[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5836-H5841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ILLEGAL NARCOTICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Green of Wisconsin). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before the House tonight 
as it concludes its business to address the House on a subject I 
normally do on Tuesday nights and one that I take a personal interest 
in as chairman in the House of Representatives of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. And specifically 
always on Tuesday evenings, I try to address my colleagues and the 
American people on the topic of illegal narcotics and our national drug 
policy and our efforts in our subcommittee to attempt to develop a 
coherent policy to deal with probably the greatest social problem and 
challenge I think our Nation has ever faced in its history, a problem 
that has devastated and I think we have gotten to the point where 
almost every family in America is somehow touched by illegal narcotics. 
Certainly the impact in crime, the social costs, the costs that this 
Congress incurs in funding antinarcotics efforts, criminal justice, the 
system that is fueled by those who are committing crimes and offenses 
against society under the influence of illegal narcotics, the whole 
gamut of problems that have arisen as a result of illegal narcotics is 
really astounding.
  I often cite when I speak before the House the most recent statistics 
of deaths. Direct deaths from illegal narcotics in the most recent year 
provided to our subcommittee, 1998, amounted to 15,973 Americans died 
as the direct result of illegal narcotics. The drug czar, our national 
director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Barry 
McCaffrey, again today used the figure in a hearing before our 
subcommittee of 52,000 Americans dying in a year as a result of direct 
and indirect illegal narcotics.

                              {time}  2115

  So the toll is mounting. The statistics continue to be alarming and 
should concern every American because, most of all, we find that this 
problem is affecting not those people who you would traditionally think 
have been victimized by illegal narcotics, the inner-city, the 
metropolitan, the high density areas, but every single corner of our 
Nation is now victimized by the effects of illegal drugs.
  In fact, I cite a recent article, and it this headline says ``Drug 
use explodes in rural America.'' It shows that in fact in rural America 
that cocaine, that crack, that heroin and methamphetamines in all of 
the rural areas of the country are now experiencing an explosion.
  One of the things that I try to do as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources is not only conduct 
hearings, such as we did today with the national Drug Czar on our 
national media campaign that we instituted several years ago, a $1 
billion-plus program, $1 billion from Federal money over 5 years and an 
equally significant amount in contributions to the campaign required by 
the law that we established, but in addition to conducting the hearings 
and evaluations and oversight of our national drug policy and the 
programs that we have instituted, we attempt to conduct hearings 
throughout the United States.
  Most of the hearings that have been conducted by our subcommittee are 
at the request of either my subcommittee members or Members of the 
House who are experiencing a similar problem. I can tell you without a 
doubt that in fact the entire Nation, from the Pacific coast to the 
East Coast, from the Mexican border to the Canadian border, is being 
devastated by illegal narcotics.
  During the recent weeks we have conducted hearings and field 
hearings. One was in the heartland of America, in Sioux City, Iowa, at 
the confluence of three states, Nebraska, South Dakota and Iowa. This 
was a hearing at the request of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). 
We heard absolutely startling testimony about the explosion of illegal 
narcotics, the explosion of methamphetamine, narcotics that have 
infiltrated that region of our Nation, and the devastation on the 
community, the cost in law enforcement, the cost in social services, 
the tremendous cost to that entire area that is being borne in 
destroyed lives.
  So we have focused not only on hearings in Washington, but throughout 
the land, and we confirmed the headline which I cited here of the 
explosion of illegal narcotics and methamphetamine in particular in 
rural areas of our country.
  It is also significant that we have presentations before our 
subcommittee that bring us up-to-date on what is happening, because we 
are a criminal justice, national drug policy oversight subcommittee. 
Some of the recent information we have had from the Center for Disease 
Control and other monitoring agencies indicate that over half the crime 
in this country is committed by individuals under the influence of 
illegal narcotics.
  The National Institute of Justice drug testing program, found that 
more than 60 percent of the adult male arrestees across the Nation 
tested positive for drugs. In most cities, over half the young male 
arrestees are under the influence in fact of marijuana, and, 
importantly, the majority of the crimes that result from the effects of 
the drug do not result from the fact that the drugs are illegal.
  According to a study by the National Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse, which is also referred to as CASA, at Columbia 
University, 80 percent of the men and women behind

[[Page H5837]]

bars, about 1.4 million inmates in our country, are seriously involved 
with drug abuse, substance abuse, and sometimes that is illegal 
narcotics, sometimes it is alcohol. So, again, the problem of substance 
abuse is horrendous.
  What is of particular concern to our subcommittee and the Congress is 
that the trends of illegal narcotics use, while we hear some figures 
being touted by some in the administration, we find that, 
unfortunately, under the Clinton Administration, from 1992 to 1998, in 
one area for example, in heroin we have had a 92 percent increase since 
1992 in heroin use among our 8th graders, an incredible statistic that 
has recently come forward. That is in one of the most deadly drugs that 
one can have any young person be involved with.
  In my area in Central Florida, in fact we are having an epidemic of 
heroin overdoses. Many of the overdoses are the result of a very high 
purity heroin. In the 1980s we had the purity of heroin at the level of 
single digits, sometimes 4 or 5 percent. Today we are finding on the 
streets of Orlando and the streets of New York, Los Angeles, and even 
small communities across the Nation, purity levels of 60 and 70 
percent, deadly, highly toxic heroin, and we see a dramatic increase, 
92 percent increase in use in heroin among 8th graders, an absolutely 
shocking statistic.
  The other information that I wanted to relay about the problem 
tonight is some information our subcommittee received from the Center 
for Disease Control in Atlanta, and they came and briefed us before the 
recess. I have cited some of these statistics in the hearing that we 
held and previously on the floor, but the survey by the Center for 
Disease Control indicated that 14.7 percent of the students surveyed 
said that they were currently using marijuana in 1991. In 1999, that 
figure almost doubled to 26.7 percent.
  Unfortunately marijuana happens to be a gateway drug, and we find 
that the statistics bear out that with a gateway drug, an entry drug 
like marijuana, the next step is cocaine, then methamphetamine, heroin 
and hard narcotics. We also find testimony that was presented to the 
subcommittee by Dr. Leshner, the head of the National Institute of Drug 
Abuse, NIDA, that in fact the most addictive drug in the United States 
today in fact is marijuana. Also it is not the marijuana of the sixties 
and seventies, or even the eighties. This is a marijuana with a much 
higher purity, with a much more toxic content, and a much more 
addictive result.
  But the Center for Disease Control reported that lifetime marijuana 
increased from 31.3 percent in 1991 to 47.2 percent in 1999. What has 
happened in our Nation, because we have sent a mixed message to our 
youth, because we have not had the leadership provided by the White 
House with a consistent strong message against illegal narcotics, and 
in particular marijuana, we find that almost half the population of our 
young people today has used marijuana at some point, according to this 
survey. Again, like it or not, it is a gateway drug.
  Those are some of the statistics that we wanted to update the 
Congress on today. Unfortunately, we find that even in our enforcement 
area, that young people are becoming more and more involved as a result 
of their use and abuse of illegal narcotics.
  A recent article that was provided to me indicated that the end of 
last year, the United States Customs Service estimated that 400 
teenagers had been arrested by the end of 1999 for smuggling drugs into 
the country, an increase of 30 percent over the previous year. In 
Texas, only 17 juveniles had been sent to prison in the past 2\1/2\ 
years, 98 received probation and 63 had their cases dropped or 
dismissed. Unfortunately, light punishment is a selling point for the 
drug cartels when they approach teenagers, according to the U.S. 
Customs Service, which is now finding younger and younger traffickers, 
and, unfortunately, the arrests are up in the under 18 age category. 
This report also said that there is a 58 percent increase nationwide in 
arrests of drug traffickers. This is now under the age of 18. Again, 
younger and younger people involved.
  According to customs also, children as young as nine are used to 
traffic drugs across the southwest border. According to the article, 
most of the teen smugglers that are arrested and convicted are given 
probation, not jail time, which, unfortunately, does lead other youth 
to participate in the same type of activity, and we are seeing more and 
more of that across the country.
  The number of heroin users in the United States, according to another 
recent survey, indicates that it has jumped from 1996, half a million 
Americans, to nearly 1 million, 980,000 Americans in 1999. So we have 
had, again, just about a doubling from 1996 to 1999 in heroin users in 
the United States.
  The rate of first use by children age 12 to 17 increased from less 
than 1 in 1,000 in the 1980s to almost 3 in 1,000 in 1996. I think I 
just cited for the benefit of the House the incredible increase we have 
seen in 8th graders. First time heroin users are getting younger, from 
an average age of 26 years of age in 1991 to an average age, now, get 
this, of 17 years of age by 1997.
  Also, according to the most recent statistics provided to our 
criminal justice and drug policy subcommittee, 8th graders in rural 
America are 83 percent more likely than 8th graders in urban centers to 
use crack cocaine, 50 percent more likely than 8th graders in urban 
centers to use cocaine, and 34 percent more likely than 8th graders in 
urban centers to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately, an incredibly high 
statistic is that they are 104 percent more likely than 8th graders in 
urban centers to use amphetamines, including methamphetamines. Again, 
startling statistics about what is happening across this country.
  One of the things that was brought up at the hearing today and that 
we also have found in the pattern of illegal narcotics use is the 
impact, not only on the population in general and also of our youth, 
which is of great concern, but also the impact on minorities. No 
segment of our society is more impacted by illegal narcotics use than 
our minorities, particularly our African American and our Hispanic 
population. This is some of the latest information our subcommittee has 
received.

                              {time}  2130

  According to the 1998 National House of Polls Survey on Drug Abuse, 
drug use increased from 5.8 percent in 1993 at the beginning of the 
Clinton administration to 8.2 percent in 1998 among young African 
Americans, more severely impacted than the population at large. 
According to the same survey on drug abuse, drug use increased from 4.4 
percent in 1993 among the Hispanic population, Hispanic youth in 
particular, to 6.1 percent. So 2 minority populations that are most 
vulnerable in our society, our African American and Hispanic youth 
population, have also become incredible victims of illegal narcotics 
and, in particular, we have seen, as I said, the explosion of heroin, 
methamphetamines, and now we are seeing a rampage of what are called 
designer drugs across the Nation.
  Now, how did we get ourselves into this situation? I have brought 
this one particular chart out many times, and I will bring it out again 
tonight. We hear repeatedly, I hear repeatedly over and over that the 
war on drugs has been a failure. I submit again to the Congress and to 
the House tonight that if we look at the war on drugs under the Reagan 
and Bush administration, and this chart relates the long-term trend in 
lifetime prevalence of drug use; this is really the major monitor for 
drug use and abuse in this country, and it is not something that I made 
up; it was prepared by the University of Michigan, and this is 
something that they have been monitoring for some time. But this shows 
the pattern of success and this shows the prevalence of drug use going 
down in the Reagan administration starting in 1980 all the way down. 
Now, this is what the liberals will tell us is a failure, and that is 
the decrease in drug use. In fact, there was a 50 percent decrease in 
this period of drug use in this country. This is what they will try to 
tell us, the editorialists, the promoters of legalization, those who 
say that the war on drugs has been a failure.
  So when we had a war on drugs, and that was with national leadership 
from the Office of the President through the entire administration, 
putting together an Andean strategy to stop drugs at their source. This 
is not rocket science; we know where the cocaine is produced. It is 
produced in Bolivia, it is

[[Page H5838]]

produced in Peru, it is produced in Colombia. When we have a policy 
that stops the assistance going to a country who is willing to 
participate with the United States to stop the production of cocaine 
such as we have had with this administration for the past 5, 6 years in 
stopping and blocking aid to Colombia, we have a growth of cocaine and 
coca production in that area.
  The Reagan administration and Bush administration developed specific 
programs, the Andean strategy, and the Andean strategy went in and went 
after drugs at their source, stopped the drugs at their source. We know 
where cocaine is from. Can we stop it? Well, yes, we can. When I came 
in with the Republican majority in 1995 and we took over, we went to 
those countries, Mr. Zeliff did, the former chairman who had this 
subcommittee responsibility, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) who is now the Speaker of the House, we went to Bolivia, we 
talked to President Banzer and to other leaders there. We went to Peru 
and we talked to President Fujimori. We gave them a tiny bit of 
assistance and they completed their mission and have been completing 
their mission to eradicate cocaine and coca production, some 50 to 60 
percent reduction in 2 or 3 years at very little cost to the taxpayer 
in stopping the production.
  One of the problems we have had is that the administration for year 
after year after year has blocked assistance to Colombia until the 
whole Colombian region exploded and it became a regional disaster, and 
we had to pass a $1 billion-plus aid package to bail the administration 
out from their failed policy. That policy will work. The policy also 
has assistance to neighboring countries so if we stop production there, 
it does not spill over into other areas. It worked in the 1980s, it 
will work now. There is no question about it. We can stop drugs at 
their source.

  Now, the second most effective way to stop drugs is to stop them as 
they come from the source. This administration has done everything they 
can to destroy the war on drugs. Now, if one is going to run a war on 
drugs, against drugs, how would one run that? Would one stop the 
programs or cut back the programs where they produce drugs at their 
source? That would be a farce, but that is exactly what this 
administration did.
  This administration cut Federal spending for international programs 
50 percent during the Democrat-controlled Congress from 1992 to 1994. 
They cut it some 50 percent, from $660 million to $329 million. In 
fact, we are barely getting back to the level of funding for 
international programs and the spike that we did provide with the 
Colombian aid package will bring us up to where we should be in going 
after drugs most cost-effectively at the source.
  Now, again, the second area and most effective way to stop illegal 
narcotics, and a Federal responsibility, our responsibility as Congress 
is to stop the illegal narcotics before they come to our borders. 
President Reagan set up the Andean strategy. We set up a drug 
certification. If we allow drugs to come from their country into the 
United States, we stop foreign aid, we stop financial assistance, we 
stop trade and other benefits that we give as a country to that country 
that is sending poison into the United States. I helped draft the 
certification law. This administration has made a farce of the 
certification law from the very beginning, misapplying it, not applying 
it properly as it was intended, as it was applied during the Reagan and 
Bush administration. This they will tell us is a failure. I mean this 
is a decrease in drug use by everyone in this country, and they will 
tell us that that was a failure. I say that, in fact, this was a 
success.
  This is the failure. We only see right here where the Republican-
controlled Congress took effect where we restarted the programs on 
stopping drugs at their source, where we began to restart the programs 
to interdict drugs before they reach our borders. Again, each of these 
programs were dramatically cut and slashed, and today, we are paying 
the consequences and struggling to get these programs developed back in 
this successful war on drugs, in effect.
  Mr. Speaker, it was one error compounded by another error. First, the 
administration withheld information and data to these other countries, 
information that was used to shoot down drug traffickers as the drugs 
left the source country and headed towards the United States. They 
said, we cannot do that. We could possibly hurt the hair on the back of 
some drug trafficker. Oh, we cannot send aid to Colombia, we might hurt 
some leftist guerilla or some rightist guerilla. I do not think there 
was concern about the right wing as there was about hurting the hair on 
the left wing.
  In any event, nothing got sent there. They blocked it time and time 
again, the assistance. It would almost be ludicrous, but unfortunately, 
I must go back, and I cannot help but to cite some of the mistakes by 
this administration that we are paying for today. It would be ludicrous 
to think that they would, in fact, act in such a fashion.
  This headline is from the Washington Post, August 4, 1994: U.S. 
Refusal to Share Intelligence in Drug Fight Called Absurd. One of the 
Democrats from the other side is the one who called it absurd, what the 
administration had done. We had stopped sharing information, stopped 
the ability of our allies in this war on drugs to go after drug 
traffickers, the beginning of the disaster that we inherited. Hearings 
also documented what the administration was doing in closing down a 
real war on drugs. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn) we were elected together in 1993, and we served on the Committee 
on Government Operations and I attended the hearing, and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn) asked on August 2, 1994, ``As you recall, as 
of May 1, 1994, the Department of Defense decided unilaterally to stop 
sharing real-time intelligence regarding aerial trafficking of drugs 
with Colombia and Peru. Now, as I understand it, that decision, which 
has not been completely resolved, has thrown diplomatic relations with 
the host countries into chaos.'' August 2, 1994.

  Mr. Speaker, that was a prediction of the beginning of the disaster 
of Colombia. We all saw it coming. We all knew that when we close down 
the source countries, when we stop interdicting drugs cost-effectively 
before they come into the United States and had our allies do it rather 
than us even do it, just by providing a little information to our 
friends.
  Then, what did we need to go after the narcotics? There was almost 
zero heroin produced in Colombia in 1993, the beginning of this 
administration. Almost zero. But this Congress, Democrat-controlled 
Congress and White House managed to stop first information assistance, 
and then what do we need to stop the growth? We need something to go 
after the growth. That would be some helicopters. That would be 
helicopters that could fly at high altitudes, that would be helicopters 
that could go after drug traffickers and surveillance information.
  Time and time again, hearing and hearing again, we begged this 
administration, and we even passed the financing of sending the 
assistance to Colombia. The President and others in this administration 
blocked that assistance. So we have seen an incredible explosion of 
cocaine production, of heroin production in Colombia.
  This is a February of 1997 story, and it says, ``Delay of Copters 
Hobbles Colombia in Stopping Drugs.'' Guess what? When we do not have 
the equipment to go after where they are producing or trafficking, and 
70 to 80 percent of the drugs coming into the United States are now 
produced, heroin and cocaine in that country, in fact, we do not stop 
the drugs. That is what caused us to do an emergency funding of $1 
billion-plus for Colombia.
  In each of these areas, the new Republican majority has tried to act 
in a responsible fashion to restore the source country programs. We 
will find in the Colombian aid package, in fact, a good balance between 
alternative crop development, because we know the peasants there must 
have some source of income, and we can help them be productive; we can 
also help them turn away from production of the death and destruction 
of cocaine, coca and poppies and heroin that are now swamping the 
United States. We can easily put these programs together for very few 
dollars. Unfortunately, now it is taking more dollars than it would 
have if we had done the preventive steps that we asked for some years 
ago.

[[Page H5839]]

  Unfortunately, the administration has made this an even more 
difficult task by bungling the negotiations in Panama, by not allowing 
us to keep our forward-drug surveillance operating locations in Panama. 
Even if we gave back the base, all we needed was an operations center 
which we had had up until May of last year. The administration not only 
lost the military use, but bungled the negotiations to keep our forward 
operating locations. Part of the $1 billion package that we passed is 
now to fund $100-some million to replace the forward operating 
locations that we lost through the failed negotiations with Panama. All 
of our drug-forward surveillance operations were out of Howard Air 
Force base and now we have to pay to put them in Ecuador, and now we 
have to pay to put them in Aruba, and now we have to pay to put them at 
great expense into El Salvador. Two of those negotiations are semi-
complete, but it will be 2002 before we get back to the capability we 
had last May to detect flights coming in with illegal narcotics and 
shipments from the source zone.

                              {time}  2145

  General Wilhelm, our general in charge of the Southern Command of 
this whole effort in surveillance, and the military does not get 
engaged in arresting people or going after illegal narcotics 
traffickers. They are even banned from that. What they do is provide 
surveillance and intelligence information from the surveillance which 
is passed on either to the country or to enforcement people.
  According to General Wilhelm in a report that was provided to me as 
chairman of the subcommittee by the Government Accounting Office, 
General Wilhelm said that the Southern Command now, and again, in 
charge of looking at drugs coming in, can only detect and monitor 15 
percent of the key routes in the overall drug trafficking area about 15 
percent of the time.
  Again, what is reported to our subcommittee in charge of drug policy 
is that this will not be corrected until 2002. That is an absolute 
disaster created by ineptness in the administration and direct policy-
thwarting efforts.
  I have talked about this many times. Again, they term this with 
decreasing drug use among our population as a failure. This is a 
success going up here. This is the Clinton success pattern. We have 
higher drug use, so that is an effective war on drugs. We dismantle the 
war on drugs piece by piece by piece and this is what we get, a flood 
of illegal narcotics, difficult to stem.
  I want to say that we have instituted as a Republican majority the 
most extensive education campaign in the history of this Nation funded 
with $1 billion over 5 years. Today we held our second oversight 
hearing on it.
  I had a different plan than the administration. I thought that those 
who get the airwaves, which are a public trust, should donate more 
time. The administration wanted to pay for time out of the taxpayers' 
pockets. As a compromise, and the way this place always works is a 
compromise, we have half the time being donated as a requirement and $1 
billion of taxpayer money going into the campaign.
  But we must do something to educate the public. We must do something 
to educate particularly the young people. I must do something as 
chairman of the subcommittee to make sure that the money that we spend 
in this most extensive campaign is appropriate and that it is working.
  That was the reason for the hearing I held last October at the end of 
the first year of the campaign and today that we conducted to see if 
that is successful. I am not here as a Republican or a majority member 
saying that we can only criticize the other side. We have to tell what 
we have done.
  In fact, we have put in place the most extensive campaign in the 
history of our Nation. Now we have to make sure it works. Will it work? 
I do not know yet, but we are going to do everything we can. We have 
put back into place the funding for the international programs, and 
finally, the missing piece to the puzzle.
  This is not a great puzzle. The drugs, 70 percent of the cocaine, 75 
percent of the heroin coming into the United States is coming from 
Colombia. We have stopped it in 2 or 3 years under the Republican 
majority working with Peru and Bolivia, and we have some assistance in 
this package for them.
  It is coming from here. A lot of it transits through Mexico. That is 
another problem I could spend a whole night on, again the United States 
and this administration making a farce out of certification, 
cooperation on the drug effort, giving Mexico benefits left and right, 
financing their indebtedness, helping them open their borders, giving 
them the best trade benefits, and then letting Mexico thumb their nose 
at the United States.
  It made a farce of the laws that the Reagan and Bush administration 
enforced, and also made Colombia the center of drug production for the 
hemisphere. The latest reports we have in the media today is a double 
of cocaine is reaching our European allies. I have met with our 
European allies soliciting their help in this region. We warned them 
that the cocaine and next the heroin is coming because of the 
tremendous production.
  In fact, the latest statistics revealed just in the last few days 
show that Europe is getting swamped with cocaine, and I guarantee them 
that the heroin will follow, because they pay even more in Europe than 
they do in the United States. We have this flood of supply coming in.
  Since our base in Panama is closed down, we have no forward operating 
location, and it may be over 2 years before the administration even has 
a clue to get it back in order. This is the mess that we have 
inherited. It does have consequences.
  I have shown these before, these quite revealing charts. I have not 
doctored these or produced them myself, they were produced by the 
Sentencing Commission to our subcommittee in recent testimony.

  By 1992, almost no crack in 1992. We do not even see methamphetamine 
on the chart at the beginning of this. Again, this is a failure in the 
war on drugs.
  In 1993, the beginning of the administration, we see the beginning, 
the very beginning of crack. In 1994, in 1995, it is exploding. In 
1996, 1997, almost up the entire map, out of control. What has gone 
down in crack is being supplemented by methamphetamine, designer drugs, 
and also we do not have heroin on the chart, which has absolutely 
skyrocketed off the charts.
  This, again, is the result of I think a policy that can only be 
termed a failure. It is incredible how many times I hear that, again, 
the war on drugs is a failure; that some of the things that we have 
done, the tough enforcement will not work, that we have to liberalize 
our drug laws.
  Recently the New York Times, a New York Times editorial, called for 
doing away with the Rockefeller laws. The Rockefeller laws were 
instituted in the 1970s under Governor Rockefeller, tough laws, and 
they established tough sentencing guidelines.
  We often hear that the people behind bars are there because they 
have, say, used a small amount of illegal substances, marijuana. Small-
time users are locked up in jail. That is what this New York Times 
editorial says, that our criminal justice system is clogged, and 
particularly they cite New York.
  In fact, on New York, we conducted a hearing in Washington on the 
subject of New York. We brought in an individual, Catherine Lapp, who 
is the New York State director of criminal justice. She testified 
before our subcommittee. We asked specific questions about how many 
people were behind bars, and were in fact New York prisons clogged with 
people who were small-time users.
  Let me cite her testimony before our subcommittee tonight before the 
House. This is Catherine Lapp: ``Over the last several years, there has 
been much debate in New York about the efficacy of our drug laws, 
oftentimes referred to as the Rockefeller drug laws, which were enacted 
in 1973 in response to the onslaught of drugs and drug-driven crime.
  ``Drug law reform advocates have argued that the drug laws have done 
little to remove drugs from our communities and only serve to imprison 
low level drug addicts in our State's prison system for lengthy periods 
of time.
  ``Advocates also argue that the law should be repealed in whole or in 
part and replaced with a system to provide treatment for all drug-
addicted criminals. My response to this position is twofold. First, the 
facts do not bear

[[Page H5840]]

out the position that there are thousands of low level drug-addicted 
offenders sentenced each year to State prison for lengthy periods of 
imprisonment on charges of possession of small amounts of drugs.''
  That is the first premise she makes here.
  She says, ``Secondly, New York State has developed a rather 
sophisticated and progressive system for providing drug treatment 
options and alternatives to incarceration opportunities for dealing 
with drug-addicted non-violent offenders. The success of that system, 
however, is premised on large part on the fact that the offenders are 
motivated to take advantage of the options in order to avoid mandatory 
prison terms.''
  Some of the statistics that she cited in her testimony to me, and 
this is nothing I have made up, the New York Times editorial will tell 
us they are draconian laws, and that 22,000 inmates are currently 
confined in their State prison; that inmates are nonviolent users and 
small-time sellers.
  Again, she did the most extensive survey ever done in New York, and 
this is some of what she found. First of all, she says, ``We also took 
a random review of the case files for the first-time felony offenders 
sentenced to State prison in what I believe is a very persuasive way. 
This documented the various reasons why they were sent to prison.
  ``In simple terms, the offenders gave judges little choice, as the 
offenders consistently and routinely thumb their noses at the system, 
showing little remorse for their actions or interest in seeking 
treatment. Finally, those sentenced to the State prison received, on 
average,'' on average, and this is what they call ``locked up forever 
for small-time use penalties,'' ``On average, 13 months in prison, 
hardly the lengthy sentences which the drug law reform advocates 
suggest.''
  As for repeat drug offenders, our report also documented that only 30 
percent of persons with prior felony arrest histories who were arrested 
for a drug felony actually received a sentenced State imprisonment, 
only 30 percent.
  There are roughly 22,000 individuals, that is the only thing that 
matches with the New York Times editorial, currently serving time in 
New York State prison for drug offenses. Eighty-seven percent of them 
are actually serving time for selling drugs, not mere possession, and 
over 70 percent have more than one felony conviction on their records.
  ``Of the persons serving time for drug possession charges, 76 percent 
were actually arrested for sale or intent to sell and eventually pled 
down to possession.''
  Again, that is testimony that is absolutely in conflict with the New 
York Times' liberal editorial that would tell us that the State prisons 
in New York, because of the tough Rockefeller laws, are full of small-
time users and offenders.
  This article goes on or this testimony goes on to talk about some of 
the things that have also been done in New York. I would like to go 
ahead and cite them.
  ``I would like to submit that those who advocate a wholesale repeal 
of the New York State drug laws in favor of treatment for substance-
abusing offenders actually miss the point and fail to appreciate or 
choose to ignore the realities of the system.
  ``Perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining tough 
drug laws as a way to motivate substance-abusing offenders is found in 
reports of the King's County Detab, a drug program our subcommittee has 
looked at that is very successful in King'S County, close to New York 
City.
  ``On average, over 30 percent of the defendants screened and deemed 
eligible for this program actually declined to participate in the 18-
month residential treatment program, opting instead to go to State 
prison.'' This is despite the fact that if they were to successfully 
complete the program, the charges would be dropped and wiped off their 
record.

                              {time}  2200

  What would we do with this category of offenders in the absence of 
mandatory minimums? Return them to the communities?
  In recent years, changes have been made to the New York State drug 
laws. Now, the next thing I will tell my colleagues is the drug laws in 
New York, because of the Rockefeller laws, are inflexible. Ms. Lapp 
testified, in recent years, changes have been made to the New York 
State drug laws to permit certain nonviolent offenders to be diverted 
from prison and to treatment programs or to be released from prison 
early following successful completion of treatment.
  This is the bologna, the tripe put out by the New York Times, the 
liberal press. This is the fact, the testimony of Catherine Lapp, New 
York State Director of Criminal Justice before our subcommittee. This 
is the most extensive survey done on who is behind bars.
  Again, it is unbelievable that the media would not print the facts on 
what is happening in New York or in other jurisdictions and would have 
us believe that tough sentencing mandatory minimum sentencing should be 
withdrawn.
  We had testimony before our subcommittee from the Federal Sentencing 
Commission, and we have also asked the question of law enforcement 
officials in almost every one of our hearings and field hearings across 
the country and before us in Washington, should we reduce minimum 
mandatory? Without exception, the answer has been no.
  Most people do not realize that we have instituted, in fact, a safety 
valve and flexibility in the Federal law that does give discretion, 
that does allow for alternative programs, and does give small time 
offenders an opportunity.
  But, again, what is portrayed by the media is that one would have 
small-time users and abusers or even sellers behind prison bars, and it 
does not jibe at all with the facts that have been presented before our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to again address some of the myths about 
policies, tough policies versus liberal policies. New York City has to 
be the best example of the successful implementation of a zero 
tolerance as far as drug enforcement, as far as tough enforcement.
  When Rudy Guliani, the mayor, took office in the mid or early 1990s 
here, they are averaging 2,000 deaths in New York. That is down to the 
mid-600 range, a dramatic decrease.
  We called Rudy Guliani in before our subcommittee, and we have also 
examined the record in that community with a zero tolerance program. 
The latest statistics reveal that crime is down some 57.6 percent for 
seven major crimes. Murder is down 58 percent, rape down 31 percent, 
robbery down 62 percent, felony assaults down 35 percent, burglary down 
almost 62 percent, grand larceny down 42 percent, and grand larceny 
auto down almost 69 percent.
  Here again the liberals attack the zero tolerance policy. Either one 
has an activity where one has the liberals calling for more 
enforcement, or they are ganging up on the mayor in New York City 
because of tough enforcement. It is either not enough or too much.
  But it is interesting. We went back to examine when the mayor was 
criticized during the fatal shooting that took place by a police 
officer that, in fact, the number of fatal shootings by police officers 
in 1999, 11, was the lowest for any year since 1973, the first year for 
which records are available, and far less than the number of 41 police 
shootings that took place in 1990.
  Moreover, the number of rounds intentionally fired by police declined 
some 50 percent since 1993, and the number of intentional shooting 
incidents by police dropped by some 66.5 percent, while the number of 
police officers that Mr. Guliani actually put in place actually 
increased by 37.9 percent.
  The statistics, again, people do not want to deal with the hard 
facts. The liberal media will tell us that this policy does not work. 
The policy does work. The murder and nonnegligent manslaughter down 
dramatically to the mid 600s. The seven major felony categories down 
dramatically under this tough enforcement policy.
  Now, I want to know where the liberals were when David Dinkins' 
administration was in office. There were 62 percent more shootings by 
police officers per capita in the last year of David Dinkins' 
administrations, the last year, than under Mayor Guliani. Where was Mr. 
Sharpton? Where were the liberals when these incidents were taking 
place?

[[Page H5841]]

  I will tell my colleagues where the liberals were. One of them was in 
Baltimore, and he was the mayor, Mayor Schmoke. He adopted a 
nonenforcement, let them do it, we will treat them, do not worry about 
it, let it all hang out, that is good. Fortunately, Baltimore got rid 
of the mayor. The mayor is gone. But the deaths in Baltimore during 
1998, 1999, 1997 all ranged over 300.
  This is a liberal policy. This is a nonenforcement policy. This is 
the opposite of zero tolerance. They have created a hell hole in one of 
our Nation's most beautiful and historic cities, Baltimore, where the 
population of addiction is somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 
individuals.

  This is the statistic, this chart was given to us in 1996 where they 
only had 39,000 addicts in Baltimore. That is through the leadership of 
a liberal policy. They now have one in eight, according to a city 
council member, of the population of Baltimore through this liberal 
policy an addict. Can my colleagues imagine extending this throughout 
the entire Nation, one in eight in our population? The worst thing 
about this is they cannot even get 50 percent of those who are addicted 
to show up for a treatment program or to participate in a program. 
Imagine demands on the social services.
  Fortunately, they have a new mayor. Fortunately, we held a hearing, 
our subcommittee, in Baltimore. We held a hearing at the beginning of 
the week. Fortunately, by the end of the week, the mayor who sat there 
and heard the testimony of the previous police chief fired him and put 
in a zero tolerance person. That is what we intend to support.
  The subcommittee, in fact, met this morning before our hearing with 
Mr. General McCaffrey and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
who represents this devastated area. We will bring these statistics 
down, and we can do it through a zero tolerance policy. Other cities 
have done it. Richmond, Virginia has done it. Others have had tough 
enforcement.
  We will do our best to provide treatment. But one cannot just treat 
the wounded in a battle. Imagine fighting a war and not going after the 
enemy, not going after the source of the weapon of destruction coming 
after one. That is what they have been trying to do, and it has not 
worked. It will not work. It will not work.
  So the liberal media that is out there telling us that we must 
legalize, that zero tolerance does not work, that the war on drugs is a 
failure, in fact they are the failure that we have because they repeat 
this message.
  It is my hope again that we can continue to work in a bipartisan 
fashion. I have done my best to work with folks on putting the package 
together, the Colombian aid package. It was delayed for 5 years, and we 
got it done in 5 months. It is my hope that we can work on other 
programs and successfully combat this terrible plague upon our Nation.

                          ____________________