[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2347-H2351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ILLEGAL NARCOTICS AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bono). 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. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, I am pleased to come to the
floor again tonight and will be coming to the floor each and every week
I get the opportunity to talk about a situation that I think is our
number one national social problem, and that is the problem of illegal
narcotics and substance abuse in our Nation.
In this Congress, as many of my colleagues know, I was assigned a
responsibility to chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform.
With that responsibility, I inherited a position that was really held
by the former chair of the national security subcommittee on which I
served, and the chair of that subcommittee was the honorable gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is now Speaker of the House.
I may say at this time that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert)
helped put back together our national effort to begin to address the
problem of drug abuse, illegal narcotics trafficking, and address in a
very serious fashion for the first time since this administration took
office the problem of illegal narcotics that face our Nation and our
community. So I am pleased to inherit that responsibility.
I am also troubled by that responsibility because the problem is so
enormous. The scope of this problem, my colleagues, goes beyond
anything we see on the nightly news. I know the attention of the Nation
and the Congress and all Americans has been focused on the tragedy in
Colorado; and certainly that was a tremendous human tragedy, with a
loss of some 15 precious lives.
I know also, my colleagues, that the attention of the Nation and the
Congress is focused today and tonight and will be this week on the
situation in Kosovo, in harm's way. But my colleagues, a very, very
serious situation faces this Congress, and that is what to do about the
rising use of illegal narcotics, particularly among our young people
and among our population across this Nation.
And it is not just a question of use. If there was not any damage, if
there was not any result, people may very well turn their heads the
other way and ignore the problem. But, my colleagues, the problem is
absolutely enormous. Over 14,000 and possibly up to 20,000 Americans,
depending on whose statistics we use, last year lost their lives in our
Nation as a result of drug-related causes. This is an astronomical
figure.
And I have said on the House floor since this President took office,
approximately 100,000 Americans, the population of some of our larger
cities in this country, have died at the hands and through the use and
abuse of illegal narcotics and the tragedy that it has brought to their
lives and to their families.
So tonight I am back again, with that responsibility, seeking
answers; and tonight I plan to focus a bit again on the history of how
we got into this situation and review that. Because I think it is
important that we learn from the mistakes of the past, we learn from
the mistakes of the Congress, we learn from the mistakes of this
administration, we learn from the mistakes of this President and we try
to improve on what we are doing both in policy and legislative action.
It is important, I think, also that we focus beyond the past at what
we are doing as a Congress now, what programs have been instituted. I
will talk about those briefly.
And then I want to talk about another subject that fits into the
question of interdiction and stopping illegal narcotics in a cost-
effective manner before they ever reach our shores so that we limit the
shear quantity and supply of illegal hard narcotics coming into the
United States of America. And that subject will deal tonight with the
question of Panama and this administration's failed negotiations, this
administration's failed planning and this administration's complete
lack of response to a situation that confronts us in the next few days.
In fact, May 1 we must stop all flights from Panama and we are giving
up all of our assets in the Panama Canal. I want to talk about how that
affects our ability to conduct and advance surveillance, how it is
going to cost the American taxpayers a huge sum of money to deal with
the failed negotiations again of this administration.
Incidentally, I will be holding a hearing next week on the Panama
Canal situation as it relates to the narcotics trafficking issue. But
later in this month I will be holding a hearing on the question of drug
legalization.
Since I have taken over as chair of this subcommittee, I have
received many requests to look at decriminalization, legalization, and
other alternatives to incarceration. And I think that that subject
deserves a review by the Congress, a serious study, and an examination
as to how we can better address this growing problem of the people who
are affected through the problems of trafficking or use of illegal
narcotics. So those are some of the topics I plan to discuss tonight.
I would like to go back to the situation for a minute. I hate to
repeat this.
[[Page H2348]]
But I have to review how we got in this situation. I think history
records it first, so the American people pay attention to it second.
And thirdly, that we do not repeat these mistakes.
The first thing that was done was by this administration and this
President was to in fact, basically, throw out the window all of the
programs that had been instituted back in the 1980s, first by President
Reagan and then by President Bush, to address a problem that we had
with the cocaine epidemic and some hard drugs coming into the country
at the beginning of the 1980s.
Many programs were put into place and cost-effective programs:
interdiction, eradication of illegal narcotics at their source in the
country, interdiction as the drugs left that source country, use of the
military, use of other United States assets to try to stop illegal
narcotics coming across into our borders and increasing the supply of
hard drugs available.
Each of these programs in 1993, when the President controlled, of
course, the White House as chief executive, had complete control and
wide margins of majorities in both the other body and the House of
Representatives.
What took place, again, was an error we should not repeat. The first
thing he did was to cut the drug czar's office and budget dramatically.
The next thing, and I think one of the most damaging things and
something we are really feeling the ravages of across our Nation today,
is our young people.
Our young people are smart, and when our young people hear a leader
of the United States or someone who wants to be leader of the United
States to say it just does not matter, they can do these things,
something is wrong.
This President appointed a surgeon general, the highest health
officer in the United States of America, to an important position of
responsibility, Joycelyn Elders, who came up with this policy of just
say maybe.
So we fail to have leadership from the President. We fail to have
leadership from our chief executive medical officer of the Nation. And
I think we are still suffering from that lack of direction, lack of
message.
The message during the Reagan administration was very clear, ``just
say no.'' It was very simple but it was very direct, and even our young
people understood it. But this just say maybe and then cutting the
programs that were instituted, again under President Reagan and
President Bush, to cost-effectively stem the tide, the shear tide, of
illegal hard drugs coming into the Nation, these things were cast
aside.
The military was taken out of the war on drugs. The Coast Guard's
budget was cut dramatically, which protects our borders. I know in
Florida we saw the Coast Guard budget dramatically cut around Puerto
Rico. And that directly affected Florida, the citizens of Florida,
because drug dealers started using Puerto Rico, without that
protection, as an entry point for illegal narcotics.
Our State has been flooded, particularly with heroin, and we have
experienced in central Florida and throughout Florida record deaths
weekly through the use of heroin which is coming through that route.
Moreover, we saw something happen that should shake up every Member
of Congress and every citizen of this country. The use of heroin by our
teen population from 1993 to 1997 jumped 875 percent, use by teens of a
very hard and deadly drug.
What was different about some of the narcotics that came into 1980,
including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, was that in those days and that
decade we had a very low purity level. The heroin that we have been
seeing come into the United States both from Mexico, from Colombia and
transited through other areas is of incredible purity, sometimes 80, 90
percent pure. Cocaine has also increased. And marijuana's potency has
also increased.
So, particularly with heroin, we have seen young people mixing it
with alcohol or some other substance or first-time users getting a dose
of these high proportions of purity and not recovering, dying the most
horrible deaths imaginable from their use and sometimes experimentation
and addiction to heroin.
{time} 1830
Madam Speaker, the cost of all this is absolutely astronomical. We
are putting together right now a bill that will be close to $18
billion. I might say that this new majority, the Republicans, again
under the direction of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), put
together all the programs that were dismantled, again the cost-
effective programs of interdiction, close to the source, and first of
all eradication at the source, very cost effectively. A few millions of
dollars do an incredible amount of good there.
I use as an example what has taken place in Peru and Bolivia in the
last couple of years. This new majority has worked with the leaders
there, President Fujimori and President Hugo Banzer of Bolivia. We
have, in fact, dramatically decreased the production of cocaine from
those countries. Unfortunately, this administration has had a policy of
trying to stop any aid, assistance, resources, helicopter, ammunition,
anything to fight in the war on drugs, to Colombia; and Colombia has
now become the major producer of heroin entering the United States. And
also it was not in 1993 on the charts as any type of a producer of coca
and is now the largest coca and cocaine producer in the world.
So the policy of this administration, in fact, has caused us to fail
in a very important area, that is, Colombia, as a direct result of
policies of this administration.
The second area where we are seeing actually the majority of hard
drugs transiting into the United States is Mexico. I have spoken many
times about the problems with Mexico, in absolute frustration. We have
given Mexico trade assistance. We have backed them from a financial
standpoint in all of the international financial agencies. We have been
a good ally. We have opened up our border from a commercial standpoint.
What we have gotten in return is a flood of drugs. Again a policy of
this administration has been to certify repeatedly Mexico and its
officials as fully cooperating in our effort to eradicate the
production of illegal narcotics and the trafficking of illegal
narcotics. By any measure, Mexico has failed to assist and fully
cooperate as required under Federal law. But again this administration
repeatedly certifies them, fails to hold their feet to the fire.
This Congress requested Mexico, time and time again, to aid in some
simple request to curtail the drug trafficking. First we asked for
extradition of major drug officials. Two years ago this month, this
Congress passed a resolution by a rather wide margin, and we find that
to date not really one major drug trafficker who is a Mexican national
has been extradited from that country. We have asked Mexico to sign a
maritime agreement so we could stop some of the drugs that are
transiting through the seas off the coast of Mexico and dealing with
Mexican nationals, and still they have not signed a maritime agreement.
We have asked Mexican officials again to allow our DEA agents to
protect themselves, actually to increase the presence of our DEA. We
have a very limited force down there working with Mexican officials.
Again these requests have been denied. Radar to the south to keep drugs
coming from Colombia and Panama, transiting through the isthmus and up
through Central America, again almost no action.
And then we have asked for enforcement of laws that the Mexicans have
passed and actions against illegal narcotics traffickers in Mexico.
What have we gotten in return? Our customs officials uncovered one of
the most incredible banking scandals in the Western Hemisphere. It
involved Mexican officials. This sting operation was conducted with
full knowledge of the highest Mexican officials. Unfortunately,
sometimes we cannot give them the entire story because corruption goes
from the bottom to the top in that country, but they were aware of what
was going on. Did they fully cooperate as required by our law to
receive trade, aid, financial benefits? No, in fact they threatened to
indict our United States customs officials who were involved in that
operation.
Then if we look at the hard facts about Mexico and what it has done
in the last year to deserve, again, extended United States trade and
aid benefits and financial support, all the things we give them, what
have they done? It is almost pitiful. The seizures of cocaine are
dramatically down, over 30 percent in Mexico last year. And
[[Page H2349]]
hard heroin and opium, also dramatic decreases in seizures by Mexican
officials. The number of vessels that are seized has also decreased. We
have seen the takeover of the entire Baja Peninsula which is now raging
with narcoterrorists, 315 killed last year, some horrendous murders
where they line up women and children and gun them down in these drug
wars; and the Yucatan Peninsula where our President went to meet with
President Zedillo of Mexico. Totally corrupt. The Governor, we were
promised, of the Yucatan Peninsula would be arrested, would be confined
the minute he left office. We were told that they were not going to
arrest him before he left office because Mexican law gives him immunity
and it is difficult to prosecute. So they were going to go after this
guy after, in fact, he left office. But our latest report is that he
fled, the Governor of the Yucatan Peninsula, in Quintana Roo, left
several days before he left office. Some reports have him on an island
off of Cuba at this time.
So that is the kind of cooperation that we get really dirt kicked in
our face. And some people turned a blind eye to it because of the trade
relationship. Some people do not want to upset the Mexican Government.
What was astounding was we recently held a hearing on this subject
and we will also be holding a hearing, I believe the week of the 11th
of May for the information of my colleagues, on the situation in
Mexico. But the last hearing we held, we had testimony of another
Customs agent who testified that 1 out of 4 major Mexican generals, one
Mexican general was trying to launder $1.1 billion. Where does a
Mexican general get $1.1 billion, I ask?
So this is what we get in return. This is the policy of this
administration. Unfortunately it has created a disaster. The disaster,
as I said, will cost us over $18 billion, direct costs that we will be
funding in the next few months.
The cost to the American society is estimated at a quarter of a
trillion dollars. Drug and substance abuse costs the taxpayers, the
citizens, all Americans, a quarter of a trillion dollars, $250 billion
in social costs when we add in all the lost wages, when we add in the
welfare, the social payments, the cost of the criminal justice system,
the incarceration, not to mention the heartache and the deaths that
have been incurred by so many by this tragedy.
So I wanted to review and I will continue to review the past errors
of this administration. I do want to also say that I think it is
important that we as a new majority be responsive to the errors that
were made and correct them. I think we have done that.
Last year we have added over $1 billion, and I think in very cost-
effective areas, to increase education almost $200 million, and that
program is now underway. That program requires public
service announcements which you may or may not be seeing on your
television or in your media. Both newspapers and other forms of media
should have that proposal.
I was concerned that our education effort was somewhat diminished in
the past era of this administration. I was concerned that during,
again, their control of the Congress and also the White House, that
they did not pay proper attention to what should be done. I did
propose, almost 4 years ago, legislation that would require an increase
in public service announcements paid for really by those that hold
Federal communications licenses. Each year if we look at it since 1990,
those folks have lessened their public commitment, their public trust
responsibility in my opinion, and should be doing more rather than
less.
The White House proposed as an alternative to spend a rather large
amount of money. We ended up with a compromise. For every one of the
$190 million that the Congress has appropriated, we must have donated
the equivalent time or resources towards these public service
announcements and this education effort.
That is a small part of everything we have done. We have restored the
cuts in the Coast Guard, we have restored the military's involvement in
the interdiction effort. And most importantly and most cost-
effectively, we are going back and making certain that the source
countries, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Mr. Speaker, 99 percent of the
cocaine comes from Bolivia, Peru and Colombia that is entering the
United States. It is a no-brainer to use a few dollars to stop these
drugs at their source from getting into the United States and
penetrating our borders. So we can do that very cost-effectively, those
things.
Again, the new majority has restored those programs and getting the
assets to Colombia so that the new President, in working with General
Serrano, the head of their national police force and others, that we
can make a difference where those drugs are being produced and at their
source, again so cost-effectively.
I believe that it is important, as I said tonight, that we also focus
on the situation of those drugs that are coming in in huge quantities
into the United States, and what is happening to our efforts to curtail
those narcotics, again, source country I think is so important, and
interdiction before they get to our borders.
Something that has been brought to my attention and I think should be
on the radar screen of every Member of Congress and every citizen this
week is the date of May 1. I say May 1 is an important date, because
May 1 will be the day that the United States of America will no longer
be able to have any flight operations in the Republic of Panama or the
Panama Canal or at any of our bases there. This really is the result of
an incredibly failed negotiation by this administration that most
people have not paid much attention to. But the United States is about
to turn over the keys and lower our flags on our bases and facilities
in Panama as part of the Panama Canal transfer.
By the end of this year, the United States military will have
returned property consisting of about 70,000 acres, not to mention the
improvements thereupon, including one very expensive canal, plus 5,600
buildings. These assets are estimated with a value of $10 billion. So
what President Carter started, President Clinton is finishing with a
bang, that we have in negotiations totally lost any rights, any ability
to have any presence in Panama.
Now, that might not be a big problem, Mr. Speaker, but, in fact, all
of our forward-operating operations for the war on drugs, for our
international surveillance over these areas I just described of
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia where these drugs are coming from, from
sources, not to mention where they are being transited from, every bit
of our forward observation locations, every one of those and our
ability to launch reconnaissance flights from there are ending this
week, May 1.
{time} 1845
Again, it is incredible that the negotiations which the
administration and State Department and others said were coming along,
were coming along, fell on their face. It was not until we took a
congressional delegation down there several months ago to ask the
status that we found out there were not even interim agreements.
In the past few weeks the administration has scurried and has managed
to put together several interim agreements. Let me show you what we are
facing with this situation.
All of our operations have been located, again, in surveillance on
illegal narcotics production and trafficking from Panama. To deal with
this situation we had hoped that the administration would negotiate
some agreements with Panama to continue launching these flights there,
and we have conducted annually some 15,000 flights there. We had 10,000
troops; we are down to 4,000 troops, and they will soon be out of that
area and unable to conduct these flights or these operations.
Now, in addition to losing the $10 billion in assets, the buildings,
the canal and a little bit of pride, what is absolutely incredible is
the taxpayers are going to foot the bill to relocate these operations
to a very big tune, and that is going to be $80 to $100 million dollars
on an interim basis. Madam Speaker, this is so disorganized that they
really do not know where they are going to house the folks who serve
this country who are responsible for these flights.
But scary is if we look at this chart, this chart shows the ability
of our operations, our forward operations, to cover the areas. If we
took 100 percent as what we are covering right now for surveillance and
observation, come the
[[Page H2350]]
end of this week we may have just an incredibly reduced capability even
with the interim agreements that are being signed with Aruba, and
Curacao and Ecuador; we may at best some time in May get up to 70
percent, and even after we spend the $100 million, we will be lucky if
we get to 80 percent.
So, we have gotten ourselves kicked out of the Panama Canal, lost our
assets that our taxpayers have helped contribute, again, buildings and
resources there, and we have also gotten our advance international
narcotics Western Hemisphere forward surveillance operations and all
flight operations canceled.
Most folks did not pay attention, but several weeks ago we turned
over the keys to our naval operations, and that brings to mind
something that I want to bring before the Congress, the House, tonight,
and that is my concern about what has taken place, and I learned that
in a meeting with our officials and also with others who have been
involved in observing what is going on in Panama.
The situation in my estimation has the potential for a future
disaster. This administration allowed our naval bases, former naval
ports, of course to disappear, and the two ports in the Panama Republic
have now really been turned over to others, and to describe what has
taken place I want to read from an article that Robert Morton, and I do
not want to say this, I want someone else to say this; but let me tell
my colleagues what has taken place and quote from Robert Morton in an
op-ed he did March 4, 1999:
``The Clintonesque government of Panama in effect sold Chinese rights
to two prime, American-built port facilities that flank the Canal Zone
both to the east and the west. The 50-year contract awarded Balboa, on
the Pacific side, and Cristobal, on the Atlantic side, to a giant Hong
Kong shipping firm, Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd. By any analysis this
company, headed by Li Kashing, is an interesting operation.''
And he goes on to report ``Hutchison has worked closely with the
China Ocean Shipping Co.,'' and that is COSCO, which we have heard
about before, and let me go on, on shipping deals in Asia even before
Hong Kong reverted to Beijing's control in 1997. COSCO, you may
remember, is the PLA, and the PLA,'' is the Chinese Army, ``PLA-
controlled company that almost succeeded in gaining control of the
abandoned naval station in Long Beach, California,'' and there was
quite an uproar about that.
``Li Kashing has served on the board of directors of China
International Trust and Investment Corp., a PLA,'' again, Chinese Army,
``affiliated giant run by Wang Jun whose name may ring a bell. Yes, the
very same Wang Jun enjoyed coffee at the White House in exchange for a
modest donation to the Clinton-Gore 1996 slush fund,'' and let me
continue here.
``As retired U.S. Navy Admiral Thomas H. Moorer testified before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 16, 1998, `My specific
concern is that this company is controlled by the communist Chinese.
And they have virtually accomplished, without a single shot being
fired, a stronghold on the Panama Canal, something which took our
country so many years to accomplish.' '' That is one quote that I
thought that the Congress should have on the record.
Another observation that I found that I thought was interesting about
what is taking place in Panama was really expressed by a Panamanian
last year who was running for president, and there is an election in
Panama coming up. But this presidential candidate, and I will quote his
comments and his concerns, and this is approximately a year ago:
A Panamanian presidential candidate has asked the U.S. Justice
Department to investigate China's activities around the canal and the
possibility of a quid pro quo between the Clinton administration and
the Asian Communist power.
``Concerned about possible executive branch complicity and China's
gatekeeper status at the Panama Canal, Panamanian presidential
candidate William Bright Marine,'' and Marine is a dual U.S.-Panamanian
citizen who was born and raised in the Canal Zone, I might add, but
according to him, he wrote to the Justice Department on May 4 last year
and said, ``I have yet to speak with one single American who is not
outraged at the fact that the Clinton administration has allowed
Communist China to obtain control of U.S. ports, U.S. basis, and
functions of the Panama Canal. They today, effectively control access
to the Panama Canal.''
This agreement could not have happened without the consent of the
Clinton administration. The executive branch has been copied by my
correspondence regarding communist China dating back to 1996. They
cannot claim ignorance.
And just one more word on this from a retired Lieutenant General,
Gordon Sumner, who also observed recently, and let me quote his quote:
``The deal grants a 2-year waiver of labor laws and veto rights over
the use of abutting properties, in clear violation of the Panama Canal
Treaty.'' A Hutchison lawyer by the name of Hugo Torrijos was also the
head of the port authority that awarded the contract.
So these contracts have been let, these ports are already lost, and I
am told confidentially and I am also told publicly that these tenders
for control of these two ports were very corrupt tenders and, in fact,
also greased with Red Chinese influence. In fact, Red Chinese influence
in Panama is growing in many ways. Recently the Bank of China extended
a 15-year, $120 million loan to Panama at 3 percent interest to finance
the government's investment program.
So we have a situation where the Panama Canal, an important strategic
asset to the United States, 13 percent of all the shipping, the
international shipping and commerce, flows through the canal, and it
has an incredible amount of trade that relies on the use of the canal,
and this again this Saturday will be second turning over of the canal
and its properties to Panama and a prohibition against any further
flights by the United States in our war on drugs. This, in fact, is
going to strain our Department of Defense's ability to keep a watchful
eye on drug shipments and transit routes and will really hurt our
efforts in eradicating drugs at their source, which again is, I
believe, so cost effective.
Either more assets will be needed to provide the same relative level
of coverage, or we are trying to do the same job with again a limited
number of coverage areas, which I showed on the chart, and we will
greatly diminish our ability to cover those areas that were previously
cost effective. They were covered by our bases out of the Panama Canal
and Panama Canal Zone, and again the taxpayers are going to pick up the
bill for this $100 million to relocate these operations which will not
be by any measures as effective, at least at the beginning on the short
term will be somewhat disorganized, because this administration again
has not completed any long term agreements, only short term.
And I am told that the next round of expenses that we can expect, in
addition to this $100 million expense, will be a tab for up to $200
million for repairs and for improvements in the Ecuador situation. Even
the Ecuador agreement, which is an interim agreement, is only a short-
term agreement, and we will face a serious problem because that
government right now of Ecuador and that country is undergoing some
very difficult political and domestic turmoil.
It is sort of sad to think about it and reflect on it. President Bush
about a decade ago sent our troops into Panama, and why did he do that?
To stop drug trafficking, to stop the chief executive of that country,
General Noriega, in his tracks as he was charged with illegal narcotics
trafficking, money laundering and other offenses dealing again with the
illicit drugs. Our troops went in there, our troops fought, wounded,
and others lost in that effort, but we made an effort. We took that
country back.
Now that was the approach of the previous administration to deal with
a corrupt chief of state and others who were responsible for, again,
illegal narcotics trafficking.
{time} 1900
General Noriega still sits in jail in the United States for those
offenses. This is the policy of this administration: to fail in a
negotiation to maintain any of the assets, to maintain any of our
locations or capability to launch a drug effort.
[[Page H2351]]
What concerns me tonight, my colleagues, is we are looking at some
potential dramatic costs and disaster for the future. One of the things
that the United States did when they went into Panama was to really
help dissolve the military organization which was corrupt, which was
the tool of General Noriega, and also involved in some of this illegal
and corrupt activity.
We have in fact dismantled most of the military in Panama, leaving
them with a weak national police force. What concerns me is that Panama
has had on its border and within its border the FARC organization and a
Marxist rebel group which are conducting operations, both from Panama
now and also in Colombia. As they see the opportunity for corruption to
take hold, as we lose control of any assets, any military presence in
the Canal Zone, I think we are creating a vacuum, and I think some of
these rebels from the south, again, will move further into Panama and
create a very unstable situation.
So we may be back in Panama at great cost, at great sacrifice, in the
future, but it is in fact the failed negotiations, again, that have
gotten us into this situation, into this cost and into this potential
for future activity by these Marxist guerrillas who are already located
in Panama and, I think, again will take advantage of this.
Panama has always been a major narcotics route and it always will be
because of its location as an isthmus and as a route linking South
America and Central America and North America. Again, I believe that we
are going to pay a very high price in the future by the decline of our
ability to conduct advanced surveillance operations from the location
we have had.
Panama historically has had a notoriously corrupt political class,
and, again, we are faced with only a small police force to deal with
this impending situation with the departure of the United States
forces. Both the country and the canal, in my estimation, are in
danger, and we are about to turn over this entire operation at great
cost and great loss to the taxpayer. We will hear more about this in
the hearing that we will be conducting next week as that action takes
place on May 1.
I also want to just talk briefly tonight about the national debate
that is raging on the question of use of illegal narcotics in this
country. I said earlier, as chairman I have pledged to hold a hearing
and will do that, I hope, later this month on the question of
legalization and also decriminalization of illegal narcotics.
I myself do not favor that action by our government, by our Congress.
In fact, what I think from what I have learned since taking over this
responsibility and my past work on this issue is that sometimes tough
enforcement, tough eradication, tough interdiction, does in fact work.
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate before our subcommittee,
but I must say that, again, all the evidence I see points to the
contrary.
Let me just, as I may in closing, comment on what I have learned
about the question of tough enforcement versus legalization. I have
here a chart, and I will put it up here for a few minutes, and it is
narcotics arrest index crime comparison for New York City.
This chart dramatically shows as the numbers of arrests for narcotics
offenses increased, that in fact the incidence of crime dramatically
was reduced. This is pretty dramatic, and it covers the period from
1993 to 1998 under the regime of Mayor Giuliani. So when drug arrests
are enforced and executed, in fact crime goes down. The proof is in
this chart and in these statistics, and I think is not refutable.
I would like to compare that. I got this chart from Tom Constantine,
who is the United States Drug Enforcement Administrator. He looked at
New York and saw a dramatic decrease in crime in that city. Then, by
comparison, he looked for a city which had a more liberalized
philosophy and tolerance of drug use and programs to provide
alternative substances to drug users.
A great example, of course, is Baltimore. Baltimore in 1950 had a
population of 949,000, and it had an addict population of 300. In 1996
it had a population which was reduced down to 675,000. It had 38,985
heroin addicts. Absolutely startling statistics. Again, a policy of
liberalization, not the tough enforcement. New York's statistics are
absolutely dramatic, not only the crime index that I showed you, but
the loss of lives.
Let me, if I may, put up as a final exhibit this chart that shows the
numbers of murders in New York City in 1993; nearly 2,000, 1,927. In
1998, I believe it is a 70 percent reduction, 629.
Therefore, I think that the question of legalization will be
interesting. The question of decriminalization will be interesting. I
think we do need to look at some other ways rather than incarceration
for so many individuals who have ended up in our jails and prisons,
nearly 2 million Americans at this point. But the facts are, my
colleagues, that tough enforcement does work.
Madam Speaker, tonight I have had the opportunity to again raise
before the Congress and the House what I think is our biggest social
problem facing this Nation, 14,000 to 20,000 drug-related deaths last
year across our land, hundreds of them across the district that I
represent, with heroin, just tragic deaths, cocaine and other hard
drugs that have taken their toll, particularly among our young people
and across this Nation at great loss, not only in dollars and cents
that the Congress must expend and public policy that demands, but also
the incredible human tragedies.
I cannot describe how difficult it is to face a parent who has lost a
son or a daughter in a drug overdose. I cannot describe the agony that
they as a family must experience, to lose a loved one to this tragedy.
So as we focus on all the other problems, we cannot forget, again,
what I consider is the major problem facing the Congress and this
Nation, the social problem. I do feel confident about learning from the
past, as I said, not making the mistakes of the past, putting our money
on programs that work, that are cost effective, looking at some
alternatives. And I welcome those suggestions from my colleagues and
others that are interested in this subject so that we can do a better
job for all Americans, and particularly for young Americans who are the
biggest victims today of this epidemic facing our land.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the House
tonight to talk about the subject of illegal narcotics and drug abuse.
____________________