[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8909-H8914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ILLEGAL NARCOTICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). 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 to the floor this 
afternoon, and I hope to talk about the issue that I usually come on 
Tuesday to talk about but was preempted by the presidential debates on 
Tuesday night, that is, the problem of illegal narcotics and the damage 
that illegal narcotics have done across our land.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but come to the floor, though, preceding 
my colleagues who just spoke about some of the differences and the 
great balance that we have that may be undone here in this next 
election and some of the differences between the candidates on the 
issues.
  I sat with many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and watched the 
debates. There are some things I would have mentioned that were not 
mentioned. Governor Bush has not been part of the legislative process 
here. The governor was chief executive of the State of Texas.
  Mr. Gore has been a Member of the other body, and the differences are 
very dramatic. He served a number of years as a Member of Congress and 
finally as a Member of the other body, and it was interesting.
  Before I get into the drug portion of my talk this afternoon, I want 
to talk about some of the differences that are very distinct, the 
failure of the Vice President, when he was a Member of Congress, to 
ever come forth with a balanced budget; the failure of Mr. Gore to ever 
come forward with a proposal to secure Social Security. He is talking 
about a lockbox.

                              {time}  1530

  The Republicans did a lockbox here. He is talking about paying down 
the deficit by 2012. We are talking about paying down the deficit 
sooner than that with the plan that we have.
  There are things that he had an opportunity, but why did he not 
propose this? When the Democrats had control of both Houses of 
Congress, the Senate, by a wide margin, and this body here by a wide 
veto-proof margin, they could do basically anything they wanted to do. 
What did they do? He said, well, I cast the deciding vote for an 
economic policy.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, his plan was to pass a deciding vote to increase 
taxes to the highest level they had. The plan that they brought to this 
floor of the House of Representatives in 1993 when they passed that 
huge tax increase projected, their projections were a $200 billion 
deficit this year. That would have been on top of raiding social 
security, which they had done decade after decade when they controlled 
this body.
  What a farce, to have this side and one of the leaders of the other 
side come before the American people and tell them that he is going to 
solve the problem if he is given another chance.
  He had a chance in the Congress, he had a chance when they controlled 
this place for 2 years with a wide, wide margin. What did they do? They 
taxed and they spent the largest tax increase.
  Talk about energy policy, they do not have a clue of an energy 
policy. They have allowed the United States of America to be held 
hostage by ten dictators and by Middle East sheiks and others and 
allowed our reliance from around 50 percent on foreign oil to go now 
into the 56 percent and growing range. So we are held hostage. That is 
their policy.
  What is amazing is that we are being held hostage by people in the 
Middle East, we who sent, under President Bush, our young men and women 
to die for them, and they cannot even negotiate an oil deal to give us 
a better rate on the per barrel oil price.
  They do not have a clue of an energy policy. On our side of the 
aisle, we have all backed a domestic plan and tried to increase 
domestic production, tried to get alternative fuels. I have been up to 
the ANWR region of Alaska. The footprint that they had and the 
technology they had years ago when they took oil out of Prudhoe Bay, 
and even taking oil out of Prudhoe Bay, it is not the same technology 
today that it was 20 years ago. There is a very small imprint and 
footprint for oil production.
  There is no reason why we have to be energy dependent. We can put a 
man on the moon. And there is no reason why we cannot devise technology 
for nuclear energy. Some countries produce much, much more of their 
energy supply by nuclear means. They do not want to talk about that, of 
course. But there is no reason why we cannot do away with nuclear waste 
and turn that actually into energy production. There is no reason why 
we should be held hostage. Under this administration, we have increased 
our dependency to foreign sources.
  Those are some of the things that I noticed in the debate.
  They talk about a tax cut and balancing the budget without hurting 
people. We heard the other side here, as we attempted to balance the 
budget. Balancing the budget is something they could have done for 40 
years here. All they had to do was match the expenditures with the 
revenues. It is not a complicated thing. Most Americans do it every 
week. They have to limit their expenditures to what they take in.
  We did that, and kicking and screaming and dragging some of our 
people through elections and calling them names and accusing them of 
all kinds of atrocities is unfair. They want to do that again with 
Mediscare, with scaring seniors about social security.
  Stop and think. I have great respect for senior citizens all in my 
family that I know because they have been around a long time, and they 
are not fooled by those who will tell them that they bankrupted social 
security when they had control of the entire process. They were not 
only bankrupting the country in these huge deficit expenditures, but 
dipping into the social security trust fund, dipping into the Highway 
Trust Fund, dipping into the aviation trust fund, dipping into the 
Federal employees' trust fund.
  Every one of these accounts they raided, until we were just about at 
our financial knees. Thank goodness a Republican majority, a new 
majority in the House and in the other body, came along to rescue that.
  So now the folks from the other side that raided these funds, we 
restored the funds and took the abuse from them and were putting our 
Nation's finances in order, and they had the gall to go before the 
American people and tell them that they need another 4 years in the 
White House to solve these problems. They need control of the House and 
Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, their history is tax and spend. Their history. We passed 
legislation putting our financial House in order. We also passed a 
$1,000 tax credit for those people who have children in this country 
when they said we could not do it, that we could not do that. We passed 
a marriage penalty tax which was vetoed by those same folks that have 
taken control that want to deny tens and tens of millions of working 
men and women a little bit of money back in their pocket and not be 
penalized for being married.

  Is that family-friendly? Is that helping working people? So I saw 
those debates, too. I am so glad my colleagues

[[Page H8910]]

were here before me to reiterate some of the issues.
  The question of education, for 40 years the other side has done 
nothing but bring power to Washington, as far as education. We heard in 
the debates that only 6 cents of every dollar comes from the Federal 
Government. We have a Department of Education with thousands of 
bureaucrats, most of them in Washington, D.C., 5,000, and many 
thousands of contract employees. They disguise the true number of 
employees. I will talk about Federal employees in just a moment.
  But in education, we have 5,000, and within just a few miles of my 
voice in this Capitol there are 3,000 Department of Education Federal 
employees.
  One time I took a student who was visiting here. We were on our way 
down to the White House. We drive from the Capitol to the White House 
and see all of these buildings, these massive buildings. He asked me, 
what do people do in those buildings? We passed the Department of 
Education. I told him, there are 3,000 Federal education employees just 
in Washington, D.C. I will tell you what they do, they administer 
hundreds of Federal education programs. We were up to 760 Federal 
education programs, all well-meaning, but all that required 
administration and overhead.
  Not only do they require it in downtown Washington in those 
buildings, where they make $60,000 to $100,000, on average, and show me 
one teacher in my district that makes $60,000 to $100,000. I do not 
know of any. But they make it in those buildings here.
  I will tell the Members what those people do in the Department of 
Education: They pass rules and regulations. They administer those 760 
programs.
  I have no problem with the Federal Government providing money to 
education. In fact, I guarantee Members, if we ask this question and 
people would answer, this would be the response. The question would be, 
if we were thinking about it, who would provide more funding for 
education, Republicans or Democrats? If we had an audience here, Mr. 
Speaker, of citizens sitting here, they would probably say the 
Democrats would.
  That is wrong. The Democrats, when they had control, again, and when 
they were running these deficits, they put very little money into 
education and increases.
  If we take the same period of time that we have had control of this 
House and we go back when they had control, we dramatically increased 
the funding and money available for education as a percentage compared 
to what they did, and put more money in student loans. The difference 
is that they put more money in administration. They put more emphasis 
on regulation. They want the control here in Washington, D.C., so that 
is why they not only require those 3,000 Federal employees here 
administering these programs, again, well-intended, but they require 
them in the regional offices.
  Then, what is worse is they require them in the State capitals and 
down at the school boards until we get down to the poor teacher. The 
teacher is held captive by rules, regulations, by the mandates coming 
from Washington. I guarantee Members that if we had a President Gore, 
he would be the king of rules and regulations, and more control in 
Washington.
  That is what the debate is about: Do we want Washington and the 
Federal Government to have more control, more power, more authority, or 
do we want the money that is hard earned by the taxpayers to go back to 
the taxpayers? That is the major question, the major difference, for 
the people who get their check at the end of the week and they look at 
the check and there is very little left.
  I remember when my daughter graduated a couple of years ago from 
college. Her biggest shock was to get her first paycheck. She almost 
cried. She said, dad, I have hardly anything left, and she was not 
making that much money. But she was shocked, as every American worker 
is shocked, at the end of the week, how much they have left; at the end 
of the month, at the end of the year, how much they have left.
  This is one of the best fundamental debates this Congress and this 
country has ever heard, because the debate is about where that money is 
going to end up and who controls that money: whether we control it, 
have it back in our pockets, or whether they send it to Washington and 
tell us how our school will be run, whether they add more 
administrators in that Department of Education in Washington, whether 
they force more administrators at the regional level, whether they 
force more at the school level.

  I served in the State legislature in Tallahassee, Florida, the 
capital, back in the seventies. If Members go to Tallahassee, Florida, 
there is a huge capitol building. I was there when they built it.
  But the second biggest building in Tallahassee, Florida, is a 
skyscraper which is a Department of Education, a State Department of 
Education. That Department of Education grew to a huge bureaucracy, 
one, because of some of the rules and regulations and mandates that 
came out of Washington. Again, they only supply 6 cents on every 
dollar. The rest of the money comes from local property taxes, State 
sales tax and State fees and local money. But they pass down to the 
local level this huge bureaucracy, this red tape, so a teacher is held 
hostage in her classroom, so a principal cannot control the school, so 
the school board has to have hundreds and hundreds of mandated Federal 
employees carrying out Federal mandates.
  That is where the education money goes. That is why this is a great 
and fundamental debate. If people want government to have more control, 
there is a very clear choice. If they want education mandated out of 
Washington, there is a very clear choice. If they want more regulations 
in education, there is a very clear choice.
  Some of this is not rocket science. We know that children need basic 
education. Governor Bush, I heard his proposal for Head Start. What a 
great proposal. What he has done in Texas with his young people, if we 
could do that for our country, for our children, which are the poorest 
and most at-risk children in this country, they need basic education. 
They need to be able to read and write and do simple math. It is not 
complicated. My wife was an elementary schoolteacher, and this is some 
of the answer.
  Let me tell the Members what they put in place. Even I tried to 
change it, and we cannot change the bureaucracy because they will veto 
it. This President will veto it.
  With Head Start, a great program, I was involved in helping, when I 
went to the University of Florida some 40 years ago, before some of my 
colleagues here were even born, I was trying to help young people, 
particularly with an institution, with the University of Florida.
  Here is a great education university next to a community in 
Gainesville that had many poor children who did not have an opportunity 
for education.
  The Great Start concept is to take good resources, teaching 
resources, and to give those young people the ability to have a head 
start, to have access to education so that they have the basic skills 
so when they enter school they can do simple math, they can read.

                              {time}  1545

  Governor Bush, and I hope will be President Bush, proposed that we 
convert Head Start into a reading program or at least an emphasis on 
reading and basic skills.
  I have a good Head Start program in my local area, but we also have a 
Head Start program which I examined in my area. My Head Start program, 
the public one, is a great example of what we should not be doing with 
taxpayer money. One of the Head Start programs spends between $8,000 
and $9,000 per year per student for a part-time program which is 
basically a glorified baby-sitting program. It has turned into a 
minority employment program so that the student who is coming out of a 
disadvantaged home is going into a disadvantaged program and not 
learning.
  I examined the program, and the program had administrators, over 20 
administrators in a program for around 400 students, 20 administrators 
earning between $16,000 and $60,000. The teachers, there was not one 
certified teacher in the program, not one certified teacher. The so-
called teachers were making between $12,000 and $16,000. Is that a head 
start? That is a farce.
  But if those children who are so disadvantaged had just a minimal 
opportunity to learn to read, to learn to do

[[Page H8911]]

simple mathematics. Try to hire someone today who can do simple 
mathematics and read out there, it is very difficult.
  One of my community college presidents told me that over half of the 
students entering community college in my area need remedial education. 
We have an education recession, and that is because they have taken the 
power to Washington with all of these mandates and regulations.
  Do my colleagues know what they have done? They have failed. They 
have failed. A teacher cannot teach. A teacher goes into the classroom 
in many areas and is threatened with bodily harm. One of my district 
aid's wife is a teacher in one of the schools in central Florida and 
has been physically attacked.
  There is not much the teacher can do. The teacher has lost control of 
the classroom. Why? Because of the liberal policies and left wing 
policies of well-intended people who have managed to take control away 
from parents, from teachers, from principals and local school 
administrators and amass them all here in Washington, D.C.
  That is the clear choice that the American people are going to have: 
Do you want more power here in Washington over education? Do you want 
more mandates? Do you want more rules? Do you want the people who, for 
40 years, have brought power and regulation to education and so 
encapsulated the regulation of education that a teacher cannot teach, a 
parent cannot discipline, that we cannot teach basics, that we have 
programs that were intended to give children a head start? What do they 
do? They keep them at the lowest common denominator.
  We look at what Governor Bush did just with education in the State of 
Texas for his young people. These are the young people. If we fail 
them, ask any teacher what will happen, ask any principal what will 
happen. First, these will be the disruptive students in the classroom. 
Next, they will be the dropout students who used to be in the classroom 
and who are now roaming our streets and neighborhoods. They will be the 
social problems. These children will be the social problems because 
they cannot read, they cannot do mathematics.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and 
Human Resources, I have had the opportunity to sit in some of our 
prisons and some of our drug treatment programs and penal institutions 
and talked to young people and talked to also those older who were 
incarcerated behind bars, the lost souls of this country. A common 
denominator among almost all of them is that they failed in school. 
They did not succeed in school.
  Of course many of them came from disruptive families, and they had 
substance abuse problems, and I will try to talk about that in the rest 
of my talk. But one of the basic problems with young people getting 
into trouble is the lack of education, lack of being able to compete in 
and participate in school and having basic educational skills.
  So if for no other reason if on the basis of education, we turn over 
to the tax and spenders and the regulators and the mandators, this 
Congress and that White House, it would be a very sad day for America. 
It would be a very sad day for education in this country.
  I talked a little bit about education bureaucrats. I do not advocate 
the necessary abolishment of the Department of Education. The Federal 
government can play a role. I do not know that we need 5,000 people or 
3,000 people in Education. My God, we might have to have some of them 
go out and teach for a living and actually be in a classroom and stop 
regulating. We might have to take those dollars instead of the 
gobbledegook administration of them and the hundreds of millions of 
dollars spent on administration and block grant that money.
  We passed a simple proposal here to try to get 90 percent of Federal 
dollars into the classroom and to the teacher. To get a good teacher, 
one has to pay a good teacher. To have a student able to learn in a 
classroom, one wants the dollar to go there, not the dollar to go to 
Washington.
  This is an unbelievable statistic. But under their plan, the Democrat 
plan, under what they have done for 40 years in bringing education and 
bureaucracy to Washington, almost 90 percent of Federal dollars go to 
everything but basic education. Our plan was to turn that around for 
teachers, for students to benefit.
  Now, just take a few minutes. I would pray that the American people 
would take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, and look at what is being 
proposed here and what has been done here to their schools, public 
schools.
  I was educated in a public school. My wife was educated in a public 
school. My wife was a teacher in a public school. I think public 
schools are one of the best institutions this country has ever created. 
But they are managing to ruin them. That is why they go to charter 
schools. That is why they are proposing vouchers as an alternative, 
because they are failing.
  So if we want them to fail more, we can regulate them more from 
Washington. If we want them to succeed, we can put parents and teachers 
in control. We can have that money come from here and be a partner with 
them, but let local parents and students and educators make the 
decisions. Let us take back the schools.
  That is what I think Governor Bush is talking about, successful 
programs and education that teach basics. Basics. If one cannot read 
and write in this society or do simple math, how can one function? So 
that is a great difference. I am glad my colleagues were here to talk 
about it.
  Before I talk about the drug situation, I have to talk about Federal 
employees. I heard the Vice President of the United States taking 
credit for, and I could almost cry when he did it, for reducing the 
size of the Federal bureaucracy, I think he said by more than 300,000 
Federal employees.
  Mr. Speaker, those 300,000 Federal employees were almost all Federal 
Defense employees. They have not met a bureaucrat that they do not like 
on this side of the aisle. They love to expand the size of government, 
and they have had a great deal of experience at it, whether it is the 
Department of Education.
  They cut the Defense civilian employees, and almost every one of 
those cuts came out of those agencies. If one looks at it, EPA is 
bigger than it ever has been, the Department of Commerce. Then if we 
see any shrinkage, Mr. Speaker, do not let them fool us. Do not let the 
Vice President of the United States, who knows better, tell us that he 
has reduced the size of the Federal bureaucracy because it just is not 
so.
  I will tell my colleagues, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil 
Service, I will tell my colleagues where the bodies are buried. What 
they have done is they have contracted for employees. So we have 
millions and millions of Federal contract employees rather than Federal 
employees on the payroll.
  So that is where some of these folks are. The only agency I know of 
that Bill Clinton cut when he came in, he reduced the Drug Czar's 
office from 120 to about 27. We have managed, fortunately, with General 
McAffrey and others to try to restore the viability of that office. But 
it has been a struggle. That is where they made their cuts.
  That might be a good lead into the subject that I came to talk about 
that I usually talk about on Tuesday night but was preempted by the 
debates. I wanted to make a few points. It is very frustrating as a 
Member of Congress to have seen the folks who brought this country into 
fiscal disarray, who operated this Congress, this House of 
Representatives like a poorly run southern plantation with taxpayers 
subsidizing the Member's restaurant downstairs, with the House bank run 
as a piggy bank for anyone who wanted to write a check and bounce a 
check and have the taxpayers fund it, who wanted to see 17 people 
deliver ice, even though they instituted refrigerators here in the 
recent years, they still had 17 people spending three-quarters of a 
million dollars delivering ice the morning and afternoon, who ran this 
place like a poorly managed southern plantation is the only comparison 
I could give. The shoe shine operation was subsidized. The haircut was 
subsidized.
  What did we do? We came in. We cut this committee staff by a third. I 
was sitting with a Member here, and I related this to the Member, a new 
Member of my side of the aisle. Republicans do not even recall what the 
Republicans have done in the Congress. We cut the committee staff by 
one-third.

[[Page H8912]]

 We cut the number of committees by one-third. We privatized the dining 
room and turned it over to a private operator. We no longer subsidize 
the barber shop, the shoe shine shop. They are private vendors. We took 
out the printing office which was doing sweetheart deals for Members, 
and now you must compete with everyone.

  Let me tell my colleagues one more that just galls me. They had 
disabled people that were blocking the Republican National Headquarters 
yesterday. I saw them, I guess it was, last night. I thought I would 
stop and talk to those people, but they did not want to hear the truth.
  When I was a Member and came here as a minority member in 1993 when 
Bill Clinton took over, when the Democrats had control of the House of 
Representatives and the other body, I had visually disabled blinded 
people coming to visit me as a Member of Congress, and they bounced off 
the walls going down the halls. There were no accommodations for 
disabled.
  I wrote the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, and I 
said, it is a disgrace that the House of Representatives does not live 
under the laws that we have. I came from the business sector, and the 
business sector was not allowed to ignore the law. Business people must 
go by the letter of the law, the Americans With Disabilities law. There 
is no reason why this Congress should not accommodate it, particularly 
the House of Representatives, the people's house.
  Do my colleagues know what the Democrat chairman did? He ignored me. 
I wrote him again, and he ignored me. I wrote him again. They ignored 
the disabled. The disabled Americans who come to this Capitol, came to 
this Capitol when they controlled by wide margins the House of 
Representatives and the other body, and they ignored the disabled.
  I begged them if they would please accommodate. These are good 
people. They deserve to have the law enforced as far as the House of 
Representatives, their people's house, even when they come to lobby or 
talk to or visit their Members of Congress. They ignored me.
  One of the greatest satisfactions I had was, when we took over the 
House of Representatives, we passed the Congressional Accountability 
Act. We put the Congress, the House of Representatives under the same 
laws as the business people. One of the greatest days of satisfaction 
that I have ever had, and if I never serve another day in the House of 
Representatives, is when they put a plaque on my door, and it said John 
L. Mica; and underneath in braille, it had a braille reading for my 
constituents, so when they visited me they could be treated the same 
way they would in the private sector.
  That was denied when they controlled this entire body by huge margins 
and could have done anything they wanted to do. That was denied the 
disabled in my district.
  If one goes around the Capitol, and I am now on the Committee on 
House Administration, it is ironic how tables turn. The Committee on 
House Administration that would not even hear a minority member asking 
about helping the disabled, it is ironic. I now serve on that as one of 
the Speaker's designees on House Administration. Go around and see what 
we have done.

                              {time}  1600

  This place was a disgrace, and we are still trying to get it so it is 
accessible to the disabled.
  The fire alarms. We are still working to get them in order so it is a 
safe workplace even for the people who work here, which they ignored, 
as well as the access to people who are disabled.
  But I am very proud of what we did. Every Member of the Republican 
side of the aisle can be very proud of what they did and of their 
legacy, not only as far as putting this country's financial house in 
order but in the area of putting the people's House in order. So, as 
Paul Harvey says, ``That's the rest of the story,'' or a little bit 
more of the story.
  I guess they got my dander up between watching the debates and not 
hearing what should have been said. But we do need to continue the 
progress that we have made: keeping our financial house in order, 
helping Americans have a few more dollars in their pocket, working 
Americans, and helping people get off of government. I guess those who 
want a lot of control by government and want power in Washington, it is 
better to have people relying on them here in Washington. God only 
knows what JFK would be saying these days. He said, ``Ask not what your 
country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' The 
other side seems to think it is ask how much more Washington can do for 
you, and we will get your vote and your money. It is sort of sad, and I 
hope the American people pay attention to what is going on here.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
Human Resources, I have a very small responsibility of all the 
responsibilities here. I do not have control over the budget. I am one 
vote out of 435. I do not have control over the appropriations process. 
But I do have responsibility to try to focus on our national drug 
policy, and for the past year and a half, as chairman, and since 
assuming that and leaving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil 
Service of the Committee on Government Reform, I have tried to do my 
best to deal with a problem which we inherited as a new majority.
  The other side was convinced when they came in to office that we did 
not need a war on drugs, so they began systematically dismantling what 
was truly a war on drugs. Now, if we all think back to the 
administration of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, they instituted a 
number of policies, community-based policies, against narcotics. The 
First Lady led a ``Just say no'' effort. The President was engaged in 
this, we had a vice presidential task force, we had an Andean policy 
where we went after the drugs at their source. We brought in the 
military and the Coast Guard, not into arresting people but into drug 
surveillance; and we had an almost 50 percent decline in drug use in 
this country back from 1985 to 1990. I brought that chart up and showed 
it many times.
  With the Clinton administration, the first thing they did was fire 
everybody, just about everybody, in the drug czar's office. They took 
the military out of the war on drugs. They stopped intelligence sharing 
with our allies, who were going after drug traffickers. And it is 
better to have them go after them than to spend our resources. They 
blocked aid to Colombia, and that is why we have a $1.3 billion aid 
package to Colombia because they very directly stopped aid and 
information sharing and any type of assistance going to Colombia.
  Now Colombia has gone from practically having no production of heroin 
and no production of cocaine in 1993, this is the total supply of 
heroin produced in Colombia in 1993, this is a zero, I hope my 
colleagues can see this, this is a zero in 1993, and in 6 years of the 
Clinton-Gore lack of a drug policy, and an actually obstructive drug 
policy in Colombia, what they have managed to do is to have that come 
from zero production of heroin to being up to 75 percent of the world's 
supply. And most of that is coming into the United States from South 
America.
  This is the most recent report I have had as the chairman. We know 
where the drugs are coming from. Heroin is coming from South America. 
We see it is at 65 percent of all the heroin. We know this and DEA 
knows this. They have supplied me with these figures because they can 
do a DNA signature analysis and almost tell the field that the heroin 
has come from. So we know that now in the Clinton-Gore administration, 
in 6, 7 years, they have managed to turn Colombia from producing zero 
to 65 percent of everything on the streets seized in the United States; 
75 percent of the world's supply, as we see. These are DEA figures 
given to me.
  The other huge increase we see is Mexico. From 1997 to 1998 they went 
from 14 to 17 percent, a 20 percent increase in the country that we 
gave trade assistance to; that we helped to secure their peso during 
their financial disaster. We loaned them money. We have given them the 
best trade benefits of probably any nation in the history of 
negotiation over trade. We gave them the best benefits. This 
administration certified Mexico as cooperating; yet they increased by 
20 percent in one year the production of heroin. They blocked any aid 
going to Colombia and turned it into the biggest producer.

[[Page H8913]]

  So here are two of our problems: we know where it is coming from. It 
is coming across the border from Mexico. It is being produced, the last 
6, 7, years, under the Clinton-Gore administration, in Colombia, where 
they denied aid; they denied assistance. And even several years ago, 
when we appropriated $300 million to go to Colombia, that money was 
bungled in getting delivery of goods and resources to Colombia to go 
after narcotics trafficking and also eradicating the narcotics 
production in that country.
  We will hear next week from DEA and from GAO and others that have 
looked at this situation, and they will outline that ``the gang that 
can't shoot straight'' could not even get the aide that we appropriated 
more than 2 years ago to Colombia to try to get this situation under 
control. That scares me as far as the $1.3 billion we just 
appropriated. Even when it is appropriated, they cannot get it 
straight.
  The same is true for another deadly drug, which is cocaine. In 1993, 
President Bush had gotten the production of cocaine almost under 
control. They went after the cartels. They had an Andean strategy. We 
have to remember, from a position of wimping out on the narcotics 
issue, which is sort of the trademark of this administration, back to 
what took place in 1989. President Bush found one government 
trafficking in illegal narcotics, primarily cocaine, and what did he 
do? He sent our troops in and they surrounded the house. If my 
colleagues will remember, those of us that followed this, they 
surrounded and captured Noriega. He was captured because he was dealing 
in drugs and drug trafficking, and that is what he was charged with. 
And then there is this administration that has turned its back on 
trying to stop the production.
  This was a successful program. When we reduce drug use 50 percent 
from 1985 to 1992 in this country, when it is reduced by 50 percent, 
that is a successful program. But they will tell us that the war on 
drugs has failed. Their war on drugs has failed. Their war on drugs was 
a dismantling of any effort on drugs, and the evidence could not be 
more clear.
  Now, finally we have gotten the President's attention. In 7 years, I 
believe the President mentioned the war on drugs eight times, just 
before the Colombian appropriation. When we do not have leadership from 
the top, when we do not have an effective strategy, when we take the 
military and surveillance out of the war on drugs, what do we have? We 
have a huge supply of drugs. That is why they are dying in Vermont, 
that is why they are dying in Oregon, that is why they are dying in my 
State, that is why they are dying in Baltimore, right down the street 
from here in Baltimore. ``Drug Overdose Deaths Exceed Slayings,'' this 
is a recent headline, September 15, in Baltimore. That means that there 
are more drug-related deaths than homicides.
  This would be a horrible headline in any community. It has appeared 
in the headlines in my community. But the national media will not pay 
attention to this. We held a hearing a week ago on this, but in the 
United States of America, for the first time in the history of 
statistics, drug-induced deaths, drug-related deaths in the United 
States of America exceeded homicides. For the first time. They do not 
want that information out. The media would not cover it. God forbid 
anyone should think that they are not doing a great job. But when the 
drug czar and Donna Shalala held a conference several weeks ago that 
drug use among eighth graders had dropped slightly, they championed 
that like we had solved the whole problem.
  I tell my colleagues, the problem is serious. Ask any parent, ask any 
young person. These are the headlines that we see: ``High Schoolers 
Report More Drug Use.'' Ask any high schooler, ask any parent, ask any 
single parent, any mother, any set of parents what one of their 
greatest fears is, and that is to have their child addicted to 
narcotics. Not only the problem of addiction, it is the problem of 
death. And now we have all kinds of drugs on the street.
  We have a huge supply. We saw where some of the supply is coming 
from. I am not sure if the Speaker has an HDTV or how many of my 
colleagues here have an HDTV. Probably not too many. Some might say, 
well, what is an HDTV? And what does high definition television have to 
do with drugs? It is a simple economics equation. When there is a short 
supply and a high price, there is not the demand.
  We have heroin, we have cocaine, we have methamphetamine, we have 
Ecstasy, we have all of these drugs flooding our streets; and the 
administration has dismantled any effort to go after the supply, to go 
after the producing countries, to stop drugs most cost effectively at 
their source. And that is why we have an incredible supply of heroin, 
that is why we have heroin overdose deaths. Not only do we have heroin 
overdose deaths, we also have on the streets of our country the most 
pure heroin and cocaine that our drug enforcement people have ever 
seen, and our young people are mixing it with alcohol and with other 
drugs, and they are dying like flies. That is why drug-related deaths, 
and many of them with our young people, now exceed homicides in the 
United States.
  Now, some people would say that the answer is treatment. And I heard 
this Geraldo Rivera debate the other night with one of the pro-
legalizers talking about this is just a health problem. This is just a 
health problem. We treat everybody and we will be fine.

                              {time}  1615

  Well, they tried the health problem approach in Baltimore and they 
grew from a small number of addicts to somewhere between 60,000 and 
80,000 addicts. Of course, the population went from 900,000 to 600,000 
because people left Baltimore. They had a mayor who had a 
liberalization policy, no enforcement policy. And what happened? Almost 
the same number of homicides every year. And we saw where now drug-
induced deaths exceed homicide in Baltimore. That did not work and it 
does not work.
  The alternative is zero tolerance. Rudy Giuliani did it in New York. 
He cut the murders from over 2,000 in a year when he took office to 
600. Six hundred is about double what Baltimore had, and Baltimore has 
600,000 population. And there are millions and millions in New York 
City. Rudy Giuliani, through a zero tolerance policy and going after 
drug dealers, cut all crime in New York City.
  Walk through New York City and you will see the evidence of it by 58 
percent. The seven major felony categories were cut by 58 percent. So 
it not only cut murders from 2,000 down to 600, it cut down all of the 
mayhem and the felonies. But this is treatment.
  Now, they say we did not put enough money in treatment and we hear 
that from the other side. We put money in treatment, even under the 
Republicans, a 26 percent increase in treatment since 1995 funds. Every 
year we put money in treatment. And we see what has happened with 
interdiction, with international programs, when the other side, the 
Democrats, and under the Clinton-Gore policy cut the interdiction, cut 
the international source country programs.
  We have a huge increase in drug use in almost every category in the 
United States because we have a huge supply coming in. And we can never 
treat enough people. So we will continue to put money into treatment. 
But do not let them fool you that this is a health problem that we can 
treat our way out of this. You cannot have a war or any kind of a 
conflict and only treat the wounded in battle.
  And once someone is addicted to narcotics, our success rate in public 
programs is a 60/70 percent failure rate. Only a 20/30 percent success 
rate. And these people are repeat and repeat. Ask any parent who has an 
addicted young person. Ask any adult who has been addicted to 
narcotics. And it is the hardest thing in the world to treat these 
people.
  If we follow the Baltimore model, we will have tens and tens of 
millions of people who are addicted. We cannot afford that. We have 
asked this administration to go after drug dealers. And the Clinton-
Gore administration from 1992 to 1996, this is a chart that was 
supplied to us by the administration and all the statistics come from 
the administration, it is entitled Individual Defendants Prosecuted in 
Federal Courts in Drug Prosecutions 1992 to 1996, they cut the 
prosecution of going after drug offenders from 29,000 here to 26,000 in 
1996. So when we got after them to go after drug dealers and drug 
offenders, and we are not talking about people with small amounts of 
possession, we are talking about people dealing in death and 
destruction in huge

[[Page H8914]]

 quantities trafficking in illegal narcotics, they dropped the 
prosecution.
  And what happened is these are the headlines from the ``Dallas 
Morning News'': ``Federal Drug Offenders Spending Less Time in Prison 
Study Finds.'' We went after them, and we started to get the 
prosecutions up. And now we find in 2000 the drug offenders are 
spending less time in prison.
  We cannot win with these folks. First they will not prosecute folks; 
and then when they prosecute them, we finally get them to prosecute 
them and they do not let them serve prison terms.
  That is unfortunate. What is also unfortunate is our country is now 
being ravaged by not only heroin, not only by cocaine and other drugs 
of high purity and deadly levels, but we have a new plague across this 
country and that is the plague of Ecstasy and designer drugs.
  We just had a young person at the University of Central Florida die 
from an overdose of designer drugs just the past few days. We have 
young people who are dying from Ecstasy. We had a hearing of our 
subcommittee in Atlanta and heard a father talk of his daughter who 
about 2 years ago took Ecstasy and went into convulsions. And for 2 
years that family went through hell. The daughter was in a coma and 
finally died.
  We have had hearings where we had fathers talk about their sons who 
have tried Ecstasy and did not get a second chance. They are part of 
those statistics of drug related deaths that exceed homicides.
  One father from Orlando told me, ``Mr. Mica, drug related deaths are 
homicides.''
  But one of the great misconceptions young people have is that Ecstasy 
is a harmless drug, designer drugs you can take and feel good.
  This is a brain scan provided to us by the National Institute of Drug 
Abuse, who does scientific studies. This is a brain scan of a normal 
brain. This is a brain that has dealt with Ecstasy. Ecstasy destroys 
the brain tissue and it creates a Parkinson's type disease almost in 
the brain, a destruction of the brain. This is a brain scan after use 
of Ecstasy.
  The young people and adults of this country must realize that they 
have a dangerous commodity out there. And now some of it is mixed with 
all kinds of substances and used with other drugs and is deadly.
  It is amazing how this stuff is packaged. This is not a little 
cottage industry. This has turned into a huge industry of deadly drugs 
in designer packages.
  I do not know if we can focus on this, but they put all kinds of 
fancy designer labels on these drugs. This was provided to us by U.S. 
Customs Service, and that is what is out there. They try to make it 
attractive to our young people, and this is what our young people get 
is a brain, if they survive, that is damaged. And you do not repair 
this damage to the brain.
  So right now we are facing an Ecstasy epidemic. We are facing it in 
California.
  I see my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) is here. 
We were in his district for a hearing. I might want to yield to the 
gentleman to comment about his perspective. Maybe he can relate, too, 
to the House part of this problem. The gentleman does a fantastic job 
working on the subcommittee but shares, as a father and a parent, my 
concern for what is happening with illegal narcotics.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding 
to me. And I do want to commend his efforts on the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, on which I am 
honored to serve with him as chairman.
  He has in fact been to my district for a hearing, and at that hearing 
we heard the traumatic tales of families whose very fiber was ripped 
from seam to seam from the abuse of drugs by folks who should know 
better.
  I was hopeful, if I might, Mr. Speaker, if I could just have just a 
few moments to speak about, frankly, a fraudulent initiative on the 
California ballot that will contribute to a far more pronounced number 
of experiences than we have even today.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman. I 
think we have about 4 minutes, but I think it is important that he gets 
this message out to our colleagues, the Speaker, and the American 
people.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, in California we have an 
interesting process called the initiative process. And on this year's 
ballot we have Prop 36, which is labeled Substance Abuse and Crime 
Prevention Act of 2000.
  I have a copy of it here. And it is interesting. I have gone through 
and I have flagged the various parts of it that are so troublesome. 
This is about 4,500 words in total. And it is interesting, it is being 
marketed on the basis of treatment. It provides treatment to people, 
that if we approve this, Californians will receive treatment. But of 
its 4,500 words, only 383 of them speak directly within the initiative 
to providing treatment for people. So can you imagine that, less than a 
tenth of the words in this initiative.
  Let me tell my colleagues that what this initiative really does is it 
imposes the wisdom of a criminal defense attorney, it interjects that 
into California statute under the guise of providing treatment for 
folks who need drug treatment.
  There is nothing in here that provides treatment to Californians. It 
changes criminal statute to allow people who violate our laws as it 
relates to drug possession and use are treated, but it does not provide 
a single dollar for drug treatment to people who desperately need it.
  And keep in mind that this is an initiative written by a criminal 
defense attorney. The initiative itself was funded by three people who 
do not even live in California. There is no medical analysis, no 
medical input to drafting this. It is a shameful fraud being, 
attempting to be perpetrated on the voters of California.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, just in the course of our committee hearings, 
the gentleman and I have heard time after time after time from medical 
professional after medical professional after medical professional that 
drug testing is an inherent and integral part of a successful drug 
treatment program. This initiative, the $120 million to be appropriated 
under this initiative, not a dime of it can be used for drug testing 
whatsoever. So the initiative eliminates the chance to use the most 
successful tool we have. I just want to make that clear.
  I appreciate being able to come down here and visit with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ose) for his comments, and I thank him for the leadership on our 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
  As we conclude, I again call to the attention of my colleagues, the 
Speaker, and the American people the need to be vigilant on the issue 
of illegal narcotics, not to make the mistake of the past, not to be 
fooled by the legalizers, but to make this country safe for our 
children and the next generation and stop the ravages of illegal 
narcotics. Because illegal drugs do destroy lives and do a great deal 
of damage to our society and our country and particularly to our 
families and young people.

                          ____________________