and it took a concerted effort and over a year to get 
that put back in place. We have done that.
  And, of course, they took the military out and cut the Coast Guard 
budgets, so we saw a flood of illegal narcotics coming into this 
country.
  During the period from 1995 onward in the country of Colombia, 
another administrative action did a great deal of damage. It was the 
policy of Congress, and we passed laws, we passed appropriations, 
asking that assistance go to Colombia. Because of concern of human 
rights violations, because of other problems with the last 
administration in Colombia, the administration basically stopped 
getting helicopters to Colombia, getting resources to Colombia, getting 
assistance to stop the production of coca and also heroin poppies in 
that country.
  What has happened in the meantime is an incredible flood of coca 
cultivation. In fact, the subcommittee which I chair recently visited 
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico and Panama, and I will report on that 
in just a minute. One of the things that we found that was most 
startling was that now Colombia produces more cocaine than any other 
country in the world. It formerly was a processing center for cocaine 
and now is a producer.
  This policy, again from the 1993 to 1995, 1996 period of the 
administration, basically shut down our efforts and our assistance to 
Colombia to stop illegal narcotics cultivation, so we have cocaine 
major production there.
  Additionally, we had an incredible flood of heroin coming out of 
Colombia. It is coming up through the Caribbean into Florida and it is 
also coming up through and transiting through Mexico, working with the 
Mexican cartels.
  So these are the results of a failed policy that this administration 
adopted some years ago. The death in our streets, the dramatic increase 
in heroin on our streets. That cultivation is there for a reason. It is 
specifically because of a failed policy.

  Now, recently I received, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, a presentation by the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy. The 1999 proposed drug control 
strategy, and also the budget for this administration.
  I have raised some great concerns about this budget and this 
strategy. This is a strategy for losing. This is not a war on drugs. 
This is a mild effort to eliminate some drug trafficking, some drug 
production. I believe that we can expedite what is proposed in this 
strategy. I believe there are some fundamental flaws in what has been 
proposed by the administration and this is

[[Page H883]]

a losing strategy and a losing budget and we certainly should have 
learned from the past.
  First of all, the most effective way to stop drugs are to eliminate 
drugs at their source. If one cannot grow coca, they cannot produce 
cocaine. There have traditionally only been two countries that have 
produced cocaine in large quantities: Bolivia and Peru. Both of those 
countries, where we visited and met with the presidents of those 
countries, have committed within the last 2 or 3 years, working 
primarily with this new majority in Congress, to eradicate drugs at 
their source. Very cost-effective. Very few dollars spent.
  Now, we learned through the budget that was proposed from 1991 to 
1995 how not to do things and it is amazing that this new budget by 
this administration does not address proper funding for the 
microherbicide program. That is a program to eliminate drugs through a 
chemical process, conducting the R&D to deal biologically with the 
production of coca and other hard drugs such as heroin and poppies.
  Did we not learn that when we cut Customs and interdiction and do not 
properly fund them that drugs come from where they are grown to the 
next stage? Again, the President's budget, the President's strategy is 
lacking in adequate funding to provide the resources necessary to stop 
drugs at their next stage. And each of these stages I view as cost-
effective frontiers in this effort.
  Once we get to the streets, once we get to local enforcement, it is 
extremely expensive and costly in lost lives and enforcement to try to 
catch those drugs when they are in our schools and in our communities 
and with our young people.
  This budget by this administration also fails to address one of the 
most fundamental needs, and that is that we have proper intelligence, 
adequate intelligence. If I have learned anything in this war on 
illegal drugs, it is that intelligence is so important, particularly in 
enforcement and interdiction and even eradication. If we know where the 
drugs are, if we know who is dealing the drugs, if we have the proper 
intelligence, we can save lives. Again we can cost-effectively stop 
traffickers in pursuit of their deadly profession purveying, again, 
heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines and other hard drugs.
  So, not spending the adequate resources or funding for intelligence 
is lacking in the President's strategy and in the drugs czar's proposal 
to Congress.

                              {time}  1900

  Once again, we have seen the cuts for the Coast Guard that the 
administration made, and I cited some of those just a few minutes ago, 
that were mistakes and will be mistakes in this budget. So they have 
not adequately funded the operations of the Coast Guard.
  Let me give an illustration in central Florida. Some of the heroin 
that we have coming into central Florida has transited through Puerto 
Rico. Why through Puerto Rico? This is a new pattern in the last 5, 6 
years. Because back in 1995, this administration and the years before 
that, several years before that cut the Coast Guard operations almost 
50 percent.
  The Coast Guard is the line of defense around Puerto Rico and has 
kept that secure, again, through the 1980s and early 1990s from drugs 
transiting through there. That Guard was let down. Here again, an 
incredible error on the part of the administration and the drug czar's 
office.
  The President's strategy, if you call it a strategy, is to let down 
the funding for the Coast Guard for operation and maintenance, one of 
the most important ingredients for success.
  Finally, properly funding U.S.-Mexico border security. Now if we know 
that 60 to 70 percent of the hard drugs coming into the United States 
are coming in through Mexico, transiting through Mexico, then we know 
where we have a major drug transiting problem. It does not take rocket 
science to figure this out. So, again, we have another perimeter of 
defense that is not being secured by the proposal of this 
administration.
  What is of major concern to me is that some of the money in this 
budget in big chunks is being spent to correct mistakes and errors. One 
of the biggest mistakes and errors that we found in visiting some of 
the producing and transiting countries that our subcommittee visited 
was in Panama.
  In Panama, the United States of America is getting its clock cleaned. 
There is no other way to put it. We have been out-negotiated. We have 
lost basically our interest in the Panama Canal.
  We will be turning over, we will be giving the keys to the Panama 
Canal. I wanted to pull out my keys here as an illustration. These are 
the keys to the Panama Canal. We will be giving them to Panamanian 
officials by December of this year.
  What is scary is all of our forward drug reconnaissance efforts are 
located in Panama right now as we speak. The administration is 
scrambling at this hour because they lost the treaty agreements. They 
could not negotiate them. They got to the end. The whole thing 
collapsed.
  We are turning over $10 billion in assets, 5,000 buildings. We 
basically in May have to stop all of our overflights. So they are 
scrambling now to find another location, which we asked questions 
about, for our forward reconnaissance in the war on drugs.
  They will probably be relocated in Ecuador and also in Aruba and that 
area as they, again, are working at this point to patch together some 
forward reconnaissance operation. Not to mention that we will have to 
relocate such assets as AWACS and other reconnaissance equipment and 
airplanes from that area.
  So the situation in Panama is pure chaos. The situation regarding 
even the operation of the ports, we were told that corruption has 
dictated how the awards for control of those ports will be determined, 
and that the Red Chinese, in fact, will control one of those port 
activities and gain that through corrupt activities.
  A very scary scene, when it comes to dealing with the Panama Canal, 
with the billions of United States dollars invested in that area all 
lost. Also, from my perspective, the war on drugs, where we are being 
booted out, and at great cost in this budget, as I started to say, one 
of the biggest items is moving that operation, which will cost the 
taxpayers $73.5 million. I think that is just the tip of the iceberg. 
So those are how some of the dollars are being spent in a strategy that 
does not make sense.
  If you think that the administration would want to spend more than we 
spent last year and would come out and say we need to spend more 
resources, I am not a big spender, I am one of the lowest spenders in 
Congress, but of all of the things we should be spending more money on, 
it is this effort, whether it is education and prevention and treatment 
and interdiction, law enforcement, but actually from a total spending 
of $17.9 billion in last year's full appropriations for this effort to 
stem illegal narcotics, the administration drops down to $17.8 million, 
109 net million dollars less in spending.
  In addition, if we add in the mistakes to correct in Panama, we are 
probably looking at $250 million in funds less than we spent the year 
before. Additionally, what concerns me is that the administration talks 
a good line about helping our communities' education and prevention.
  I might say that a Republican Congress added $195 million for the ads 
that are now being aired on television for the information program that 
is being conducted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 
matched by the private sector.
  But, additionally, the administration played games with their 
proposal and their budget and their strategy by not funding some of the 
programs that we passed. For example, the Drug-Free Communities Act, 
they came in $8 million below our authorization and request.
  So if we want to do something about drugs in our communities, we have 
got to interdict. We have got to educate. We have got to enforce. But 
we have to have an honest proposal on the table from the 
administration. I do not believe that is the case.
  I would like to turn now, to the latest chapter in the war on drugs, 
and I will be addressing the Congress and the Nation on a repeated 
basis. People may get tired of hearing about it. But, again, since it 
has such a big impact on our communities, I will be here talking about 
it.

[[Page H884]]

  Since the Speaker of the House has given me that responsibility as 
chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources, I will, again, be bringing this consistently to the 
attention of the public and the Congress.
  The latest chapter is another sad chapter and mistake. Again, I said 
earlier, if we knew where 60 to 70 percent of the drugs were coming 
from, we would do something about it. We would target that. Now, we 
know where 60 to 70 percent of the drugs are. These are not my figures. 
These are the administration's figures, the Office of Drug Control 
Policy, the Office of the Chief DEA Administrator of the land. These 
are, again, their figures.
  We know where hard drugs, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine are coming 
from. They are coming from Mexico. Again, the latest chapter is that, 
yesterday, the President of the United States, and last week he said he 
was going to do it, but he did it on the deadline, yesterday, March 1, 
he certified Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States on the 
war on drugs.
  Let me say something about the certification process since I helped 
draft that with Senator Hawkins back in the mid 1980s, that law. The 
law is a simple law. The law says that the State Department shall 
review the progress of every country that is involved in narcotics 
production and trafficking and determine whether they are fully 
cooperating with, eliminating, or helping to reduce drug production and 
drug trafficking.

  That is what certification is. They must certify honestly, and the 
President must present honestly whether a country is cooperating, fully 
cooperating, those are the terms of the law, in eliminating drug 
production and drug trafficking.
  Why are they certifying? They are certifying to make that country 
eligible for foreign aid, foreign assistance, foreign trade benefits, 
and foreign financial assistance of the United States. These are 
benefits of the United States, again, in trade and finance and foreign 
aid. So if they are fully cooperating, they are eligible for foreign 
aid and foreign assistance.
  It is a simple law. The law has been convoluted. The law has not been 
properly interpreted by this administration. It certainly has not been 
applied appropriately by this President.
  The President ironically went to Mexico and met with President 
Zedillo several weeks ago. He said Mexico should not be penalized for 
having the courage to confront its problems. Now, that is a new 
Clinton-speak.
  What are the facts about cooperation, full cooperation? What is the 
pattern of conduct of officials there in trying to stop production and 
stop trafficking.
  Let me quote, if I may, the DEA Administrator Tom Constantine who has 
great courage, an official of this administration, in charge of our 
Federal Drug Enforcement Agency. He testified in a recent Congressional 
hearing on the other side of the Congress, and let me quote, ``In my 
lifetime, I have never witnessed any group of criminals that has had 
such a terrible impact on so many individuals and communities in our 
nation,'' Mr. Constantine said. ``They have infiltrated cities and 
towns around the United States, visiting upon these places addiction, 
misery, increased criminal activities and increased homicides.''
  ``There is no doubt that those individuals running these organized 
criminal drug-trafficking syndicates today are responsible for 
degrading the quality of life not only in towns along the Southwest 
border of the United States, but increasingly, cities in middle 
America.''
  This is what the chief law enforcement officer of our Nation said 
regarding Mexico's participation. This article further went on to 
state, and let me quote this, that ``No major traffickers were indicted 
in Mexico last year; drug seizures dropped significantly; fewer drug 
laboratories were seized; total arrests declined; the number of drug 
cases dropped; and seizures of drug-carrying automobiles, boats, and 
trucks also declined.''
  Is this a pattern of cooperation? Is this a pattern that deserves 
certification so that Mexico is eligible for benefits and foreign 
assistance of the United States?
  Let me cite from another article and some other statistics about 
Mexico's performance. Again, 60 to 70 percent of the cocaine and heroin 
that come into the United States come in through Mexico. It is 
estimated that 85 percent of the methamphetamine, the foreign 
methamphetamine comes in from Mexico. It is produced in Mexico.
  Another recent article said that Mexico has increased heroin 
production by sixfold in the last 2 years.

                              {time}  1915

  Not only are they transiting hard drugs, they are now becoming a 
significant producer of heroin from that country. Chemical precursor 
laws are not being enforced in Mexico. Mexican heroin seized in the 
United States between 1995 and 1996 quadrupled.
  Now, another significant thing, and every American should listen to 
this, and every young person who is listening should listen to this, 
the purity of the heroin coming into the United States from Mexico and 
from these other countries in the last 2 years has jumped from a purity 
level of 7 to 20 percent to 50 to 76 percent. That is why we are seeing 
so many deaths. That is why we are seeing the destruction of so many 
lives, because this is deadly heroin. These are deadly drugs with high 
purity and high potency coming into the United States. And any time a 
young person or anyone else abuses these drugs and mixes it with 
anything else, they risk death and they risk destroying their lives.
  Last year, 15 metric tons of heroin came into the United States 
through Mexico. We had a 27 percent increase in heroin use in the 
United States between 1996 and 1997. So more heroin is coming in, more 
heroin is being used, and most of the heroin that we see, again, is 
coming through Mexico or now being produced in Mexico.
  Now, we are neighbors, we are partners, we are friends. There are 
millions of Mexican-Americans in the United States who are good 
citizens. We have a long relationship of friendly trade, of finance, 
communication, and cultural exchanges between our two countries. I 
think the United States, and the Congress in particular, and this 
administration, have gone even overboard to extend benefits to Mexico 
as a partner, as a friend, as an ally and a neighbor. We have given 
probably some of the best trade benefits to Mexico as to any country in 
the world.
  When Mexico's pesos were faltering and the economy was heading down 
the tubes a few years ago, we, as friends and neighbors, went in and 
helped bail them out. In return, we heard the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Jimmy Duncan), talk about jobs that are lost in the United States 
and lowered opportunity. And what has happened is we have actually 
given up much of our trade, much of our manufacturing to Mexico.
  We just got the recent figures for 1998, and our trade deficit was 
$15.7 billion. That means more goods being sold by Mexico in the United 
States, contributing to our whopping trade deficit. So here we are good 
friends, we are good allies, and we ask for cooperation, and what do we 
get? We get an unbelievable quantity and quality of hard, deadly drugs 
coming into our country from Mexico.
  Let me again cite the statistics of the cost of drug abuse in this 
country. Last year, we had 14,218 Americans, and this is actually last 
year. They have the wrong date up here. They were killed last year at a 
cost of $67 billion. This is the cost in lives and Americans who will 
no longer see the light of day. And if we calculate 60 to 70 percent of 
the hard narcotics coming into the United States, we can figure that we 
have 8,000 or 9,000 Americans dying from drugs that came in through 
Mexico.
  I am not the only one that questions the certification of Mexico, and 
this should not be a partisan question. Let me, if I may, read a quote 
from the minority leader of the House of Representatives. ``After 
reviewing the past year's record, I am compelled to disagree with the 
President's decision to certify Mexico as fully cooperating with our 
government in the fight against drugs.'' And that is the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who said that in a quote last Saturday in the 
Dallas Morning News. So, again, there is bipartisan concern about what 
is happening with Mexico.
  Why that concern? The statistics, again, speak for themselves.

[[Page H885]]

  Mexican drug seizures for opium from 1997 to 1998, a 56 percent 
reduction in drug seizures. Is this fully cooperating to stop drugs at 
their source or as they transit through that country?
  Cocaine, a 35 percent reduction in seizures in the period from 1997 
to 1998.
  And if we want to look at methamphetamine, how it is affecting some 
of the heartland of America, about 85 percent of the methamphetamines 
in Minnesota is smuggled from Mexico. And this is the source, the 
Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sunday September 27th of last year. Again, 
hard drugs coming in through Mexico; Mexico certified by this 
administration.
  Finally, the DEA administrator, Tom Constantine, again questioned 
what this administration is doing and talked about Mexico. He said, 
``The truly significant principals have not been arrested and appear to 
be immune from any law enforcement effort.'' So this administration has 
certified a country as fully cooperating that, again, is dealing in 
death and destruction at every level of our effort to eradicate illegal 
narcotics from coming into this country.
  Now, what is my role? Again, I chair the House Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on 
Government Reform. Today I join my colleague, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who introduced a resolution to decertify Mexico. 
I did not sign on that resolution, although I now support that 
resolution because of the evidence I have found.
  However, the Speaker has asked me and other chair members of the 
majority to conduct a thorough review of the drug policy of the 
Congress, the drug policy of the Nation and also of the certification 
and decertification of Mexico and other countries that are dealing in 
illegal narcotics. I, as chairman, intend to conduct that review to see 
if drug decertification is the answer, to see what other mechanisms we 
can enact to hold Mexico's feet to the fire and other nations who deal 
in illegal narcotics and do not make an effort to fully cooperate and 
yet receive benefits from the United States Government. So that will be 
my task and my responsibility to work with others.
  We launch that investigation, that review and that oversight process 
tomorrow. One of the subcommittees of the Committee on International 
Relations will begin tomorrow looking at the drug policy issue in Latin 
America. We know, again, that almost all of the heroin coming into the 
United States, the huge quantities of heroin, comes from Colombia and 
is also produced in Mexico and transits to the United States. We know 
that cocaine is produced in Peru and coca in Bolivia, and now a 
majority of cocaine in Colombia, and that also is transited through 
Mexico.
  So we know where the problem is. What we do not know are the 
solutions on how to get a handle on it. We do know that we must restore 
a few dollars into the programs that are most effective, the most cost 
effective. Stopping drugs at their source, where they are grown, the 
crop eradication programs, we have now seen are so effective. And 
substitution programs in Bolivia and Peru we know are stopping 
production, they are stopping cultivation and providing alternative 
development for people in those regions so they do not go back to 
producing the basis for hard drugs.
  We know we have to work with President Pastrana, the new president in 
Colombia. We must get him the resources to eradicate the hectares of 
poppy that have grown while the administration stopped equipment and 
resources from reaching that region. We know we must do that.

  We must get a handle on the situation in Mexico. Mexico is losing 
control of its Nation. The Baja peninsula is now controlled by drug 
lords. Ironically, where the President met, in Merida, the Yucatan 
peninsula is now controlled by the drug lords; and other areas, regions 
and states of Mexico are totally controlled by narco-terrorists who are 
raining destruction, who have gone from corruption to terrorist 
intimidation of people in that country.
  I will say that there are people at the top, President Zedillo, a 
brave attorney general who we met with, that are trying their best, but 
I am concerned that they are about to lose control of their nation to 
narco-terrorists. So we must find a solution. We must find some way to 
hold their feet to the fire, to aid them, as good neighbors.
  We must reach across the aisle when the minority leader of the House 
says that what the President has done is not correct relating to 
Mexico, and we must find a solution that is correct. We cannot afford 
to let this go on. We cannot fill our jails with any more Americans. We 
cannot subsidize the quarter of a trillion dollar loss to our economy, 
not to mention the destroyed lives of our young people and other 
Americans who could have been so productive.
  So that is our task. It is an important task. It is, again, I believe 
the biggest social problem facing this Nation.
  Stop and think if we could eliminate 60 percent of the crime. Stop 
and think if we could eliminate 60 to 70 percent of those deaths. Stop 
and think if we could have more productive citizens rather than people 
strung out on drugs, ruining again their lives and their loved ones' 
lives, of what we could do in this Nation.
  So I believe it is an important task. I do not plan to let up for a 
minute. I do not have the answers at this point, but we will review 
every possible solution. We extend our hand of cooperation across the 
aisle to our colleagues and to anyone who is interested, who wants to 
come forward and help us with a problem that we must address, that we 
must resolve in the best interest of the Congress, in the best interest 
of our Nation, and in the best interest of those who hope to have any 
future in this country, our young people.

                          ____________________