[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 13, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1925-H1930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ILLEGAL NARCOTICS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House at this hour to
discuss primarily the issue of illegal narcotics and its effects on our
young people and our country, but I could not help but hear some of the
words of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who
just spoke here and talked about education.
I want to say to my colleagues and to the American people that I too
support education. I support anything this Congress can do, anything
our Nation can do to enhance educational opportunities for each and
every American. However, I do have some differences with the previous
speaker.
The previous speaker represents 40 years of trying to get more
education power, more education decisions, more education regulation in
Washington, D.C.
{time} 1815
And I think I represent a new wave of thinking that has come here in
the last few years that education decisions, education of our children,
and decisions about education policy are best decided at the local
level with parents, with local school boards, and through local
initiatives.
Then I think we also heard the argument that we are spending money on
military defense and others, and this money could be converted into
education. I might remind my colleagues in the House that the number
one reason that we came together as a Nation to allow us to live a free
life in a free society is in fact the principal reason for the
formation of the United States, and that is the question of national
security.
Without national security, without the ability to defend ourselves,
without the ability to have a defense of this Nation, all other things
are impossible. And under the Constitution, if we care to look at that
document, that is our prime responsibility and all things flow from
that level.
So we cannot discard our military, particularly with an
administration and folks what want to send our troops to every corner
of the Earth and every conflict, at great expense, stretching our
limited Federal dollars, and also spend additional funds or take away
funds from education. So we cannot have both, but we try to do our best
in meeting our Federal obligation.
I might say, and I did not really want to get into this too much
tonight, but I just had the opportunity to meet with a couple from
Florida, and they were here and heard some of the debate about
education in the Congress, and one of these individuals, the wife, was
a teacher and she was delighted to hear the philosophy of the new
majority relating to education, that the power and the ability to teach
and the funds go to the classroom, to the teacher and the student, not
to the education bureaucracy in Washington, Atlanta, and is forced at
different layers of the education bureaucracy even within the State and
in particular in my State of Florida.
Our discussion was quite interesting because we did not identify the
problems the way the previous speaker did; we identified the problems I
think the way parents do, the way teachers do and local citizens who
examine education. And we do not need a Harvard Education Ph.D. to look
at American education today and see that teachers are not allowed to
teach.
We asked the simple question in our conversation a few minutes ago
off the floor with this couple from Florida, ``How can you teach, how
can you have order in a classroom when you cannot have discipline in a
classroom?'' And the same well-intended liberal policies from the other
side of the aisle have amassed laws and regulations, which, combined
with liberal judicial decisions, have handcuffed our teachers so that
it is almost impossible to have discipline in the classroom through
this maze of Federal regulations, mandates, and court orders. So we
have said we want the teacher to have the ability to teach in the
classroom.
Now, we also have a unique approach to education because we do not
think that the money needs to be in Washington and again the power and
the regulations all coming from Washington, but we think that those
resources, that those abilities, should be at the local level with the
teacher, with the parent, with the local school
[[Page H1926]]
board, again reversing this trend where everything has come to
Washington at a very heavy expense.
Now, let us also for a minute, before I get into this drug
discussion, talk about funding of education. My friends and my
colleagues, the Federal Government only provides between 4 and 5 cents
of every dollar on education, 4 and 5 cents. Now, of course we can
provide more. The problem is we provide about 90 percent of the Federal
regulations in education. So we provide very little money, but all of
the constraints and mandates and regulations that cause teachers
instead of teaching, not allowing them to teach, to be filling out
papers, to be complying with Federal regulations, and to report to a
maze of bureaucracy that now starts at the local level, goes to the
State level, goes to the regional level, and ends up at the Federal
level.
I was chairman during the past 4 years of the Subcommittee on Civil
Service. One thing I learned as chairman of that Subcommittee on Civil
Service is where the bodies in the Federal bureaucracy are buried. The
first 5,000, if my colleagues ever care to go down to the Department of
Education, now imagine, there are 3,000 of 5,000 Federal education
employees in the Department of Education here in Washington D.C., or in
the close environs, 3,000 people.
Now, we also got into the discussion of changes in education. And we
have, as a new majority in the Congress, tried to shift again this
responsibility from Washington, the authority, the regulation, and do
away with some of the bureaucracy. We started out with some 760 to 780
Federal education programs, all well-intended, but each with its own
administrative level, 760 to 780 of those. We have got it pared down to
700.
Quite frankly, we have only begun the paring process. But every one
of these programs has turned into lobbying organizations, into special
interest activities; and they justify their existence by lobbying the
Congress, by telling what a good job they have done. And what, in fact,
we have again are 3,000 bureaucrats in Washington D.C., most of them
making between $70,000 and $100,000 if we look at the pay schedules.
Now, I am not saying that we should abolish the Department of
Education, but I think we could do it with 10 to 20 percent of the
personnel that we have just by consolidating the programs.
In fact, there are proposals and there will be proposals before this
Congress very shortly to go to a Super EdFlex, where we take the amount
of money, we divide it by the student population and other criteria and
we send it to the States. This Congress, under this new Republican
majority, has tried to reverse the trend in that 80 to 90 percent of
the Federal dollars do not get into the classroom, do not get to the
teacher. Now, is that what people want with their Federal money, that
80 to 90 percent of this Federal money does not get to the classroom,
to the teacher?
Again, we have to allow the teacher to teach and discipline in the
classroom, authority, the responsibility, the ability to teach in the
classroom. We have to give that first. And secondly, we have to give
the Federal money to the student and to the teacher, a unique approach,
not to the 700-plus Federal programs, not to the 700-plus
administrators.
If we have only three administrators for each program at the Federal
level, there are 2,100 that help account for the 3,000 just in
Washington, D.C., in the Federal Department of Education. So we have to
ask ourselves where we want our dollars to go? Into the classroom? To
the teacher?
This Congress, this new Republican majority, said we want those funds
to go to the classroom and to the teacher. Then what are we teaching?
Again, in my discussion with this couple from Florida, the wife again
taught school. My wife was an elementary school teacher. I have a
degree in education, although I have never taught other than my school
required certification internship.
But we have to ask the question, what is a teacher doing in the
classroom? Does she have authority to control the classroom, first of
all? Does she have the funds, Federal funds and other funds, coming to
the classroom? Then the next question is, what is the teacher teaching?
The answer is, today Federal money goes on everything but basic
education. Now, show me a student that has basic education, is able to
read, is able to write, is able to conduct basic mathematics, and I
will show my colleagues a successful student. But almost all of our
Federal education programs go for everything except those basic
education fundamental programs.
And what is interesting is that the individuals who suffer the most
from this deficit in a Federal approach to education that again has
been adopted and culled and now culminates in this bureaucracy from
Washington and this sad approach to education as the ones who suffer
the most are our most disadvantaged students.
So our disadvantaged students are not learning the basic skills.
Those disadvantaged students, because they do not have these
opportunities to learn basic educational skills, I will tell my
colleagues what has happened. They are our first problem in the
classroom. Ask any teacher. They are our discipline problem. And the
teacher does not have the right to discipline or have control of her
classroom because of the Federal regulations and the bureaucracy that
has been created to make certain that a teacher does not have control
of the classroom.
So here we have the most disadvantaged, not able to learn the most
basic skills that are necessary. They become discipline problems. Then
next they become dropout problems. After they are dropout problems,
they become societal problems. They do not have a job. Sometimes they
get into drugs and into other illegal activities. Just look at the
statistics for unemployment among our minority youth. Look at the
statistics about dropouts among our minority youth.
So if we really care about education, if we really care about those
disadvantaged children, if we really care about getting dollars into
the classroom for our students, for our teachers, for basic education,
why not adopt a different approach? And that is the EdFlex approach
that we have talked about. And we may want to look at Super EdFlex.
As chairman of an oversight subcommittee on education, I intend to
conduct hearings in the future on this subject and see why we cannot
get more Federal dollars into the classroom, to students, to teachers,
to do away with the mass of bureaucracy.
It is interesting now this concept of charter schools. And what does
a charter school do? A charter school basically lets a teacher teach,
go back to basic education without the mass of regulations, whether
they are locally imposed, State imposed, or federally imposed.
So I did not intend to get off on this subject of education, but when
I hear those who have helped develop a system that has helped ruin
public education, and I am a strong advocate of public education.
Again, my wife taught in public schools; I was educated to teach in
public schools.
The public schools helped make this country great. The greatest minds
of this country, some of them were taught in a one-room public school,
and I think we can still achieve greatness in our public schools. And
public education has helped make America great, and our public teachers
deserve practically a little award of merit, the survivors, those who
have managed to survive the mass of bureaucracy passed down from
Washington, the mass of regulations that do not allow them to do what
they went to an education university or college for, and that is to
teach students in a disciplined atmosphere basic and fundamental
education and to help develop that policy of working with parents and
working with local school board members rather than edicts from some
bureaucrat at some level who causes them to do everything but what
their original mission was.
So I take great exception when I hear those who have helped create
the disaster talk about criticism about this approach to get back to
the basics that made American education and public education so great
in this Nation. And again, I commend our public teachers, those
survivors of this mass of bureaucracy we sent them from Washington and
regulations that they must try to deal with every day.
My purpose tonight also is to talk about another issue, an issue that
is not on the front page like Kosovo and
[[Page H1927]]
is not an issue like Iraq. It is an issue that I feel is one of the
most critical social issues facing this Congress, this Nation, our
young people, and every American in every walk of life now.
{time} 1830
It is a social problem that for many years was limited to folks who
were the unfortunate victims of illicit narcotics, illicit drugs,
sometimes lived in urban areas and became drug junkies or drug addicts
and were the cast-asides of our society. But, ladies and gentlemen of
the Congress, there exists in our Nation tonight and today a drug
problem that is of serious dimensions and proportions. Last year, over
14,000 Americans lost their lives because of drug-related problems,
drug-related deaths; 14,000. Since President Clinton has taken office
in 1993, 100,000 Americans have lost their lives. In many instances
young people, some of those in the prime of their life, have become
victims to illegal narcotics.
Now, this problem is so serious that I want to try to bring it into
some understanding to those individuals who represent various locales
here in the Congress. But if we took Hattiesburg, Mississippi and we
wiped it off the map and its population of approximately 100,000, that
would be equal to the number of individuals who have died because of
drug-related deaths. If we destroyed Gadsden, Alabama, again close to
100,000 people would vanish from the face of the planet. Iowa City,
Iowa would be wiped out, 100,000 died. If we had everyone die now in
Iowa City, everyone would be alarmed. In Elmira, New York, again a
population approaching 100,000, 95,000 Americans have died, more than
95,000, because of illegal narcotics in this country during this
administration. Bangor, Maine would be wiped out. Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
the population of that city would be wiped from the face of this
country. Cheyenne, Wyoming. I could give a long list of others that are
equal in population to those individuals who have lost their lives in
this social problem of illegal narcotics, in this criminal enterprise
now that is affecting every corner of America.
The cost of illegal narcotics in this country is approaching a
quarter of a trillion dollars. In addition to lives that I mentioned,
100,000 over 6 or 7 years, we had 14,000-plus last year, we have a cost
to this country estimated at over a quarter of a trillion dollars.
This Congress in our budget debate is debating a number of measures
to deal with illegal narcotics just in this next fiscal year. The
estimate is somewhere around $18 billion will be expended. We now have
in the United States of America 13.9 million Americans who are users of
illegal narcotics. Drug use by 12 to 17-year-olds in this period since
President Clinton has taken office to now has doubled, has doubled
since 1992, drug use by our teenage population. More than 6 percent of
Americans have used illegal narcotics in the past 30 days.
What is another dimension of the illegal narcotics problem in this
country is the change in the pattern of usage. When I came to Congress,
crack and cocaine were the big problem. Today, heroin is a major, major
problem, not only in our urban areas but in suburban areas across this
land, including my own area, central Florida, from Orlando to Daytona
Beach, one of the highest income, highest educated, one of the most
prosperous areas in America, and we have experienced an incredible
heroin epidemic and particularly again among our young people.
In the United States of America, first-time heroin use surged 875
percent from 1991 to 1996, again under the charge of this
administration. Heroin-related emergency room admissions increased from
1989 to 1995 some 80 percent. In Florida, I want to talk about the
problem that we have been experiencing again with heroin. Recently, a
number of our newspapers featured headlines that said that heroin
deaths increased 51 percent in the State of Florida from 1997 to 1998,
a 51 percent increase in heroin deaths. Two hundred six deaths in
Florida in 1997. Fortunately no Americans have been killed in Kosovo,
no Americans have lost their life in the current Iraq crises. Even in
the Gulf War, we had fewer than that number of casualties. But just in
the State of Florida, we had 206 heroin deaths in 1997, a 51 percent
increase from 1997 to 1998.
In Orlando and again central Florida, a very prosperous area that I
represent part of, we had 36 deaths, heroin deaths, and we had the
highest death rate, we had 3.6 per 100,000 population die from heroin
overdoses or heroin-related deaths. Additionally, our cocaine problem
still is with us in Florida. We had 1,128 cocaine deaths in Florida in
1998, up from 1,039 in 1997. So we are seeing an incredible epidemic of
heroin deaths, particularly among our young people, and even an
increase in cocaine deaths.
Now, you might say, how did we get into this situation? Let me
review, if I may, for the Congress and for the American people the
history of how this administration got us in this situation with these
statistics, with an epidemic of heroin, with the continued problems
with cocaine, with methamphetamine and designer drugs at epidemic
levels in other parts of our Nation.
The first thing this President and this Congress did when it was
under the control of the Democrat Party, and I do not mean to say this
in a partisan way, it is a matter of fact, but their policy was to
eliminate much of the war on drugs. Their policy was to try to just
deal with treatment of those who had drug abuse or illegal narcotics
problems and put our resources in that area. The first thing this
President did as President was to cut the positions in the drug czar's
office, and they were slashed dramatically, practically closed down the
drug czar's office. This was the very first action, as we may recall.
The second action was to appoint a surgeon general who really said
``just say maybe'' to the use of illegal narcotics. Now, if you do not
think that the chief health officer of the United States, who gives a
mixed message to our young population, does not influence that young
population in that important position, if you do not think the
President of the United States, if he would say that ``I didn't
inhale'' or ``if I had it to do over again I would,'' if you do not
think that influences young people, then I think you have another
thought coming, particularly when you see the statistics of the
dramatic increase in illegal narcotic use from 1993 to today.
Additionally, when the Democrats and the Democratic majority
controlled the other body, the Senate, the House of Representatives and
the White House, some of their first actions in the Congress in 1993
and 1994 when they controlled the entire governmental operation was to
start to slash the efforts of stopping drugs at their source. These are
source country programs. We know where 100 percent of the cocaine is
coming from in the world. Every bit of it is coming into the United
States, or was coming from and comes from today Bolivia, Peru and
Colombia. That is it. There are no other locales. We knew where heroin
was coming from, and this administration with this majority on the
other side slashed the eradication programs, slashed the interdiction.
Now, the most cost-effective way to stop illegal narcotics is at its
source, where they are grown, where the supply comes from. The next
line of defense is interdiction. What did the administration and this
majority in Congress, this past majority in Congress, do? They cut
interdiction. They slashed the programs for source countries, to stop
drugs at their source cost effectively. Then they stopped interdiction
programs. They also stopped the use of the military. They stopped, at
least temporarily, the sharing of information with some of the
countries in shoot-down policies. Only after a great ruckus in Congress
were we able to reinstitute the information sharing policy that allowed
us to give assistance and aid to other countries that had shoot-down
policies, these principal producing countries, so that they could take
action to stop those illegal narcotics from leaving their borders.
So we have seen what this administration has done as far as the
military, interdiction, eradication. Another thing that folks do not
realize is that the Coast Guard is a great line of defense,
particularly for Florida, around Puerto Rico. The Coast Guard has been
the first line of defense around Puerto Rico. It stopped under the Bush
and Reagan administration most of the illegal narcotics coming into the
United States. Puerto Rico is part of the United States and once you
get into
[[Page H1928]]
Puerto Rico, you are into the United States, and the Coast Guard
provided that shield.
This Congress under the previous Democrat majority and under the
Clinton administration slashed dramatically the budgets of the Coast
Guard and particularly the defenses and ability to interdict drugs
around Puerto Rico were eliminated.
So this is what this administration had done. We know what the other
administration had done. The Bush administration, the previous Reagan
administration had put into place programs that cost effectively
stopped drugs from coming into our borders, stopped our young people
from using drugs, and we actually saw decreases in use of illegal
narcotics and drugs coming into our Nation.
{time} 1845
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on how this administration lost
the War on Drugs and how under the control of the previous majority
this country lost the effort to interdict drugs cost-effectively at its
source. In fact, under this administration and under the previous
Democratic majority, they slashed stopping these efforts by funding a
percentage that went from 33 percent of all the funds we expended in
the drug war down to 12 percent. So basically what they did was gutted
by two-thirds the programs to stop drugs at their source. Again, their
emphasis was solely on those wounded in battle, treatment of those
victims of illegal narcotics.
This administration also decided to have the Department of Defense
rank counter-narcotics efforts at the bottom of its priority list. If
we look at a priority list developed by this administration in its
priorities, previously under again the Reagan and Bush administrations
this was a high priority. With DOD, the Department of Defense, it is
now a low priority. The President, not learning from experiences of the
past, proposed to this Congress through the Office of Drug Control
Policy and the Drug Czar a budget to the Congress that is $100 million
less this year than last year, and again in the areas that are most
important to stop drugs cost effectively at their source, the President
also failed to provide adequate proposals for funding of these
programs, including again the Coast Guard which plays such a vital
role, including the source country interdiction programs, including the
use of the military.
In fact, if my colleagues want to look at the budget, in addition to
being $100 million less, there is $73 million that is being currently
used to relocate our forward drug interdiction efforts in Central and
South America. We have previously been stationed at Howard Air Force
Base for these efforts, the advanced surveillance activities in our
illegal narcotics efforts over the South American region, again where
these drugs come from, again the source of production, the source of
transshipment of these drugs. Our eyes and ears and our frontline
defense in the War on Drugs is located in Panama at Howard Air Force
Base, and $73 million in this budget is to move our operations to
locations that will not under any circumstances be as good because this
administration, and it is not widely publicized, but basically they
blew the negotiating with the Panamanians, and the United States of
America is being kicked out lock, stock and barrel from Panama as I
speak here.
We have lost $10 billion in assets, lost every one of them. They
negotiated without success. We have lost every asset. There we have
lost 5,000 buildings, over 5,000 buildings, and we will not be
conducting one advanced forward drug surveillance operation there. In
fact, we will be paying $73 million out of this budget that has been
proposed by the President to make up for the failed negotiations which
got us totally kicked out of Panama and giving these assets to the
Panamanians is a disastrous consequences, I predict, not to mention
that the Panamanians, through a corrupt tender, have given one of the
ports to a Chinese group that basically is run by the Chinese Army. So
the Chinese will control one of the ports through a corrupt tender, and
this is the situation we find ourselves in, and again part of this
President's budget is being expended. Even though he has $100 million
less than we proposed last year and appropriated last year, additional
funds will be paid to correct mistakes by this administration.
So this is the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a very
serious drug problem, and I want to, if I may, to put this chart up
here and show the drug problem that we have in the United States, and
again, as a result of the inactions or lack of proper actions by this
administration in the 1990's we see this new pattern of illegal
narcotics coming from South America. Again, production of cocaine
through Columbia, Peru and Bolivia, and that was the pattern we saw at
the beginning, it is the pattern we still see, but we see the drugs now
coming through Mexico, and we see them coming from Columbia into the
United States, some through Puerto Rico into the northeast United
States and other routes, but the two major sources of illegal narcotics
coming into the United States are Columbia and Mexico.
Now let us examine, if we can for the record, how we got into the
situation where again Peru and Bolivia were the primary producers of
cocaine. I could not possibly believe this would be true if someone
told me it 5 years ago, but this administration managed to make
Columbia the biggest cocaine producer in the world, and they have done
that because in the past 5 or 6 years of this administration they have
fought every effort by Congress, they have fought every request of
Members of Congress, they have fought requests of the Drug Task Force
of Congress to get resources to Columbia to stop the production, to
stop the trafficking of illegal narcotics from Columbia. This
administration has done everything possible to make sure that those
resources did not go to Columbia. They stopped helicopters, they
stopped ammunition, they stopped resources. Now we have Columbia as the
number one producer. It has outstripped Peru and Bolivia and is the
number one producer of cocaine.
What is even more incredible is 5 years ago Columbia produced almost
no heroin, almost no heroin. Today Columbia is the source of most of
the heroin coming into the United States of America.
While this administration blocked equipment and supplies, resources,
military and police aid going in to stop the production and transiting,
when they blocked this, what happened? The drug dealers began
producing, and of course we heard cocaine. Now they are the major
producers, but in Columbia they are also now producing heroin, and it
is not like the heroin of the 1980's. This is tough stuff. This is high
purity, not 10, 12, 15 percent pure; this is 70, 80 percent. This is
the heroin that is killing our young people on the streets of Florida
and across this Nation.
So again, through the inaction or improper actions or inadequate
steps that this administration failed to take, Columbia is now the
biggest drug producer on the globe. It is my hope, it is my prayer, it
is the intent of almost everyone in the Congress who serves on the
subcommittees of jurisdiction, that this administration now will allow
helicopters, equipment, resources to get to Columbia.
I met several times with the President of Columbia, President
Pastrana. He is committed to the war on drugs. He has a very difficult
civil war on his hands. Thousands and thousands of police and military
have lost their lives at the hands of drug dealers and narco terrorists
and Marxist terrorists in Columbia. We have a very difficult situation,
but hopefully now this administration, with the urging again of
Congress, will get the resources to stop drugs at their source, which
the source is Columbia.
Now the other major source area and problem that we have today is
Mexico. Mexico has become the primary source of hard narcotics and
marijuana coming into the United States of America. It is the primary
source. Some of this is heroin and cocaine being produced in Columbia,
but now in concert with the drug dealers in Mexico, and with the
cooperation and with the consent in many instances of almost every
level of government, corrupt government in Mexico, we see the drugs
coming through Mexico into the United States. They are coming into the
United States through the largess of this Congress which voted NAFTA,
which voted almost an open commercial border between Mexico and the
United States of
[[Page H1929]]
America through again a policy that allowed us to give trade benefits.
Now we have to stop and think. This Congress gave great trade
benefits. They are not really an equal trading partner, not when they
pay people 25, 35 cents, even $1 an hour. These are not equal trading
partners as we did with Canada, which is a very equal trading partner.
We gave them a great trade advantage. And what did they give us in
return? An unprecedented supply of illegal narcotics transiting across
our border. This is a fact; this is incontrovertible.
The DEA administrator, who testified before my subcommittee and on
the other side of the Congress, said the corruption among Mexican anti-
drug authorities was, and let me quote him, ``unparalleled with
anything I have seen in 39 years of police work.'' This is one of the
most professional, most dedicated capable administrators we have ever
had. He does not buy the administration line even though he is a member
of this administration, and he tells it like it is. He has said that
the level of corruption in Mexico is absolutely unparalleled.
Now this administration has certified Mexico. Under Federal law we
have a certification law that says that every year the President must
certify whether countries who deal in illegal narcotics or are the
source of illegal narcotics coming into the United States, that the
State Department and the President must certify under this Federal law
that they are fully cooperating with eliminating both the production
and trafficking of drugs under this 1986 law. And this administration
has the past several years certified that Mexico is fully cooperating
and did so just a few weeks ago.
How can an administration certify that Mexico is cooperating when
even this Congress asked 2 years ago, this House of Representatives,
simple steps for the Mexicans to take? First, to extradite those who
are convicted of illegal narcotics trafficking, and to date I believe
they extradited one individual, and that is only under the pressure of
decertification, only under the pressure of so many people, from the
Minority Leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the
Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), by a
bipartisan majority saying that Mexico must take some steps to show
that they are cooperating. But they fail to extradite major drug
traffickers, they fail to install radar in the south, they fail to
allow our DEA agents to arm themselves, they fail to raise the level,
the number of DEA agents in their country that would be adequate to
deal with the severe problem that they have, and they fail to enforce
laws that they put on the books and have made a mockery of those laws,
including the most egregious incident I have ever seen a country take,
which was last year in an operation called ``Casablanca'' in which our
Custom officials identified millions and millions, hundreds of
millions, of illegal drug dollars going through Mexican banks and some
into the United States, and when it was uncovered, the Mexican
officials threatened to indict the United States Customs officials
rather than cooperate with our officials. What we got in return was a
threat against our agents, and only again until we came to the issue of
possibly decertifying them through a step of Congress, the House of
Representatives and the other body, not this administration who
certified them.
The President went a few months ago down and met with President
Zedillo, and he met there in the Yucatan Peninsula, this little point
here.
{time} 1900
We are told by our DEA officials and others in hearings that I
conducted that the entire Yucatan Peninsula is corrupt, that it is run
by drug lords. It is corrupt from the officer on the street to the
governor.
In fact, we knew it was corrupt. We are told the entire Baja
Peninsula is corrupt. We are told that entire other regions and states
in Mexico are corrupt from the bottom to the top.
We had testimony at a recent hearing, which I conducted as chairman
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, that in fact this corruption may go even to the highest
offices in Mexico. There were indications that there was as much as a
billion dollars that one Mexican official was trying to place from his
proceeds of dealing in illegal narcotics.
Now, President Clinton went with President Zedillo and met in the
Yucatan Peninsula, one of the, again, centers of corruption, one of the
centers of illegal narcotics. We knew that the governor of this state
was corrupt. We knew that he was involved in narcotics, but they have a
quirk in Mexican law that is interesting, that when you are in office
you cannot be charged.
So they were waiting until a few weeks ago when this Mexican
governor, we were told, would leave office so they could indict him.
That is what we were told.
Then what happened? Under investigation, this is The Washington Post,
April 1, April Fool's Day, this would almost be funny if it was not the
truth, but this Mexican governor of the Yucatan Peninsula, Quintana Roo
is the name of the area, under investigation the headline says,
``Mexican disappears; governor may have fled to avoid expected
arrest.''
Now, that should tickle the conscience of everyone in the Congress to
see that the Mexican official that we were told was going to be
arrested when he left office fled.
Now, to really rub salt in the wound, this is the Miami Herald story
of just a few days ago, missing governor fled to Cuba, paper reports.
So here is where the President of the United States, the President of
Mexico met. Here is where we were told it was corrupt from the bottom
to the top, and now we are told that that official, who was supposed to
be arrested, has fled the country and possibly may be in Cuba.
Do they think the Members of Congress are going to ignore this? Do
they think the American people are going to be fooled by the actions of
this government to fail to take actions against one of the most corrupt
officials? Do they believe, in fact, that this Congress will certify
that Mexico is fully cooperating when they turn a blind eye on the
escape of one of the major drug traffickers and one of the major
officials in the Mexican Government?
So this is where we are today. This is the history of the supposed
war on drugs by this administration; again, an administration that has
almost dissolved the Drug Czar's office; again, an administration that
appointed a Surgeon General that sent a mixed message to our children;
again, an administration, and the previous majority, the Democrat
majority that slashed the programs that stopped drugs cost effectively
at their source.
These are, again, the results that we see when we certify that a
country is fully cooperating and they make a mockery of the entire
process of cooperation, a country that we help with trade, a country
that we help with financial assistance. When it was going down the
tubes, the United States Government held back the financial
instability, that we still back through the International Monetary
Fund, through world financial organizations and through the
corporations of America.
So I ask tonight, where is the outrage? There is outrage about
Kosovo. There is outrage about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But these folks
from Mexico, these corrupt individuals, these illegal narcotics
dealers, have killed 100,000 Americans in the last 6 or 7 years of this
administration; 14,000 young people, young adults and Americans who
lost their lives, a cost of a quarter of a trillion dollars to the
American people. Where is the outrage?
If it takes every week, if it takes every night, I will be here on
the floor. If it takes 100 more committee meetings to bring this to the
attention of the Congress that we need to make certain that we get this
effort back on track, we need to make certain that we seek the
cooperation and that we seek working with our allies, such as Mexico,
to see that the flow of illegal narcotics, the production of illegal
narcotics, hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, that are
killing our young people are stopped at their source before they ever
reach our border, before they ever imprison our young people and
destroy the lives of so many Americans and destroy the lives of their
families. So whatever it takes, I will be here.
I see my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), on the
floor. The Speaker has appointed myself, the
[[Page H1930]]
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) from Ohio, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. McCollum). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is in charge of
working on the demand side and has done a tremendous job in trying to
put together community programs which, again, this administration has
not adequately funded, to educate our young people, to work in our
communities, to work with local organizations. He has done an
outstanding job.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the Speaker has appointed
him another cochair with me to the Speaker's Working Task Force on the
Drug Problem for the House of Representatives.
Both have done an excellent job. I commend them. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum) chairs the Subcommittee on Crime and works on
criminal justice legislation.
So with those comments, I am pleased to conclude my remarks tonight,
but I will be back as many times as it takes, as many hearings as it
takes, and as much attention as we must give this problem that, again,
I believe is the most important social problem facing our Nation, our
Congress and the future of all Americans.
____________________