[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9892-H9897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 IMPACT OF ILLEGAL NARCOTICS IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor again 
tonight to talk about the issue of illegal narcotics and its impact 
upon the United States of America.
  As I begin my remarks tonight, I want to take a moment and pay 
special tribute to a gentleman who I have had the honor and privilege 
of knowing from my district in Central Florida. That individual is E. 
William Crotty, and he is affectionately known to all of us who are 
friends of Bill Crotty as Bill Crotty.
  He had the distinction of being appointed the ambassador to seven 
Caribbean nations by President Clinton last November and has been in 
that position until his death just a few days ago.
  To his family, we want to extend our deepest condolences, extend our 
sympathy to his wife Valerie and his children and his relatives.
  I have known Bill Crotty for many years. I happen to be a Republican. 
I am actually in a family dominated by some pretty prominent Democrats. 
Bill Crotty was a Democrat's Democrat. But although he and I sometimes 
differed on political parties, we agreed more often on the need to 
serve our community, to serve our State, and to serve our Nation.
  The untimely death of Bill Crotty this week has left our community 
with a great void. It has left the Democrat party with a tremendous 
loss. He was one of the largest sources of support, financial 
assistance, and dedication for the Democrat party of any individual I 
know in the United States.
  He took on every challenge with a great energy particularly in 
support of his party and his candidates and also, as I said, in the 
best interest of his community, State, and Nation.
  He was appointed United States ambassador to the Caribbean nations of 
Barbados, Antigua, Barbuda, Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Saint Kitts, 
Nevis, and St. Vincent, and the Grenadines.
  Since he assumed that post, I had the honor and privilege of talking 
with Bill Crotty and working with him. We both had a common interest in 
that region; and that was to bring stability, to bring economic 
development and trade to that area of the Caribbean.
  One of our mutual concerns was the problem of illegal narcotics. Just 
some weeks ago, Bill had written me and sent me these letters and clips 
and he said, ``Dear John, enclosed please find an article that appeared 
in the July 23rd edition of the Grenada Today. The article discusses 
deportees, but the thrust is drug trafficking.''
  He goes on to discuss the possibility of our visiting with a 
delegation and meeting with leaders in the Caribbean to help them in 
their efforts to combat illegal narcotics. He closed by saying, ``It 
will be a real honor for my wife and I to host you and your delegation. 
I will send you additional materials I think may interest you 
concerning drug trafficking and Caribbean matters.''
  Again, just recently discussing with Bill Crotty, our ambassador, 
this particular situation we face in the Caribbeans on illegal 
narcotics, I have an article that was published just before his death 
that spoke of Bill Crotty's determination to make a difference in the 
post in which he was appointed to serve. The article from the Daytona 
Beach News Journal in Central Florida said, for example, ``He delivered 
a state-of-the-art Fairchild C-26 aircraft from the United States 
Government to Barbados. Prime Minister Owen Arthur was the recipient 
and received this as part of an $11 million support package to the 
regional security system in the Caribbean to help fight drug 
trafficking.''
  We have lost with the death of Bill Crotty, again, an individual who 
was dedicated to his community, to his party, and also an ally with me 
in the war against illegal narcotics. His untimely death again leaves 
us all at a loss. But we do want to extend our very deepest sympathy to 
his family who now have grief as Bill has left us. Again, Mr. Speaker, 
we pay tribute tonight to E. William Crotty, United States Ambassador.
  When I speak on the floor of the House every Tuesday night and get an 
opportunity, I like to talk about some of the items in the news and I 
led tonight with the obituary of a good friend and dedicated American. 
But it appears to me that almost every time anyone picks up a newspaper 
or turns on the television or hears some media report, that individual 
in the United States or in any of our communities hears more and more 
about the effects of illegal narcotics.
  Leading the news this week was the death in Laramie, Wyoming, of a 
young, gay man who was beaten to death by several individuals. Some 
have referred to it as a hate crime.
  No matter how it is referred to, it was a horrible incident. And I 
know the State of Wyoming and many people in the community of Laramie, 
Wyoming, are saddened by that occurrence in their community and that 
tragic death.

                              {time}  2230

  What captured my imagination and attention, again dealing with the 
question of illegal narcotics as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice and Drug Policy, is the headline that said ``Shepard-
Death Defendant to Claim Impairment.'' This is the headline in Tuesday, 
October 12 Washington Times. The first paragraph says, ``Laramie, 
Wyoming. The attorney for a man charged with beating college student 
Matthew Shepard to death said yesterday his client's judgment was 
clouded by drugs and alcohol.''
  Again even as we face the most tragic events of our time that are 
publicized in the media, we look at some of the root problems beyond 
hate, beyond theft and robbery, beyond other charges that have been 
alleged, and we see drugs and alcohol and substance abuse as possibly 
the root cause of these crimes. Again, this entire area of illegal 
narcotics and substance abuse has taken its toll across our Nation.

[[Page H9893]]

  Last week, I reported the most recent statistics indicate that over 
5,200 Americans died last year from drug-induced deaths. I do not think 
Matthew Shepard's death will be counted in those statistics as I have 
cited many others who have died as the result of someone being involved 
with illegal narcotics. But the toll continues to rise and rise. In 
addition to the deaths, we have the incarceration of 1.8 million, close 
to 2 million total Americans in our jails, our prisons. Our judiciary 
system is clogged at tremendous expense to the taxpayer with people who 
have committed serious felonies, crimes, robberies, murders and other 
illegal acts either under the influence of illegal narcotics or in 
dealing with illegal narcotics. The toll from illegal drugs in our 
country continues to rise.
  Also in the news, relating to illegal narcotics, is a debate that has 
really tied up the other body, the United States Senate, and the House 
of Representatives with several pieces of legislation. As my colleagues 
may know, the President has vetoed the D.C. appropriations measure. One 
of the provisions in that particular bill does restrict needle exchange 
programs. It is now one of the problem areas that the House of 
Representatives and Congress, the other body, find ourselves in 
conflict with the administration. They want to promote these needle 
exchanges. It has caused the veto in part of this particular bill 
relating to funding D.C. government. The Congress is also embroiled in 
a battle to fund several major departments. One of the largest bills 
that we will face in Congress is the education, labor and human 
services bill, HHS bill as we refer to it. Recently, the other body 
struck a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and 
Human Services Secretary to create a clean needle exchange program for 
drug users. In some of the debates on that, one of the quotes that 
struck me was ``giving an addict a clean needle is like giving an 
alcoholic a clean glass,'' said one of the sponsors of that legislation 
in the other body.
  What was also interesting is a study that was referred to. I have not 
read all the details of this study and I have used the example of 
Baltimore which has had a very liberal policy and needle exchange 
program and which has, I believe, since 1989 increased its addiction 
level some five or six times. As it was reported and I cited and quoted 
a member of the Baltimore city council who said one out of eight 
citizens in the city of Baltimore is now a heroin addict. Part of this, 
we can trace back to the needle exchange program. But this quote in the 
Washington Times from last Friday says that ``we have proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt that needle exchange programs increase the rate of HIV 
infection and the use of drugs.''
  Cited in this article is a Vancouver, British Columbia case where the 
number of drug-related overdoses has increased fivefold since 1988, the 
year the city began its own free needle exchange program. In Canada, we 
have an example of when you have a liberalized policy and needle 
exchange program, the statistics also prove that needle exchange 
programs actually increase the rate of HIV infection according to this 
report. Again in Canada and a city like Baltimore, we have seen a 
dramatic increase in the rise of addicts as we see a more liberalized 
policy.

  Also in the news is a report from the Boston Globe that I thought I 
would mention tonight. This is a story that we all heard a great deal 
about some years ago and that was the death of the top Boston Celtics 
draft pick, Len Bias. His death occurred some 13 years ago. It was a 
cocaine-related overdose death. Federal prosecutors for the first time 
in Massachusetts said yesterday that the law bearing Len Bias' name 
will be used to charge an alleged drug dealer with the overdose of a 
customer. Again, this report is from just last Friday.

       Alarmed by high levels of heroin purity and an acute 
     statewide overdose problem, United States Attorney Donald K. 
     Stern said Federal and State prosecutors are preparing to 
     bring more cases under the statute. Called the Len Bias Law, 
     it was passed by Congress amid the uproar surrounding the 
     University of Maryland basketball star's death in 1986. It 
     levies stiff Federal penalties on drug dealers whose sales 
     can be directly tied to fatal overdoses. A drug dealer is 
     looking at a maximum of a 20-year prison term on State 
     manslaughter charges.

  This is the quote by Mr. Stern who is the U.S. Attorney there. He 
said that those individuals would face a minimum 20-year sentence in 
Federal court and the possibility of life without parole under the Len 
Bias Law.
  ``One such dealer,'' Stern said, ``was 61-year-old Anibal Soler of 
Holyoke. Solo was charged with selling Edward Thompson of Chicopee a 
fatal dose of heroin that officials say was 72 percent pure. High 
purity heroin can be deadly if users are expecting a less potent dose 
and take too much.''
  One of the things that I have tried to point out here and that we 
have pointed out in our subcommittee hearings and testimony we have had 
from medical experts is that the heroin and cocaine and some of the 
other narcotics that we see today are not the same purity level as the 
cocaine and heroin we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. This particular case 
had a 72 percent purity. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, they were looking 
at 5, 6, 7 percent pure heroin. This ends up by saying that high purity 
heroin can be deadly if users are expecting a less potent dose and take 
too much.
  That is exactly what is happening. We have a flood of high purity 
heroin, high purity cocaine and other designer drugs that are 
potentially fatal in very small doses. That is why we are seeing in my 
community, in central Florida, for example, we have had over 60 heroin 
overdoses. In fact, in central Florida, a headline is blurted out that 
overdoses from drugs now exceed homicides in central Florida.
  What is particularly disturbing is our young people in particular are 
falling victim to these overdoses and fatalities and they do not 
realize that this high purity illegal narcotic that is available in our 
streets and in our communities is so deadly and so potent.
  To deal with some of the problems we have had, I have got a news 
story from the Washington Times but it is actually a story on what has 
happened in Florida. I had the opportunity earlier this fall to meet 
with the governor and also his new drug czar, Jim McDonough, in Orlando 
on one of the occasions in which a daylong kickoff was celebrated to 
start a statewide antinarcotics program. It is a multifaceted program 
which encompasses prevention, education, enforcement, treatment, a 
whole array and a whole attack on the illegal narcotics problem that we 
face not only in central Florida but across Florida.

  Our governor, Jeb Bush, has done an incredible job in bringing 
together the State, first in a statewide coordinated meeting in the 
capital, Tallahassee, earlier this year, with the President of the 
Florida Senate, Toni Jennings, and the Speaker of the Florida House, 
John Thrasher, in a joint conference and effort to bring together all 
of the most knowledgeable people on the illegal narcotics problem, a 
summit that has produced results. Part of the results was this kickoff. 
The governor said he would adopt a plan of action, institute a drug 
czar's office, which he has done, and Jim McDonough, who is a former 
deputy national drug czar, is now heading up that post. They have 
discussed a plan, they have developed a plan, they have announced a 
plan and I am pleased that Jeb Bush and other leaders in our State are 
now executing a plan.
  The headline here on Friday reads, ``Florida Raids on Raves Result in 
1,219 Arrests.'' If you do illegal drugs in Florida, we are going to go 
after you. The governor has made this commitment. I have made the 
commitment. We have established through central Florida, from Tampa now 
through Orlando and up almost to Jacksonville, and we will be including 
Jacksonville, a HIDTA, that is a high intensity drug traffic area. We 
also have one in Florida. These are designations by Federal law that 
take every possible law enforcement resource and other resources, local 
and State, combined with Federal agencies in an effort to combat 
illegal narcotics. We are going after individuals who deal in death 
caused by illegal narcotics.
  This particular article says that statewide raids on all-night dance 
parties, known as raves, resulted in 1,219 arrests and the seizure of 
nearly $9.4 million in drugs, cash, weapons and vehicles. The raids, 
which were dubbed ``Operation Heat Rave,'' were in response to six 
rave-related drug deaths around the State, including two this summer, 
according to State drug czar Jim McDonough.

[[Page H9894]]

  Jim McDonough is quoted as follows: ``Had this been a roller coaster 
ride and we had had six dead, there would have been a major outcry to 
close down the theme park until we could do something about that roller 
coaster ride.''

                              {time}  2245

  I think Jim McDonough states here that people would be outraged if, 
in any other instance, there were that many young people killed.
  In this raid across the State, State and local law enforcement 
officers moved against 57 businesses in 21 counties from September 29 
through October 4. Officers seized more than 15 kilograms of cocaine, 
more than 500 pounds of marijuana, and smaller quantities of heroin and 
methamphetamines. They also seized designer drugs, Ecstacy, GHP, and 
other drugs such as the rape drugs. So it is nice to see people in 
public office who set out a plan and then execute a plan and follow 
through with their commitments, and I am pleased that Governor Jeb Bush 
and others in our State are following through. Again, part of the news.
  Also, I wanted to call to the attention of my colleagues and the 
entire Congress a little game that is being played on the question of 
certification, drug certification. Having been involved in the passing 
and actually authorship of the United States drug decertification law, 
I know a little bit about how it was set up to work and how it should 
work.
  This article talks about what I consider sort of a little attempt to 
undermine the United States drug decertification law. Let me read a 
little bit about it. It is from the Oppenheimer Report and it was 
published in the Miami Herald. It said, ``At a September 2nd meeting in 
Ottawa, the 34 Nation Organization of American States approved a plan 
supported by the Clinton administration,'' now that concerns me, ``to 
create a multinational evaluation system which the OAS,'' Organization 
of American States, ``hopes will eventually replace the controversial 
U.S. score board.''
  I am very disturbed that the Clinton administration would want to do 
away with our drug decertification law. I am concerned that, first of 
all, they have misapplied the law.
  The drug decertification law is a simple law. It says that any Nation 
who wishes to receive benefits of the United States, foreign aid, 
foreign assistance, trade assistance, trade benefits, international 
financial assistance from the United States, any Nation who receives 
the largesse of the United States is asked to cooperate with the United 
States in an effort to eliminate either the production or trafficking 
of illegal narcotics. It is a simple law. Every year, the President 
must send to the Congress a list of those countries whether or not they 
are assisting the United States, an evaluation is made whether they are 
assisting the United States through stopping illegal narcotics, either 
in their country or the production in their country or trafficking in 
their country. It is a simple law. We give them our benefits.
  Now, why in the world would we want to transfer to other nations an 
evaluation process that allows people to have benefits such as foreign 
aid, financial assistance, trade assistance? Why would we want to give 
that evaluation ability to some international body or to others? The 
Clinton administration has misapplied the decertification. They 
decertified Colombia, and they should have allowed for a national 
interest waiver, even though they felt Colombia was not properly 
cooperating, but they had problems with this administration; had 
problems with Colombia's human rights operations and attitudes and 
actions, and instead, they decertified Colombia without what we 
provided in the law, which was a national interest waiver, a United 
States national interest waiver to allow us to continue to assist in 
one specific area, and that would be the fight against illegal 
narcotics. And because of that misapplication of a very good law, we, 
in fact, have an incredible production of illegal narcotics from 
Colombia, and I will try to talk a little bit more about that tonight.
  But this is sad that this administration still does not understand 
why that law was instituted or how that law should be applied. By the 
same token, they took the decertification law and certified Mexico as 
cooperating in the war on illegal narcotics. Mexico should have been 
decertified, but also granted a national interest waiver. So what they 
have done is made a joke of the law and made the law ineffective.
  And now, to circumvent the intent of Congress and the intent of that 
law, again, if a country is going to receive benefits from the United 
States, why in the world would we allow some multinational organization 
to evaluate whether those countries would be eligible? It is our trade 
benefits, it is our foreign aid, it is our financial assistance. All we 
ask for is minimal cooperation efforts to curtail illegal narcotics.
  So both in the case of Mexico they have distorted the law, and in the 
case of Colombia they have perverted the law, and now, much to our 
disadvantage, in Mexico, 50, 60 percent of all illegal narcotics coming 
into the United States either are transited or are produced in Mexico, 
and now 60 to 70 percent of the heroin and cocaine is both produced and 
trafficked from Colombia, a lot of it through Mexico. In 6 years they 
have managed to make Colombia the largest producer of cocaine and 
heroin in the world, and the largest supplier to the United States. 
Talk about a messed up policy. This is an incredible fiasco and could 
get worse if we pass on to these other countries this certification 
responsibility.

  I have cited and spent part of my last talk reflecting on some of the 
comments that Governor Gary Johnson made in a Cato Institute program in 
Washington, I believe it was, last week. He is the Republican governor 
of New Mexico. He has advocated legalization and decriminalization of 
what are now illegal narcotics. I will not get into all of the comments 
and debate about some of the things he said while he was here; and he 
has said as governor in regard to this, but I would like to cite a news 
story that was out in the Associated Press just in the last couple of 
days that says, ``Albuquerque: A Federal drug agent, head of the FBI in 
New Mexico and the Otero County sheriff have resigned from a panel that 
advises Governor Gary Johnson on drugs saying, they are upset by the 
governor's escalating push for legalized drugs.''
  Let me read more from the story, and again, it will not be my quote, 
but their quote. They are quoted here as saying, ``We can't be running 
away from the problems,'' said Sandoval County Sheriff Ray Rivera, the 
Council's chairman. ``I feel like those folks are running away from the 
problem instead of standing up.'' And this is someone who expressed 
concern about those who resigned, creating a great debate; and it went 
on not only here in Washington, but in his own State.
  We also have one of the agents who resigned, David Kitchen, agent in 
charge of the FBI, quoted as saying in his resignation letter, and he 
noted earlier, he told Johnson he admired his courage in calling for a 
debate on decriminalization, although Kitchen thought it was sending a 
false message. Then came Johnson's statement advocating legalized 
marijuana and heroin. ``Those absolutely stunned me, especially since 
they came the same day a multiagency task force arrested more than 30 
people accused of being part of a drug ring that operated in northern 
New Mexico for years,'' Kitchen wrote.
  Hansen, another one who resigned, in his letter of resignation 
Tuesday objected to what he said was Johnson's apparent theory that, 
and I will quote him, ``that since we are not winning the drug war, we 
should just stop fighting. That position makes a mockery of the 
dedicated men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration,'' 
Hansen wrote. ``Your radical proposal to legalize drugs will only 
heighten the legitimate fear and foreboding that drug users and their 
related crimes inspire. One need only look within New Mexico to find 
prominent and disheartening examples of families and communities 
devastated by drug use,'' he went on to say.
  So there are others that are concerned and also critical of Governor 
Johnson's position, and I am sure that debate will continue. We have 
held several hearings in my subcommittee on the question of 
legalization, decriminalization, and some of the facts we found do not 
jive exactly with what Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico has 
advocated; and again, as I said, that debate and discussion will 
continue here in the Congress and across the Nation.

[[Page H9895]]

  Also in the news is another example of a failed policy by this 
administration that is quite disturbing, and that is an article a few 
weeks ago here in the Washington Post, Tuesday, September 28 that says, 
``Haiti's police accused of lawlessness.'' What is absolutely stunning 
is after spending $3 billion to $4 billion of American hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars in Haiti in the so-called nation-building effort, we 
have ended up now with a case of Haiti having a police force trained 
under some of those programs financed by the United States as a center 
for some illegal narcotics activities and drug smuggling in the 
Caribbean. This particular report in the Washington Post says, 
``Created four years ago to usher in a new era of impartial justice, 
the United States-trained Haitian National Police is grappling with 
allegations that its officers have been involved in a waive of murders, 
disappearances of detainees and drug-related crimes and other illegal 
activities.''
  And this is a quote within the story: ``If you are asking me whether 
I am more concerned about rot in the police than a year ago, the answer 
is yes,'' said Collin Granderson, Executive Director of an 
international civilian mission here run by the Organization of American 
States in the United Nations. We have both human rights concerns and 
concerns about broader conduct of officers, specifically with respect 
to criminal activity and particularly drug trafficking. Allegations of 
police involvement in the drug trade have continued to surface in a 
country that has become a major transshipment point for cocaine and 
heroin, both to the United States and from South America. It is 
absolutely incredible that we would spend billions of taxpayer dollars 
in a nation-building effort and in these programs to stabilize the 
judiciary and the police and create a little center of illegal 
narcotics drug trafficking in Haiti. Again, a failed policy of the 
Clinton administration.
  Tonight I want to talk in addition to some of the news stories and 
other comments, I want to talk again about what has happened in the 
United States since 1992, and I have repeatedly said that in 1993 when 
President Clinton was elected, he basically closed down the war on 
illegal narcotics, and I have cited very specifically, and we have the 
programs that deal with illegal narcotics, stopping illegal narcotics 
coming into the United States, first of all, stopping illegal narcotics 
at their source.

                              {time}  2300

  In 1993 we can see, with a Democrat House, Senate, and White House, 
basically they slashed and cut in half all of the cost-effective source 
country programs to stop illegal narcotics at their source, just a 
dramatic change. We get back to where the Republicans took over the 
Congress in 1995, and we see us back then, if we take 1992 dollars, we 
are just about back to that position.
  The war on drugs has been basically closed down internationally by 
the Clinton administration. Not only did we stop the international 
programs which are so cost-effective, and I have used this chart also 
before, but the programs as far as enforcement, particularly 
interdicting illegal narcotics from their source to our borders, again, 
a dramatic decrease, 1992-1993.
  They closed down these programs. They took the military out of the 
drug war. They took the Coast Guard out. All of the U.S. resources were 
slashed. Again, back in 1995, with the Republicans taking over, we are 
beginning to put Humpty-Dumpty together again, and the war on drugs 
back together again. We are almost back to 1992 level funding.
  I have also pointed out what is absolutely dramatic is if we look at 
illegal drug usage among our 12th graders and our teenagers, this 
starts in 1989, this chart. We see, if this chart continued towards me, 
we see this continual decrease of use among our 12th graders of 
different types of drug use, 30-day and recent, with these different 
lines here, levels of use continuing to go down.
  This would be the Reagan and Bush administration down here. We see 
dramatic increases here in use among our young people, in drug abuse 
and use among our young people. This is about the time Clinton 
appointed Joycelyn Elders, who sent the ``just say maybe'' message, as 
our chief health officer. It is the time, if we took these other charts 
and transposed them on here, that we cut the source country programs, 
so we had this incredible influx of heroin, cocaine, other illegal 
narcotics coming in, a tremendous increase in supply, decrease in price 
and availability, and the wrong message being sent. This is exactly 
what we got.
  I had another chart that was done. This is a smaller chart. I do not 
know if this chart can be seen here. But this is heroin trends in 
annual percentage. Actually it starts in 1975. We can see how this 
heroin use, annual use here, starts going down. This is eighth grade 
through 12th grade. We see it going down here, and then we see it 
levelling off in the eighties and in the nineties.
  Then we come to 1992, the election. We see the change in the drug 
policy. We see it being closed down, the war on drugs; again, the money 
being slashed in source country programs, the money being slashed in 
interdiction, stopping drugs coming into our borders. This is one of 
the most dramatic charts that I have seen produced, but it shows us 
going off the charts with illegal narcotics.
  Then arrive the Republicans in 1995, and through the leadership of 
the current Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), he chaired the subcommittee and had the responsibility for 
restoring our national drug policy.
  What was interesting, as I served in the Congress during this time, 
from 1992 when I was elected and the Clinton administration took over 
to 1995, when we took over, I believe, and I served on the Committee on 
Government Operations which had that drug policy responsibility and 
oversight responsibility, there was one hearing. It lasted for about 1 
hour. They brought in the drug czar at the time.
  Again, this was after they had fired people. There were 120 people 
working in the drug czar's office. In 1993 they fired about 100 of them 
and left approximately 20. Again, the results are there in black and 
white. This is not a partisan issue, these are not partisan statistics. 
In fact, these charts and statistics, the information is provided by 
Clinton and U.S. officials under this administration. But it is pretty 
dramatic, when you close down the war on drugs, when you change the 
message that is being sent there, when you slash the resources from 
some of the cost-effective programs.

  One of the things they did was they shifted their emphasis almost all 
to treatment. If we take 1992 and 1993 to 1998, we would see almost a 
doubling in the amount of money for drug treatment. There is nothing 
wrong with treatment. Of course we need effective treatment programs. 
That is the subject of additional hearings and investigation which we 
will be doing, because if we are spending these huge amounts of money 
on treatment programs and prevention programs, we want to make certain 
they are effective. But this is very startling, factual information of 
what has taken place.
  Now, this policy has had some implications. Fifty-one percent of high 
school students said the drug problem is getting worse. This is in a 
survey within the last year. For the fourth straight year, both middle 
and high school students say drugs are their biggest concern.
  Also from the most recent survey, for the third straight year, the 
number of high school teens who report that drugs are used, sold, and 
kept at their school has risen from 72 percent in 1996 to 78 percent in 
1998. Teenage drug use, again, the result of a failed policy. That is 
pretty evident.
  Today 50 percent of teens who smoked marijuana cited their friends as 
most influential, 30 percent cite themselves as most influential in 
deciding whether or not to use drugs. At age 13, teenagers get to know 
other students who use and sell pot, acid, cocaine, or heroin, and 
learn where to buy these drugs and who to buy them from. Forty-seven 
percent of our 13-year-olds say their parents have never seriously 
discussed the dangers of illegal drugs with them. We cannot entirely 
blame this on government, we have to take responsibility as parents.
  But the interesting statistics are, again, what has taken place with 
a change of Federal policy since 1992. We have almost doubled each year 
since 1992 the use of illegal narcotics by 12- to 17-year-olds. I have 
the exact statistics. In 1992, the increase was 5.3 percent. In 1994 it 
jumped to 8.2 percent. It

[[Page H9896]]

was either 9, 10, or 11 percent for every year, an increase.
  So from 1992, with the change in the Clinton policy, to 1998, there 
has been a doubling of illegal narcotics use among our teenagers almost 
every single year. What should be of concern to all the Members of 
Congress is that illegal narcotics does affect our young people, but it 
also affects our minorities.
  A 1998 household survey on drug abuse found the percentage of blacks 
using drugs rose 8.2 percent in 1998 from 5.8 percent in 1993. So our 
minorities have been the recipients of a great deal of the problems in 
increases; particularly among, again, our minorities who are using 
drugs in almost double the statistics before 1993.

                              {time}  2310

  Drug use among Hispanics rose to 6.1 percent from 4.4 percent from 
1993 to 1998; another legacy of a change in policy brought about by 
this administration.
  Drug use since 1989 has increased among young adults 18 to 25 to its 
highest level, and that was in 1998. Drug use among 18 to 25 year olds 
increased about 10 percent from 1997 to 1998, again startling figures 
about increases in the use of illegal narcotics, particularly among our 
young people.
  The use of illegal narcotics is not just a problem among our young 
people. Today about 78 million Americans have used illegal drugs at 
some point in their lives. Roughly 13.6 million Americans are current 
users. Right now, marijuana is the most commonly used drug among our 
Nation's 13.6 million illicit drug users. It has also been recently 
revealed by another survey that an estimated 4.1 million people met 
diagnostic criteria for drug dependence on illicit drugs in 1997 and 
1998, including 1.1 million use; that is about 25 percent of those who 
are dependent on illegal drugs are young people between 12 and 17.
  Additionally tonight, I wanted to spend a few minutes talking not 
only about the impact of illegal narcotics, some of the problems that I 
have cited, but also talk about some of the failures of the Clinton 
policy as it relates to stopping illegal narcotics coming into our 
country. As I cited just a few minutes ago, we know where most of the 
heroin, we know where most of the cocaine, we know where most of the 
methamphetamines are coming from. They are produced now in Colombia. 
They transit through Mexico. Mexico has also turned into a producer. 
Colombia produces 70 percent of all of the heroin. Six years ago it 
produced almost no heroin. There were almost no poppies grown in 
Colombia. Again, through the failed policy of this administration, 
Colombia has mushroomed into the drug producing capital of the world; 
actual producers of heroin, poppy, the core material. Mexico now is 
producing 14 percent of the heroin coming into the United States, that 
was in single digits some 6 or 7 years ago, under the Clinton 
administration.
  Probably 70, 80 percent of all of the illegal narcotics coming into 
the United States now come in from these two sources. As I cited, these 
two countries have not properly been dealt with by the United States. 
We certified Mexico, and Mexico in the last year has had a dramatic, 
over 50 percent decrease, in seizures of cocaine and dramatic decreases 
in seizures of heroin, and they were certified as cooperating.
  Mexico also promised, and the United States Congress asked Mexico to 
cooperate with the extradition, according to a 1978 extradition treaty, 
Mexican nationals who were indicted in the United States and we request 
their extradition should come back to the United States and fear coming 
back to the United States for trial on those charges. Not one major 
Mexican drug lord has been extradited to date. This Congress passed a 
resolution several years ago asking, in addition to extradition, that 
Mexico sign a maritime agreement. We know the drugs are coming in 
across land and around the waters that surround Mexico and the United 
States. To date, Mexico has not signed a maritime agreement.
  We further asked that Mexico allow our handful of DEA agents, law 
enforcement agents that are working in Mexico, to arm themselves and 
protect themselves since the death and murder of one of our agents, 
Kiki Camarena. To date, Mexico still has not complied with that simple 
request.
  We asked that Mexico also enforce laws that it had passed. They 
passed laws dealing with money laundering and illegal narcotics, and 
drug trafficking, but they do not enforce it.

  Rather than enforce the laws, as our simple request to work with the 
United States, what Mexico has done has actually become the capital of 
drug laundering. In fact, the largest drug laundering case in the 
history of the United States, if not the history of the world, was 
uncovered in a United States Customs operation which I cited and talked 
a little bit about in my last talk and this is a bit of the background 
on Operation Casa Blanca. It was an investigation that was concluded in 
May of 1998 with the indictment of 109 individuals and three Mexican 
banks. The undercover operation was the largest sting operation in the 
United States history. Because there are so many corrupt individuals 
involved in Mexico law enforcement and government, we did notify the 
Mexicans of some of what was going on, but not all of what was going 
on.
  After it became known that these individuals were involved at these 
various levels and that we had this sting operation going on, rather 
than cooperate with the United States what the Mexican officials did 
was threaten to arrest United States officials and Customs officials 
who were involved in this sting operation.
  I must say that I am pleased that the United States Customs agency, 
the Department of Justice, the FBI and others have moved forward. These 
individuals have been indicted where they are found in the United 
States. There are several who have fled and several who we requested 
extradition on who have not been returned to face justice in the United 
States, but my point here is that this United States Congress, the 
House of Representatives, asked Mexico to cooperate in stopping illegal 
narcotics activities and enforcing laws that were put on the books in 
extradition, which I cited, and some of these other things that I 
cited, and rather than assist the United States they blocked the United 
States. Only because of the visit of the President of the United States 
and because this had gotten so much publicity have they finally backed 
off.

                              {time}  2320

  But this is the type of lack of cooperation. What is astounding is 
Mexico has been the recipient of one of the finest and most generous 
trade agreements of any two Nations, the NAFTA agreement, in which the 
United States gave very specific trade benefits to Mexico and asked 
very little in cooperation. We asked for their certification as 
cooperating and, for these trade benefits, a little bit of assistance 
in the illegal narcotics problem. What we have gotten basically is sand 
kicked in our face.
  Forty Mexican and Venezuelan bankers, businessmen, and suspected drug 
cartel members were arrested, and 70 others have been indicted as 
fugitives. This, again, is something that we have had to deal with 
ourselves and enforce ourselves without the cooperation of Mexican 
officials.
  It is my hope that we can turn this situation around, that Mexico can 
become a better partner in fighting illegal narcotics.
  I might say that, as I close this evening that Mexico is now becoming 
the recipient of much of the crime and violence. They have lost several 
of their States, the Baja peninsula is now lost to narco-traffickers. 
The Yucatan Peninsula, its Governor fled. He was involved up to his 
eyeballs in illegal narcotics.
  Other States along the United States border and within the heart of 
Mexico are now on the verge of collapse and being lost to drug 
traffickers.
  Mexico is now the recipient of some of the problems that we have 
inherited as a neighbor and friend and ally, and we only ask 
cooperation.
  Finally, as we close, it is nice to bring up some of the critical 
elements of what this administration has done. The positive aspects are 
the Republican-dominated Congress has restored funds for international 
programs. We have put back the Coast Guard, the military, and other 
Federal agencies and are now utilizing every possible resource. We have 
instituted an education program which is funded with over $190 million 
plus that amount matched by the private sector on

[[Page H9897]]

which, this Thursday, our Subcommittee of Criminal Justice, Drug 
Policy, and Human Resources will do its first review.
  We hope that through education, through interdiction, through source 
country programs, through prevention and through treatment, through a 
multifaceted approach, this was started under Ronald Reagan, we can 
again bring down the problem of illegal narcotics, of drug use among 
our young people, the death and tragedy that it has caused in so many 
lives.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude my special order 
tonight on the continuing problem we face as a Congress and the 
American people with illegal narcotics.

                          ____________________