[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8959-H8964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHERE WE ARE WITH DRUG POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Granger). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come back to the floor
tonight, and as usual on Tuesday nights, I try to address the House and
the American people on the subject of the illegal narcotics situation.
As I have stated many times on the floor of the House of
Representatives, I take this issue very seriously.
I chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
[[Page H8960]]
Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight charged
with the responsibility of trying to coordinate and get back on track
our war on drugs. And I do say get back on track our war on drugs
because, as I have stated many times in detail, last week in my
remarks, the war on drugs basically was closed down in 1993 with the
beginning of the Clinton administration. When the Clinton-Gore
administration controlled both the White House, they controlled
substantial majorities in the House of Representatives, in the United
States Senate, and in 2 years of domination completely destroyed,
completely dismantled almost all of our international narcotics
efforts, took apart the cost-effective source country programs that
stopped drugs very cost effectively in their production, in their
route, at their source in the countries that produce them.
Then, of course, the administration, working with the majority in
Congress, gutted nearly half the amount of money for interdiction, in a
very short period of time dismantled almost all of the programs that
interdicted drugs at the second stages from the source. First,
destroyed those programs, interdiction where you caught them cost
effectively at the second level of before entry to our borders, cut
those programs in half, use of the military almost decimated, use of
the Coast Guard in areas like Puerto Rico which saw an incredible
influx of illegal narcotics from throughout the Caribbean and then
transited it into the United States, even into Central Florida, my home
area of central Florida from Orlando to Daytona Beach, one of the
victims of that failed policy.
Then additionally, Madam Speaker, adopting a very liberal policy as
far as our national leadership on the issue, soft on the issues, a
national health officer, Jocelyn Elders, said just say maybe, and our
kids took that at face value, and we have seen the dramatic results
among, particularly among, our young people who were so susceptible, we
found, to that soft message sent out of the White House and out of the
administration and sent out of the Congress. Again, a short time in
which they controlled all these mechanisms, but a lot of damage was
done.
Now, digging our way out again, we have increased source country
programs. We are getting them almost back to the 1992 levels. The
interdiction programs' involvement of the military, the Coast Guard,
almost back again to the 1992 levels. And education program which we
have no match. For which again, I credit the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hastert) who is now Speaker of the House who helped secure funding
for that program in the last Congress under his leadership as a
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security on which I served
with him that had drug policy jurisdiction. Education.
And of course, contrary to what is out there, the Geraldo Riveras and
the others who give these programs about how the war on drugs is a
failure, they do not have a clue. Of course we never mention that the
war on drugs, in fact, was closed down by the liberal elements. But, in
fact, the war on drugs is successful when it is multi-faceted, as I
said, where it deals with stopping drugs at their source, interdicting
drugs, a strong education program.
And, of course, the Riveras and others will not tell you that in the
Clinton agenda most of the money went for solely, treatment. The
increases from 1993 to 1995--1996 nearly doubled for treatment, and
they continue to double. And, of course, we think treatment, this new
majority does, is a very critical part to any multi-faceted and
effective anti-narcotics program. But by itself it is sort of like
treating only the wounded in a battle, and we cannot just be taking in
the casualties, treating them and sending them back out or allowing
them just the alternative of a life of addiction as we compared with
Baltimore last week.
Madam Speaker, Baltimore now has the distinction of probably 60,000
addicts in a liberal Clinton-Gore type policy which has enslaved almost
one-tenth. A Council person from Baltimore said it is one in eight who
are now victims of addiction. And that is the liberal policy as opposed
to the Giuliani zero tolerance, tough enforcement approach and the
approach that the majority in this Congress, the new majority in this
Congress, has adopted.
So we know that stopping illegal narcotics at their source is very
cost effective, works. We have seen dramatic decreases in Bolivia,
Peru, two countries which were really the major sources of coca and
cocaine production. Now that has shifted to Colombia because mostly, as
I pointed out and documented very well last week, of the Clinton-Gore
policy that stopped all assistance, all aid, closed down the war on
drugs basically in Colombia so that Colombia is now the largest
producer. And the little programs that were started under this
Republican majority in Peru and Bolivia have now dramatically cut, and
again with small expenditures, production there.
But again it closed down the shoot-down policy; it closed down the
assistance programs, a close-down of the cooperation in providing
intelligence to Colombia. It destroyed those programs and now has
Colombia, which was really not a coca producer, a producer of the raw
source, it was a producer as far as transforming of the coca and
processing it into cocaine is now the major producer in the world of
cocaine, a great achievement that the Clinton-Gore administration has
managed to pull off in less than 6 short years.
And now, of course, we have the rampage of heroin. Again, 6 years
ago, almost no heroin coming from Colombia. Now the largest source of
heroin in the United States grown in Colombia, a by-product of the
Clinton-Gore failed foreign policy towards Colombia. And the solution
as they run to the Congress, whether it is Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, or
wherever is more money and funds. And, of course, we will be saddled
with an estimated $1 billion request which is coming forth to the
Congress to help solve the problem that suddenly sprung up in Colombia
that actually they created with a failed policy over the last 4 or 5
years.
So that is where we were last week, and tonight I want to talk about
where we are with drug policy. Some things happened in the House of
Representatives, in fact, just the last few days. Those who watch the
House of Representatives may have watched a resolution that was brought
up by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) asking
for fair and free elections in Haiti. Now this, my colleagues, is the
same Haiti that had the same failed policy that was adopted by this
administration that sort of got us in this mess and at no small expense
to the American taxpayers or the Congress.
Now stop and think about this. We went in to save Haiti, and we went
in by a Clinton-Gore method of destroying Haiti by imposing an embargo
which I spoke out very actively against. I had been to Haiti many
times, knew a little bit about Haiti. It is the poorest Nation in the
western hemisphere. People there make about a dollar a day, and we
imposed an economic embargo.
{time} 2015
What we did with this Clinton war solution was we closed down 100,000
manufacturing jobs that supported almost 1 million Haitians, and almost
all those manufacturing opportunities were owned by U.S. employers who
had worked with Haitians to start a little bit of a real economy in a
land that had known nothing but poverty. It really is the saddest case.
Haitians are some of the most wonderful people I have ever met on the
face of the Earth. So we imposed an economic embargo.
What that did was it destroyed any business that might have been
legitimate in Haiti, and it turned these folks of this island into
basically a liberal Clinton-Gore type welfare state, sort of a
socialized system where they relied on Federal funding really from
Washington, D.C. to supply food stations and foreign aid and
assistance.
I remember talking to the ambassador and others, like what did you do
after we imposed this embargo and we sent our troops in? Recall, we
spent over $3 billion on this nation-building experiment that has
turned into such a disaster that here we are on the floor of the House
of Representatives passing a resolution saying can you participate in
free elections and can you stop the corruption with your police and
with your government?
This is after those billions and billions of American taxpayer
dollars were spent for nation-building programs, institution-building
programs.
[[Page H8961]]
If you stop and look, they are spending American taxpayer money on
teaching them how to be legislators, and they could not even convene
their legislature; teaching them how to be political people; teaching
them law enforcement, and here we have one of the highest levels of
corruption in the entire hemisphere, some 4 or 5 years later, and
billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars down the drain.
But I did ask the question to the ambassador and the others involved
after we sent our troops in there, and we have got established, what
have you done to bring back businesses to help American businesses in
partnerships which we had started with Haiti before this embargo?
Basically, they had done very little or nothing.
Even to this day, they still do not get it. They think that the way
to nation-build is to provide just the institutional assistance and not
real sound economic development. You can spend all the American
taxpayer money you want in the world in Haiti; and until you have some
real market activity, tourism, manufacturing, things that create jobs,
some agriculture that allows them to provide for themselves, the
handout programs do not work. Yet we have done this.
How embarrassing it must be for this administration and this Congress
to stand here in the last few days and pass a resolution asking them to
sort of clean up their act, after spending billions in this nation-
building.
The reason I cite that as a failed Clinton-Gore policy in relation to
narcotics is because we have seen the corruption of the police force
there. Allegations have been filed on members of the Haitian National
Police Force accusing them of a wave of murders, disappearance of
detainees and drug-related crimes and other illegal activities. These
are the latest reports that we have had.
The United States, in the billions we spent, we spent $75 million to
help train and build the police force, and the police department has
had to dismiss over 530 officers over the last 4 years for corruption.
This little report in the Tuesday, September 28, Washington Post
Foreign Service said, and it quotes a Colin Granderson, ``If you are
asking me whether I am more concerned about rot in the police than a
year ago, the answer is yes,'' said Colin Granderson, Executive
Director of an international civilian mission here in Port-au-Prince,
run by the Organization of American States and the United Nations.
Let me quote him further. He says, ``We have both human rights
concerns and concerns about the broader conduct of officers,
specifically with respect to criminal activity, in particular drug
smuggling.''
Now, if that is not the crown jewel of the accomplishments of the
Clinton-Gore administration. We spent billions of dollars, we have an
economy that is defunct, we have corruption in the political levels
unknown to the Western Hemisphere, and we again have spent a fortune in
these training and assistance and aid and handout programs. And what do
we have? We have Haiti being named as one of the drug smuggling centers
of the Western Hemisphere.
It was interesting too in checking into the airport just this past
weekend, I noticed, I think it was with, I believe, Nigeria, but I am
not certain about that, but there was one other nation mentioned, as
you enter the security, it says ``Please note that these airports in
these countries are not in compliance with international security.''
There was one other country, and, again I do not recall if it was
Nigeria, but I do know very well that the second country named in the
list was Haiti and Port-au-Prince Airport.
What a great distinction, again, Clinton-Gore policy, on spending
these billions on destroying the economy and real market activity and
instituting a social handout program, the institutional training by all
these ``experts,'' and we have drug smuggling; and we have one of the
worst security risk airports in the world cited as, again, in Haiti.
So I am very concerned about what has taken place there. I am even
more concerned now that Haiti has become a haven for illegal narcotics
activity.
Tonight I also want to go sort of around the hemisphere and talk in
addition about Colombia, which I mentioned last week. I will review it
again tonight, and about Haiti, another third Clinton-Gore failure of
policy.
I cannot give 100 percent credit to President Clinton and Vice
President Gore for this disaster. This took a combination of
leadership. It started with President Carter, who negotiated the
turnover of the Panama Canal, and maybe it was rightful and just for
the United States to eventually cede back the canal to Panama, but it
did take an administration that was in place in the past year or two to
begin some of the final negotiations for departure of American
interests and personnel from Panama.
Here again when they write the history books, they will have, of
course, Somalia and Haiti and Colombia; but another crown jewel of
policy failure has to be Panama.
I did not take over the subcommittee until January; but, again, I
served with Speaker Hastert who was then Chair of the subcommittee.
Everyone has known that the United States' lease was up, that we had
to be out of Panama by the end of 1999, December 31. That was a given.
The question was the negotiations; the question was the resources that
we had there. Most Americans do not know it, but we had over $10
billion in assets, American assets, over 5,500 buildings in Panama.
When I assumed chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources, I went down to Panama early on and met
with our folks in charge there. I also stopped in Miami and met with
our SOUTHCOM officials who were also responsible for DOD operations in
that area.
We were told then that the administration was negotiating a
withdrawal of United States troops that in particular had been involved
in the interdiction effort and the surveillance effort through South
America and Central America. We had been doing, I believe, up to 15,000
flights from Howard Air Force Base in an FOL, forward operating
location, surveillance for international narcotics trafficking.
We knew that our time was limited, but we knew that we must negotiate
with the Panamanians. We might not have been able to keep a military
presence, but certainly it was in everyone's interest in the region and
the hemisphere for the United States to continue these narcotics
flights to the south and cover all of South and Central America, where
we have the problems.
We know all of the cocaine in the world comes from Colombia, Peru,
and Bolivia. We know that 80 percent of the heroin entering the United
States is produced and comes from Colombia, and it all travels up
through that region. So that is why the Howard Air Force Base
operations were critically important to that forward oversight and
surveillance mission. We were told that negotiations were under way
when I visited there and met with officials and this would all be done.
What happened, in fact, is May 1, Howard Air Force Base was basically
closed down as far as further flights. The United States was summarily
kicked out. The negotiations failed. Our State Department failed in
negotiations to continue the drug flights. So in a mad scurry, the
Department of State began, along with the Department of Defense, to
find new locations.
They did bring us rather late to the gate several alternatives. One
was Aruba and Curacao in the Dutch Antilles and the other was in Manta,
Ecuador. Of course, the price tag now may reach one-quarter of a
billion dollars before we are through relocating these, but we have
closed down all operations.
There has been a huge gap in surveillance of those drug and illegal
narcotic activities in the time that the negotiations failed and
alternatives were being explored and pursued.
To date, I do not believe that we have in place, either with Aruba,
Curacao and the Netherlands, and I have met recently with the Dutch
officials on this issue and I do not think there is anything new, but
we do not have a long-term agreement on an operation there. So it is
very difficult for us to take American taxpayer money and put it into
this location for facilities, improvements or operations.
Some of those operations are up. We are still at a very low
percentage, less than 50 percent, of the flights that we
[[Page H8962]]
had prior to May 1. So we have lost 5,500 buildings; we lost $10
billion in assets, no opportunity to opt out of Howard, and now the
taxpayer is going to pay for moving these operations to the Antilles
and to Ecuador.
In Ecuador the situation is even more dismal. The country there has
had economic and political turmoil. We do not have a permanent
agreement in place, and even though Manta, Ecuador, where the facility
is to be located, is a good forward operating location, it will take
even more dollars than suspected; and we have had additional requests
already from the administration to put our forward operating locations
in.
So both of those are still up in the air. Again, another crown jewel
in failure to be prepared, failure to negotiate with the Panamanians.
For possibly the payment of a small amount, we might have retained our
bases and operations just for the narcotics operation, a great savings
to the taxpayers, but yet have an ideal location where we were already
operating out of. Now we are operating on sort of a half-baked fashion,
half-performance fashion, at great cost to the taxpayers.
If we had not lost just Howard Air Force Base and closed down the
operations there, the situation, again as it affects the United States,
is very serious. I was pleased to read just yesterday, I believe it
was, yesterday's National Media, that the Senate majority leader, Trent
Lott, has asked the Senate Armed Services Committee to conduct hearings
on China's growing presence around the Panama Canal, a strategic
waterway, which is, of course, being transferred to Panamanian control.
I am very pleased that the majority leader of the other body is in
fact focusing attention, because what I learned in not only my visit to
Panama in anticipation of problems and requesting the administration to
take action so we did not get ourselves into this pickle, but what I
found out about what had already taken place or was taking place as far
as possible future strategic damage to the security interests of the
hemisphere and the United States in particular, I believe, again, we
have missed our mark, that we have a failed policy, that we have
allowed also the ports, both on the Pacific side and on the Caribbean
side, I believe it is Cristobal and Balboa, now to fall into the hands
of possibly Red Chinese interests.
{time} 2030
Let me just cite from this report. The Hutchinson-Whampoa, Limited,
the Hong Kong based company that won a long-term shipping contract to
operate two canal ports, is rumored to have Chinese military and
intelligence ties.
I have been personally told, and it has been confirmed by the
director of our National Office of Narcotics Control, our Drug Czar,
that he believes that the tenders that were conducted thereto and
contracts for these ports were not above the board and that these
contracts and tenders were done in a corrupt fashion. That has been
confirmed by many others.
But now we have possible links to Chinese military and intelligence
as far as controlling interests in both of these ports. It is important
to the United States because the United States is the number one user
of the canal, which carries 13,000 ships per year.
Panama has always served as a major transit area for illegal
narcotics. If my colleagues will recall, the reason the United States
sent troops, and American troops died on Panamanian soil when Noriega
was the President and dictator of that country, George Bush's policy
was to go in and route out illegal narcotics trafficking. We knew
Noriega was involved. We knew he was corrupt. We knew he was involved
in money laundering.
George Bush's solution was to tackle the problem and go after
Noriega, who is in United States prison. That is some only 10 years
ago. American men and others lost their lives in that battle to reclaim
the strategic interests.
Here we are signing away and giving away that interest. What is
interesting is that one of the things that was done with the fall of
Noriega was really the dispersal of the Panamanian military. There is
almost no military in Panama today, just a national police force.
That creates a very difficult situation, because most of the illegal
narcotics transiting up through the isthmus of Panama into Central
America and Mexico and across the U.S. border must again come through
that area and under the control of either military or police.
There being no Panamanian military, we have a great problem with a
force that is small, inadequate, and, at times, sometimes subject to
corruption again with large amounts of money in the drug trade.
We also have the terrible problem of the insurgency that is in
Colombia, which I spoke about last week, the Marxist insurgency, of
which there is no line between the insurgency and Marxist guerilla and
narco-trafficking. They are supported. They are intertwined. Our Drug
Czar has said one cannot tell the difference between the line.
These Marxist forces are now going from Colombia, which borders
Panama, into Panama and making incursions further into Panama which is
weaker and more corrupt.
My prediction is that the United States will end up again some years
down the pike, when the corruption becomes so bad, when narcotic
trafficking becomes so bad, and, again, will pay the price, hopefully
not in American lives, but to take back our interests.
We are not interested in running Panama, but securing for the entire
hemisphere that strategic location, that strategic transportation link
between the two seas. I am pleased that the Majority Leader is taking
action, as again reported, and demanding hearings on that issue.
In addition to the fiasco in Panama, tonight I wanted to again
mention that the statistics, the information that we have on illegal
narcotics, the effect of illegal narcotics in our country, particularly
among our young people and our population at large, is becoming more
and more serious.
I come from an area that has had more deaths by heroin overdoses than
homicides. If one stops and thinks about that, people think of crime
and murder and its ravages and guns destroying lives. But illegal
narcotics overdoses, particularly heroin, in Central Florida now exceed
homicides.
As one parent who lost a son told me at a hearing, drug overdoses are
homicides. I am always reminded of his comments. But we have seen that
impact in Central Florida; and now, unfortunately, we see it repeated
across our Nation, not only with heroin, but with methamphetamines,
with cocaine.
One thing that I started to mention at the end of my remarks last
week and really did not get it in is the difference that we are seeing
between the cocaine and the heroin of the 1980s and the 1970s and even
the marijuana.
We will talk about marijuana tonight too, about the difference in the
drugs that are on the streets and in the marketplace and also being
used by our young people and why we have so many deaths and destruction
of lives.
First of all, in the 1970s and 1980s, the heroin and cocaine that was
on the street had sometimes a 6 and 7 percent purity, 100 percent being
pure. It was 6 or 7. Sometimes strong stuff might have reached 9
percent purity.
Today, through the processing, through the chemistry, through the
product that is being produced and entering this country of heroin and
cocaine, the purity levels are 70, 80 percent. These narcotics are
deadly substances. Basically people are dealing in death and
destruction. That is why we are having this epidemic of deaths among
young people.
I do not have this past week's statistics, but I had just several
cites from the Orlando area: One 30-year-old woman who died of an
overdose of cocaine. That is powerful, deadly cocaine. Heroin, several
heroin deaths I cited. One, a 12-year-old boy went in and found his
father who had overdosed on heroin. That is deadly heroin.
Particularly our young people, sometimes the first time they use it,
they mix it with alcohol or some other substance, and they go into
convulsions, and they are history. But that is the difference that we
see.
Even the marijuana today, the levels of purity are much higher. I
believe it is the TCH levels that are substantially higher than
anything that we have ever seen. Scientific studies have
[[Page H8963]]
shown that the damage that is done to the brain through these high
levels of purity is substantial.
I was interested to note, I got a report, again, as chair of this
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Relations,
about substance abuse and addiction to substances by our teenagers and
young people. I would have thought maybe alcohol might be up there. I
was absolutely stunned to see that the vast, vast majority of addiction
and treatment is for marijuana, that these young people become,
addicted to this high purity level.
I have met, we have a Stewart Marchman Center in the Daytona Beach
area, and I have sat at a little round table with young people there
and also down in Orlando, the Center For Drugfree Living, have met with
young people there without and, some instances, with counselors and
talked to them confidentially about their involvement.
Almost all of them had become victims of this high grade of marijuana
that destroys their motivation, that begins to affect their
performance, their routine, their ambitions, and, again, leads to
addiction and crime in many instances.
We have an incredible problem. The national drug crisis, I always try
to cite some statistics about the problem. Tonight, let me just mention
that, in 1998, more than three-quarters, that is 78 percent, of high
school teens report that drugs are sold and kept at their schools, a 6
percent increase over 1996. That is even with some of the education
programs that have been instituted. So, indeed, we have a problem. That
is part of a CSA teen study in 1998.
From 1993, and again remember 1993 was the close-down of the war on
drugs, to 1997, a youth aged 12 to 17 using illegal drugs has more than
doubled. That is again, we had the time that the Clinton-Gore
administration ruled supreme. They controlled the House and Senate.
They closed down some of the programs I spoke about. The results are
pretty dramatic: 120 percent increase in illegal drug use by our 12 to
17 year olds. There has been a 17 percent increase between 1996 and
1997 alone. That is a 1998 national household survey.
The overall number of past month heroin users increased a startling
378 percent from 1993 to 1997. That is part of the inheritance, I
believe, also of this liberal policy to just say maybe, the Joselyn
Elders approach of, if it feels good, do it.
For kids 12 to 17, first-time heroin use, which is proven to kill,
that surged a whopping 875 percent from 1992 to 1996, again dramatic
figures that are a result of a failed policy. There was no war on
drugs, remember, from 1993, the beginning of the Clinton-Gore
administration, until just several years ago with a new majority and
restarting all of the efforts that are necessary to combat illegal
narcotics.
The other failed policy I would like to talk about tonight is a very
serious failed policy. I talked some about Haiti. I talked about
Panama, reiterated the problems that we have had in Colombia, which I
detailed last week. Tonight, I must talk about Mexico.
I have spoken probably more than anyone in the House of
Representatives about the problems with Mexico and illegal narcotics
trafficking. But the story is a very important story in our war on
drugs, because the majority of illegal narcotics, whether it is
marijuana, heroin, cocaine, all come through Mexico.
When we went to Panama, we also met with Mexican officials early this
year and asked for their cooperation and assistance. We reviewed what
Mexico has done. We reviewed what this Congress has done for Mexico and
the American people as good friends and neighbors and allies. We have
millions of Mexican-Americans who are productive citizens.
The picture, unfortunately, about what this Mexican Government and
Mexican officials have done, the picture is very sad. Indeed, the
problem again is that we have an estimated 70 percent of the cocaine
coming from Mexico. We have 50 percent of the marijuana and 20 percent
of the heroin in the United States now coming through our southwest
border.
Last week, on Friday morning, I conducted a hearing on the southwest
border. When we came back from Mexico, we stopped at the border and met
with our officials, and they basically told us, Members of Congress in
charge of national drug control policy, that the situation on our
southwest border dealing with illegal narcotics is out of control.
{time} 2045
It is disorganized. It is in disarray. There is a lack of
communication, a lack of coordination. And that is of great concern.
Dealing again as chair of this Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources, and with billions of dollars involved in
some of these efforts in these agencies, we wanted to see specific
results. I was pleased that our drug czar Barry McCaffrey came in and
testified, and he told me beforehand he was glad that we conducted a
hearing on the Hill on the southwest border because it gave him
additional clout to deal with these agencies, and also the opportunity
to bring them together to see what was working and what was not
working.
And that was the purpose of our mission, and our exchange last Friday
at our meeting. We know that there have been some successes in 1998.
The U.S. Customs Service seized 32,000 pounds of cocaine, 150,000
pounds of marijuana, and 407 pounds of heroin. We also heard testimony
that reconfirmed what we had heard in our site visit back at the early
part of this year, that the Customs agency does not talk to the INS and
the INS does not talk to the DEA and the DEA does not talk to the FBI
and other agencies, again 23 agencies that deal with border
interdiction and four cabinet level posts, are not all operating in
sync.
And we certainly have seen the results of some of the narcotics
trafficking that has occurred along this border. Let me just tell my
colleagues a little bit about what we heard at our hearing about border
violence.
In April 1998, four marijuana smugglers, dealing with that so-called
harmless marijuana on the west side of Nogales, Arizona, assassinated a
United States border patrol agent. His name was Alex Kurpnick, and
committed murder in a so-called harmless trafficking of illegal
marijuana.
We have heard of increased violence against United States border
patrol agents, with more rock throwing, laser beam pointing and actual
incoming fire from Nogales, Mexico. All this we heard is on the
increase. In Santa Cruz County, Arizona, along the border, the majority
of crimes committed there are drug related.
In March of 1999, a few months ago, Phoenix police department
officer, Mark Atkinson, was killed when he was ambushed by a Mexican
illegal alien teen. His name was Felipe Petrona-Cabanas, who was
involved specifically in drug dealings.
In July 1999, three apparent sniper attacks, possibly by the same
gunman, within a 45-minute period, were aimed at United States border
patrol agents from El Centro, California. Again, we heard of more
situations along our border with Mexican illegal narcotics trafficking
raising havoc, and again problems with our agency coordination and
efforts to combat this problem.
In border violence there have been 151 documented incidents from
January 1, 1999, to date involving violence toward Federal law
enforcement officers along our southern borders. In 1998, there were
140 instances of border violence.
The drug smuggling along the border continues to take on even more
sophisticated techniques. I think some of my colleagues may have read
about the Santa Cruz Metro Task Force which recently uncovered two
secretly dug tunnels that connected to Nogales, Mexico. The tunnel was
designed to smuggle drugs across the border. It was also discovered
from the Tijuana National Airport to the outskirts of San Diego. So
these drug traffickers become even more and more clever in their
approach.
All this is very interesting, again as far as the violence and the
problems and the disorganization of our agencies, and it would be
fodder for congressional investigation on its own, if we did not look
at the efforts that we have made to increase the number of border
patrol agents, the Southwest Strategy as it is called. In the last 6
years, the border patrol agents have increased from 3,928 to 8,027. In
the same 6-year
[[Page H8964]]
period, the INS budget, Immigration and Naturalization Service, who
has a large activity along the border, their budget has increased from
approximately $1.5 billion to nearly $4 billion. During the same
period, the INS staff grew from approximately 17,000 employees to
28,000 full-time employees as of June of this year.
So it is not that the Congress has not put an effort into this border
problem. The problem is that we have put the funds there and we still
do not have the cooperation and the effectiveness to deal with this
situation.
Now, each of the agencies who came before our subcommittee promised
to do better and to work together. That remains to be seen. But, again,
we will try to keep the pressure on to see that American taxpayer
dollars, which have been heavily loaded in this effort, are more
effectively expended.
Again, we have received these problems from our good friend and ally
Mexico, and I want to talk a little bit about the country that gave us
these problems. Mexico has been a good ally. We have many, many Mexican
Americans who are loyal citizens and very productive. But the
government of Mexico has failed to cooperate on almost every front.
This is another one of the crown jewels of the failed Clinton-Gore
administration policy. They gave them NAFTA, which was probably the
best trade deal ever created by the United States Congress, a trade
agreement that is unparalleled in the history of international
negotiations. Great trade advantages to Mexico. We put our people out
of business, lost jobs across the Nation, and gave them great economic
opportunity.
We once had a positive trade balance, and now we have a huge trade
deficit. They are pouring their goods in, which are produced across the
border with lower wages, lower standards, lower environmental
requirements across the board. It is not a level playing field, but we
gave them those benefits.
When they got in financial trouble, what did we do? This
administration bailed them out. We bailed them out with an
unprecedented number of dollars in financial support. They have gotten
as a nation and an ally and friend almost every advantage possible.
And what have they given us? We ask and we require, in order to get
trade and foreign aid and assistance, we ask the President and the
Secretary of State to certify each year to Congress that they are
cooperating in stopping illegal narcotics production and trafficking.
That is the drug certification law. In other words, if they cooperate,
they get this assistance. If they do not, they are supposed to be
decertified. Each time, Clinton-Gore has certified Mexico as
cooperating.
The worst insult was in the last year. And I want my colleagues to
look at these figures from 1998. Mexican drug seizures. We asked them
to help in seizing illegal narcotics, and this is what we got: from
1997 to 1998, in seizing heroin, a drop of 56 percent; in seizing
cocaine, a drop of 35 percent. Is this cooperation?
This Congress passed 2 years ago a resolution asking Mexico to help
in signing a maritime agreement. To date, they have not signed a
maritime agreement.
We asked for protection of our agents, because some years ago Enrique
Camarena, a United States drug enforcement agent, was tortured and died
in a horrible death and slaughtered like an animal by Mexican drug
dealers. So we have asked for protection of our small number of agents,
and we still do not have those guarantees of protection.
We asked for enforcement of laws. They pass laws in Mexico, but they
do not enforce them. And what did we get? We got kicked in the teeth
like no other nation has been kicked in the teeth after giving them
incredible trade benefits. What did they do? We started a sting
operation in Mexico, because we knew, and we had reports of incredible
amounts of money laundering. In fact, this operation was called
Operation Casablanca by our customs agents. Our customs agents
discovered the biggest money laundering operation in the history of the
world.
In fact, in testimony that we had by one former Customs agent, he
told us that he was in the process of trying to money launder over $1.1
billion for a Mexican official, who was identified as a cabinet member,
possibly a secretary of defense, and possibly with ties to the
president of Mexico, the current president of Mexico.
Now, we know the former president, Salinas, and his brother and
family, were up to their eyeballs in illegal narcotics and money
laundering and every sort of crime; but, again, we had testimony before
our subcommittee about what was going on there. Instead of cooperation,
instead of enforcing the laws, they threatened to expel and even to
arrest our United States customs agents. This is a travesty.
What was very interesting, and what I think warrants, what I think
warrants investigation, and I am going to ask the director of the FBI
to look into it, is the latest death of a former Deputy Attorney
General who died awaiting trial here. In a suicide note, he died a few
weeks ago, he implicated Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and members
of the country's ruling party in the slaying of his brother. He also
said that the Mexican Government is opposing a push by the United
States Congress to level major penalties against business ties to drug
traffickers. This is additional information that we have gotten.
What is sad is that we have information now that implicates even the
highest office. What is sad is that the initial investigation of the
money laundering of $1.1 billion was basically closed down by our
Department of Justice, closed down by our Customs operation. That is
even after comments by individuals like Tom Constantine, who is the
former head of DEA, who said, ``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. Corruption among Mexican
antidrug authorities was unparalleled with anything I have seen in 39
years of police work.''
The story gets even more difficult as we look into the evidence that
continues to arise about the level of corruption with Mexican officials
at every level. We have reports now that the Baja Peninsula, the
western state connected to California, is now almost entirely under the
control of illegal narcotics traffickers. We have reports that the
Yucatan Peninsula is also in a similar state and other States of
Mexico.
So we have been good friends. We have been good allies. And every
report that we get paints an even grimmer picture.
{time} 2100
Finally, we asked the Mexicans to extradite major drug kingpins. The
United States, on November 13, 1997, entered into and signed a protocol
to the current extradition treaty with Mexico. This protocol has been
ratified by the other body, the United States Senate; and it still has
not been ratified by the Mexican parliamentarians.
This is a very sad state of affairs, again an example of failed
Clinton policy granting them certification and granting them trade,
granting them financial assistance, and getting in return none of the
requests of this Congress, failure of cooperation in narcotics.
Mexico today has the crown and glory of being the major drug
transport area from Colombia through Mexico, again the largest source
of illegal narcotics entering the United States, a very dismal picture
presented and brought to my colleagues, unfortunately, by this
administration.
Hopefully, working with this new Congress, we can turn this around,
we can get the resources to Colombia, we can take a tougher stand with
Mexico, we can continue to hold hearings, make the American people and
the Congress aware of this situation, and reverse this sad state of
affairs with our closest ally, our closest friend, in exporting to the
United States terror, death, and destruction in the form of illegal
narcotics trade and business.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to conclude at this time and, hopefully,
be back next week with another report on the problem of illegal
narcotics and how it impacts both this Congress, the American people,
and the next generation. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield back the
balance of my time.
____________________