[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13872-13876]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               IMPACT OF ILLEGAL NARCOTICS ON OUR SOCIETY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is Tuesday night, and again I rush to the 
floor to talk about illegal narcotics and its impact upon our society 
and the responsibility we have as a Congress to deal with probably the 
most important pressing social issue.
  It is interesting to sit here and listen to some of my colleagues, 
not the last two speakers, but previous speakers who talked about the 
focus of the tension of this Congress during the last week and last 
several weeks since Columbine.
  The latest solution is, I guess, to control gun show sales and then 
also putting child safety locks on guns, both remedies that may solve 
some incidences and crime and the use of firearms. But it is amazing 
how the people who really, I think, got us into this situation we are 
into, with some of the disrespect for the law, some of the lack of law 
and order, some of the lack of discipline in our schools, the liberal 
court decisions and appointments that have gotten us into this 
situation where young people do not know right from wrong and where 
anything goes in our society, they come up with solutions that address 
a tiny part of the problem.
  They will go to the heart and soul of this subject, the child or the 
young person that is committing that crime. It is interesting.
  There were 10,000 murders by guns last year in this country, and 
there should not be one murder in this Nation by a gun or a knife or an 
explosive or through any other mayhem.
  But, again, the liberal side likes to look at these issues and 
address a little bit of the symptoms and not really address the root 
problems.
  One of the problems that I continually come to the floor and talk 
about is the problem of illegal narcotics. Certainly if we looked at 
the root of violence in this country and crime in this country, there 
is a direct correlation between crime and illegal narcotics use.
  Probably a vast majority of the murders committed in the United 
States were drug related or the individual involved was involved in 
some type of substance abuse. While there were 10,000 murdered by guns 
in this country, there were 14,000 who died from the direct cause of 
drug-related deaths. That does not get much attention. It is 
unfortunate that, again, we just address some of the symptoms, we do 
not address the root problems.

                              {time}  1930

  I am here again tonight to talk about a problem that we have in our 
communities. As I said before in the House, we have a Columbine in our 
Nation every single day times three with the number of young people 
that are dying of drug-related deaths. I am not talking totally about 
the number of suicides, the number of automobile accidents, the other 
unreported deaths, but more than 14,000

[[Page 13873]]

drug-related deaths in the United States that we can trace to this very 
serious problem in our Nation.
  It is interesting, too, that the statistics show that some of the 
young people involved in violence in our schools and communities, and 
also involved with weapons, whether they be guns or explosives, also 
have a drug or substance abuse problem. This one study I will quote, by 
the Parent Resources and Information on Drugs, called PRID, reported 
that of high school students who had carried guns to school, 31 percent 
used cocaine compared to 2 percent of students who had never carried 
guns to school. The same relationship was found among students in 
junior high school in the study. The number of gang members, and again 
we are just zeroing in on one substance, cocaine, who reported using 
cocaine upon their arrest was 19 percent.
  Again, if we start tracing illegal narcotics and substance abuse to 
our young people, we start looking at the root problem.
  Now, we have in our Nation, across the land in jails and prisons and 
penitentiaries and holding facilities nearly 2 million, 1.8 million, 
Americans. It is estimated in the hearings that we have conducted both 
here in Washington and field hearings that we have conducted in our 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of 
the Committee on Government Reform, that, in fact, somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 70 percent of the people behind bars, incarcerated in 
our prisons and jails, are there because of drug-related offenses. This 
is a startling statistic.
  And, in fact, what is even more startling is the more prisoners who 
are tested who come into our prisons for illegal narcotics, we find the 
percentage is increasing every year of drug offenders coming into the 
system. In fact, even those who are selling drugs are hooked on drugs. 
Eighty-one percent of the individuals selling drugs tested positive at 
the time of the arrest, including 56 percent for cocaine and 13 percent 
of them for heroin.
  Again, if we look behind the gun, if we look behind the crime, we see 
a very serious problem, and that is the problem of illegal narcotics.
  Now, some would say, why do we not just let these people out; they 
are committing harmless crimes, and they should not be incarcerated. We 
also hear people say, well, most of the people in jail are there 
because of possession, maybe of marijuana or small amounts of some 
illegal substance. As chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, 
Drug Policy and Human Resources, we were able to convene, and I chaired 
last week, probably one of the first hearings of its type in some years 
in the Congress. I am not sure even if there had been a previous 
hearing on the subject. But it was entitled the Pros and Cons of Drug 
Legalization, Decriminalization and Harm Reduction.
  That title was chosen to get people to think and also to have people 
present before our committee the pros and cons of legalization, because 
many folks across the land are saying, again, let these folks out of 
jail, they are there for possession for some minor crime.
  Our hearing was very interesting this past week in that we debunked a 
number of the myths relating to those people who are in prison for a 
crime. We found, in fact, that they are not there for simple 
possession. Several studies were reported and are part of that 
Congressional Record, but one study that I thought was most 
interesting, and I pointed this out before, was one conducted in the 
State of New York that was just completed. It is a study just out from 
the State Commissioner of Criminal Justice which tells a different 
story about who is in prison and incarcerated there on drug-related 
offenses.
  In 1996, 87 percent of the 22,000 people in jail in New York for drug 
crimes were in for selling drugs or intent to sell. Of the 13 percent 
doing time for possession, 76 percent were arrested for selling drugs 
or intending to sell. And, actually, some of the final sentences were 
pleaded down, as they say, to possession. So they were not actually 
possession.
  So here we have a recent study from the State of New York that 
debunks the theory that people in our jails are there for possession of 
small amounts of so-called harmless narcotics.
  It is interesting that the question also comes before our 
subcommittee and before the Congress about the tough laws. Are tough 
laws effective, and do tough laws have any effect on these people who 
are involved with illegal narcotics? A Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, head of 
Phoenix House, a national drug treatment center based in Manhattan, 
said these tough drug laws have diverted lots of people into treatment 
who would not have otherwise gone into treatment.
  So, again, some of the people who deal with people who are in 
prisons, people who are involved in illegal narcotics and the treatment 
for that, they provided testimony to our committee that debunks some of 
the myths about who is in prison and why they are there.
  It was interesting to also have in our panel of witnesses the new 
Florida State drug czar, Mr. Jim McDonough. He was formerly the Deputy 
Director of the National Office of Drug Control Policy, and has now 
been appointed by Governor Bush, Governor Jeb Bush, I do not want to 
mix him up with the man who is going to be President. In fact, Jeb 
Bush, our new Governor, created a czar's office and appointed Jim 
McDonough to head that position.
  Jim McDonough testified before us on his viewpoint, and he has a 
great deal of experience over the years not only at the national level, 
but dealing with this drug issue. And he said, and let me quote, 
``Legalizing drugs is a notion to which I am steadfastly opposed. I 
came to this position after years of observation and study of the 
nature of drug addiction and its horrific consequences for the 
addicted, their families and society. The immense costs that drug 
addiction extract on our Nation were driven home to me during my tenure 
as Director of Drug Strategy for the White House Office of National 
Drug Control Policy. My recent experience as the Director of Florida's 
Office of Drug Control have only served to reinforce my beliefs on the 
subject.''
  So we had a number of people testifying that, again, drug 
legalization does not make much sense, and, in fact, the liberalization 
policies do not work. And I want to talk about those liberalization 
policies in just a moment and give some very specific examples which we 
had in the hearing and I have talked about before.
  But, again, we had a wide variety of testimony. I was quite shocked 
at the testimony of a representative of Cato Institute, a fairly well-
respected think tank here in Washington. The executive vice president 
of Cato testified before our subcommittee that he felt it was time to 
legalize heroin and cocaine and basically market it like tobacco and 
alcohol and other regulated products that we have today. Again, though, 
the bulk of testimony disputed what Mr. Boaz commented in our hearing, 
and actually the facts just refuted what he was promoting.
  It is important that we just look at a couple of facts that were 
brought out in the hearing. First of all, it is important to note that 
drugs are harmful, and not because they are illegal. They are illegal 
and have been made illegal because they are harmful, and we had 
scientific evidence that supported that fact; in fact, a bibliography 
that would probably fill the entire Congressional Record, this edition 
anyway, of those who have looked at these illegal narcotics and have 
shown us exactly what happens to the body and the mind.
  What was particularly interesting is some of the scientists produced 
X-rays of the brain, images of the brain, which showed the effect of 
methamphetamine on the brain and how the pattern of abuse begins to 
model some of the serious diseases that we see in brain scans that are 
done with people who have Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or other diseases 
of the brain. So these types of disabilities and diseases can be 
induced by illegal narcotics.
  We have made drugs illegal because they are harmful. Increasing the 
availability of drugs through legalization would dramatically increase 
the harm

[[Page 13874]]

to all of our citizens. One of the problems that we would have with 
legalization is, the main targets and the main problem that we have 
today, is our young people. If we look at the statistics, the 
statistics are just mind-boggling as far as use of illegal narcotics 
among our young people. It has leveled off some in the adult 
population. But, for example, the teenage use of heroin in the last 6 
or 7 years has soared 875 percent in our teenage population. So no one 
would be harmed more than those that we are trying to protect, and that 
is our young people.
  And the question was raised in our hearing and has been raised, too, 
in the Congress about the public's feeling on this subject. A 1998 poll 
of voters conducted by the Family Research Council found that 8 of 10 
respondents rejected legalization of drugs like cocaine and heroin. So 
certainly the testimony provided by Mr. Boaz, or Cato, for legalizing 
these is opposed by a most recent poll, which states, and these numbers 
are provided by the Family Research Council, that 80 percent of 
Americans oppose legalization, and 7 out of the 10 are in very strong 
opposition. A 1999 Gallup poll found that 69 percent of Americans 
oppose the legalization of marijuana.
  One of the items that our hearing focused on, and one of the reasons 
for the hearing, was that we have lost some of the battles in some of 
the States around the country on the question of legalization of 
marijuana for medical purposes. I plan to conduct additional in-depth 
hearings on that subject, but it is interesting, and we sort of 
scratched the surface in our hearings about what has been going on, 
about the tens of millions of dollars that have been coming in to 
promote this legalization.
  Both our national drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, and others testified 
that they felt that the efforts to get a foothold on the legalization 
of what are illegal drugs today is being done through this highly-
financed campaign to legalize marijuana for medical use. We will look, 
as I said, further at that question. But this poll says that 69 percent 
of Americans even oppose the legalization of marijuana.
  Proponents argue that legalization is a cure-all for our Nation's 
drug problem. However, the facts that were brought out in our hearing 
show that legalization is not a panacea. In fact, the statistics and 
facts that were brought forth show that legalization and 
liberalization, in fact, becomes a poison. Legalization would 
dramatically expand America's drug dependence, significantly increasing 
societal costs of drug abuse, and put countless more people's lives at 
risk, and, again, particularly our young people.

                              {time}  1945

  The legalization of drugs in the United States would lead to a 
disproportionate increase in drug use among our young people. Youth 
drug use, as I have said, has dramatically increased. And our youth 
drug use is also driven by additives. When young people perceive drugs 
as risky and socially unacceptable, our youth drug use drops.
  We saw that in the Reagan and Bush administration. We had a 
President, a First Lady, and others who provided leadership and they 
started campaigns to ``just say no.'' They started really an anti-
narcotics effort, a real war on drugs. And that message really got 
through. Because drug use went down, down, down. Only since 1993, with 
this President and this administration, have we seen a reversal in that 
trend.
  Legalization would send a strong message that taking drugs is safe 
and socially accepted behavior that should be tolerated among peers, 
and this would also go for children again who are most impressionable 
and do the most harm again among our young population. Such a 
normalization would play a major role in softening our youth attitudes, 
and ultimately I think we would see an even greater increase in drug 
use among our young people.
  By increasing the rates of drug abuse, legalization would exact a 
tremendous cost on our society. This is another fact that was pointed 
out in our hearings. In fact, if drugs were legalized, the United 
States would see a significant increase in the number of drug users, 
the number of addicts, and the number of people dying from drug-related 
causes. And I will have a little bit more to point out on a couple of 
studies that were done in just a moment that confirm that.
  While many of these costs would fall first and foremost on the drug 
user, countless others would also suffer if drugs were legalized. 
Contrary to what the liberal thought folks and legalizers would have us 
believe, drug use is not indeed a victimless crime. Legalizers will 
claim the fact that alcohol and tobacco, both legal substances for 
adults, cause so much harm to society that we should look at drugs and 
let drugs follow in their pattern.
  According to their logic, we cannot get too much of a bad thing. That 
analogy is false. Law enforcement experts and prison statistics 
indicate that drug use is directly or indirectly related to 60 to 80 
percent of the crime in the United States. And then, of course, they 
always point to different models. We talk about European models of 
Switzerland; and, of course, the most well-known is the Dutch model.
  The Dutch adopted a soft approach to some drugs. And while they have 
adopted a softer approach, they have not legalized drugs. Under the 
Dutch system, possession and small sales of marijuana have been 
decriminalized. However, marijuana production and larger sales remain 
criminal. Drugs such as cocaine and heroin remain illegal.
  When the Dutch coffee shops started selling marijuana in small 
quantities, the use of the drug more than doubled between 1984, when 
they began this, and 1996; and this is particularly among the young 
people, 18- to 25-year-olds.
  In 1997, there was a 25-percent increase in the number of registered 
cannabis addicts receiving treatment, as compared to a mere three 
percent rise in the cases of alcohol use. This is interesting because 
it shows where they have a liberalization and legalization, they have 
increased addiction.
  During this period, the Netherlands has also experienced a serious 
problem with other substances of abuse, in particular heroin and other 
synthetic drugs, which remain illegal. The number of heroin addicts in 
Holland almost tripled since the liberalization of drug policies was 
instituted.
  Again, it shows that this liberal policy, when they liberalize with 
illegal narcotics, they pay for it on the other end. In most cases, 
crime does not dramatically drop off but what, in fact, happens is they 
create a whole new population of addicts.
  Let me just show my colleagues, and we have used this chart before, 
but this is one of the most telling charts. We brought it in the 
hearing and I displayed it again in the hearing. This shows Baltimore. 
In Baltimore, in 1950, the population was over 900,000. In 1996, it was 
675,000. In 1950, they had 300 heroin addicts. And these statistics 
were given to me by our Drug Enforcement Agency.
  In 1996, as I said, the population dropped some 300,000. Although the 
City of Baltimore, which had a liberal policy and liberal leadership, 
had its heroin addict population rise to 38,985. Now, this is the 
statistic we had for 1996. In fact, I am told that the figure is closer 
to 50,000. It is almost really one per 10 in Baltimore.
  So not only the Dutch model which we just cited but also the 
Baltimore model shows us that, as we liberalize, we end up, in fact, 
with this incredible population of addicts.
  Now, and I used this in the hearing, if this model was continued in 
the United States and we legalized heroin, for example, we could have 
in the neighborhood of about 25 million heroin addicts in the United 
States. So it shows again, whether it is the Dutch model or the 
Baltimore model, that this does not work.
  Now, we do pay a big price for all of the use that these illegal 
narcotics and abuse of illegal narcotics. I try to cite every week some 
of the latest findings or some of the latest news. I come from the 
State of Florida. I represent East Central Florida. Florida has been 
plagued by the toll of illegal narcotics.
  This headline was in one of the local papers just within the last few 
weeks.

[[Page 13875]]

It says, ``Illegal Drug Use Toll Soars.'' ``Drug abuse is the main 
force in driving up hospital charges,'' the study indicates. The 
hospital tab just indicated in this study was $137.5 million in the 
State of Florida.
  Let me read a little bit about what took place and what this study 
revealed. ``A new State study,'' and again this is in the State of 
Florida,

       Details the high cost of drug abuse to our Floridian 
     hospitals and also to the Florida taxpayers. The hospital 
     costs for medical conditions, including poisoning, overdoses, 
     and heart attacks triggered by drug abuse in the State, 
     reached about $137.5 million in 1997, with cocaine and 
     narcotics ranking as the most destructive. Those costs 
     covered just the hospital charges and do not include doctors' 
     time and other services and other things, such as outpatient 
     care and other problems a patient might incur as a result of 
     drug abuse. In its first drug hospitalization cost study, 
     completed in May, the Agency for Health Care Administration 
     said a total of 39,764 cases with drug abuse diagnosis was 
     reported by Floridian hospitals in 1997, the most recent year 
     of statistics that are available.

  It is interesting also about this article, and it is a rather lengthy 
article and I am only citing part of it here, is that most of those 
affected in these cases, in fact, 59 percent of those who are 
hospitalized and incurred this cost were between age 15 and 39, the 
youngest part of our population again the victims of illegal narcotics.
  Additionally, I like to update my colleagues on different articles 
about what drug abuse and illegal drug trafficking is doing. Earlier 
this year, ``Florida Trend'' produced their publication with a cover 
``High Times Special Report, Florida's Billion-Dollar Drug Business,'' 
another indication of the impact of illegal narcotics and drug 
trafficking in my State.
  This article said, ``High Times,'' that is the title, ``The illegal 
drug industry has become a fixture in Florida's economy and nearly as 
corporate as Microsoft.''
  Let me just read a little bit. ``Central Florida has become a major 
distribution hub and tested market for methamphetamines and especially 
for heroin, which killed more Central Floridians last year than 
homicide.''
  I have carried to the floor one of our headlines that said just 
recently that more people, particularly our young people in Central 
Florida, have died as a result of drug-related deaths than homicide.
  This study also has some information by University of Miami Business 
Professor Robert Gross, who estimates that cocaine traffickers in 
Florida, including wholesalers and low-level dealers, earn in the 
neighborhood of $5.4 billion in this illegal trade. And the article 
goes on and on, in fact it is quite lengthy, telling about the impact 
of illegal narcotics, the effort to dispose of some of the income, 
which is all in cash. For every million dollars, it is estimated around 
110 pounds of cash has to be laundered. Incredible figures in this drug 
war. That is in Florida.
  Fairly recently a Texas publication, ``The Texas Monthly,'' published 
a riveting story on ``Teenage Wasteland'' it is called, and that cited 
the death and destruction that drugs have brought to Plano, Texas.
  I will just quote a little bit of that article. It says, ``Now heroin 
has hit the city hard. There have been 15 fatal heroin overdoses in the 
past 2 years, nine of them teenagers, all but one younger than 23. They 
came from good homes, and they had bright futures.'' And it goes on to 
details. Another story of another community.
  It is not just Florida our hearings have indicated. It is Texas, 
Minnesota, Iowa, California, the list goes on and on, of areas where we 
have had incredible problems from the impact of illegal narcotics.
  I cited a little bit earlier the Baltimore model and the Dutch model, 
which were brought up in our hearings and provided as evidence in our 
hearings relating to legalization. We do know, however, that in fact 
top policies relating to illegal narcotics do work. There is no more 
telling evidence than the evidence that is supplied by DEA on the 
deaths in New York City. These are the decreases in the murder rate in 
New York City.
  If we look back to the early part of this decade, they were averaging 
over 2,000 deaths in New York City according to this report again by 
DEA.

                              {time}  2000

  The tough policies of the mayor, a former prosecutor, Rudy Giuliani, 
have brought the latest tally of murders down to 629, a 70 percent 
decrease in murders in that city. It just shows again that tough 
enforcement policy does in fact work and is effective in reducing 
murders, drug abuse and drug-related crimes. There is no question about 
it. The statistics speak for themselves.
  What I would also like to do tonight, in addition to talking about 
the hearing that we held last week, is talk about a hearing that we are 
going to hold tomorrow, and that is a hearing on extradition, and it 
relates to Mexico. As I have pointed out before, we know where the 
drugs are coming from.
  Let me pull up another chart here. This chart shows where heroin is 
coming into the United States, its origin. Seventy-five percent of the 
heroin comes from South America. This is a dramatic change over a few 
years ago, mostly brought about as a result of the Clinton policies to 
stop drug interdiction, to stop the crop eradication programs, to take 
the military out of the war on drugs; to basically close down the war 
on drugs, that decision was made. We now see South America as the 
source of 75 percent of the heroin. We see smaller amounts, 5 percent 
from Southeast Asia and Southwest Asia is 6 percent. If we added Mexico 
in, we are looking at 89 percent of the heroin coming from Mexico, in 
South America.
  The Clinton administration had a very specific policy of not 
providing assistance, arms, helicopters, resources in any way to 
Colombia. That is how Colombia got to be the number one producer of 
cocaine in the past 6 years. It was not even on the chart 6 years ago. 
The number one producer of heroin in the last 6 years. There was almost 
zero heroin or opium poppy grown in Colombia 6 years ago. Again, the 
direct result of this administration's policy was to have that country 
now become the major producer. That heroin and cocaine are transiting 
not only directly from Colombia but 60 to 70 percent of the hard drugs 
coming into the United States are transiting through Mexico. That 
includes cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines. Mexico has the 
distinction of being our number one producer of methamphetamines, but 
it also accounts for 60 to 70 percent of all the hard drugs coming into 
the United States and probably even a bigger percentage of marijuana.
  For that reason, I intend to focus attention tonight, tomorrow and in 
the future on the problems we have had with Mexico, because in spite of 
the United States providing incredible trade benefits, financial 
support to Mexico, Mexico has snubbed its nose at the United States. 
They have gotten away with allowing this President, this 
administration, to certify Mexico as fully cooperating, and this 
administration, this President, have really made a sham of the 
certification process, because Congress passed a law back in 1986 that 
said the President must certify annually whether a country is fully 
cooperating with the United States in order to get foreign aid, trade 
and financial benefits. That is the law of the land. Now, they have 
certified Mexico as fully cooperating, in spite of the fact that 
Mexico, after repeated requests, have not extradited to date one 
Mexican national who is a major drug trafficker.
  Tomorrow, our hearing will focus primarily on the question of Mexico 
becoming a haven for murderers and drug traffickers. According to 
testimony before our subcommittee by the Department of Justice 
recently, as of last month, there are currently about 275 outstanding 
requests for extradition of Mexican nationals. About 47 of these 
individuals are in custody in Mexico. Unfortunately, many of these 
individuals, including the individual we are talking about tomorrow in 
our hearing, who was convicted of a brutal slaying in southwest Florida 
of the mother, I believe, of six children, who fled this country and is 
charged with murder and we have had an extradition request

[[Page 13876]]

for nearly 2 years, Mexico has ignored those requests, for 275 
outstanding extradition requests and the Del Toro request. The Del Toro 
request again is the focus of our hearing tomorrow, a heinous crime, 
and after repeated requests this administration still has not 
extradited that individual. Tomorrow we hope to find out more of the 
details surrounding this case and put additional pressure on Mexico to 
act.
  Unfortunately, what we have found in just our hearings to date is 
that the system of justice in Mexico is nearly completely broken, that 
bribes are paid to judges and to prosecutors, that the system of 
justice is corrupt and subject to corruption and that many of these 
individuals who we are seeking extradition of back to the United States 
to face justice which they fear, these individuals are gaming the 
system in Mexico. Now, Mr. Del Toro, who is wanted on a charge again of 
this heinous murder in southwest Florida, is not a Mexican national, he 
is a United States citizen. He was born in the United States. His 
parents were born in the United States. And he fled to Mexico and has 
used Mexico as a cover and again the corrupt Mexican judicial system to 
avoid prosecution, to avoid coming to the United States through 
extradition. We will find out why he and others have not been 
extradited.
  In the area of narcotics violation, Mexican narcotics trafficking 
organizations facilitate the movement of between 50 and 60 percent of 
the almost 300 metric tons of cocaine consumed in the United States 
annually. Mexico is now the source, as we saw from the chart, of 14 
percent of the heroin seized by law enforcement in this country. Just a 
few years ago, it was not even on the charts. Now they are becoming a 
major producer. And Mexico also takes the leading role and wins the 
Emmy award for being the chief smuggler of methamphetamine and the base 
ingredient for methamphetamine, as well as marijuana.
  What again is a slap in the face to the United States Congress who 
requested over 2 years in a resolution passed on this floor the 
extradition of major drug traffickers, to date not one major drug 
trafficker has been extradited.
  Let me just point out a few of those suspects who were most wanted 
and for whom we have asked for extradition. These will be a few of our 
most popular individuals tonight.
  This is Rafael Caro-Quintero. Mr. Caro-Quintero is a Mexican national 
and a U.S. fugitive. He is incarcerated in Mexico on drug charges and 
the U.S. has asked that he be extradited. He has 22 pending U.S. 
criminal charges against him. His organization was responsible for 
sending tons of drugs into the United States. If anyone can deliver him 
to the United States, I think there is a multi-million-dollar award for 
his capture. We would like him extradited. We would like him to see 
justice in the United States of America.
  Let me also bring up two more suspects we will talk about a little 
bit tomorrow and tonight. In fact, we have a family routine here. We 
have Luis and Jesus Amezcua. We have two brothers and a third here. The 
Amezcua brothers, there are three of them, are the chiefs of one of the 
world's largest methamphetamine trafficking organizations. Recently, 
despite overwhelming evidence, all Mexican drug charges have been 
dismissed. These drug dealers, and again the major identified 
methamphetamine dealers who are bringing that death and destruction 
into the United States have had their drug charges dismissed in Mexico. 
The Amezcuas, I believe two of them, are being held in custody on 
extradition orders from the United States but to date have not been 
extradited. Again the Mexican court, making a joke of justice even in 
their own country, have dropped charges against them. Another major 
methamphetamine kingpin, their younger brother, Adam, was released from 
prison in May. A Mexican appellate judge threw out trafficking and 
other charges against him. So we are also looking for the Amezcua 
brothers. I will say since we began our harangue against Mexico this 
year and pressure that we have brought and also legislation that has 
been introduced by myself, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others that we are going 
to go after the assets of these major drug kingpins and other assets of 
some of those organizations that are related to these drug traffickers.
  We have succeeded just in the last 2 weeks in getting the extradition 
of William Brian Martin. He was turned over, I believe, recently at the 
border. He was wanted on a whole bunch of charges. This individual is 
an American national. Again we have waited since 1993 for that 
extradition.
  It is my hope through tomorrow's hearing that we can bring a murderer 
to justice in the United States and that we can shed light on how he 
has escaped justice and how he has used the Mexican judicial system to 
avoid extradition. We still have over 40 major Mexican drug 
traffickers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record a list of all of the 
major drug traffickers with outstanding extradition requests.
  The list is as follows:

 Major Mexican Drug Traffickers With Outstanding Extradition Requests 
                             (Source: DEA)

     Agustin Vasquez-Mendoza
     Ramon Arrellano-Felix
     Rafael Caro-Quintero
     Vincente Carrillio-Fuentes
     Miguel Angel Martinez-Martinez
     Antonio Reynoso-Gonzalez
     Mario Antonio Hernandez-Acosta
     Jesus Amezcua-Contreras
     Arturo Paez-Martinez
     Jaime Ladino-Avila
     Jose Gerardo Alvarez-Vasquez
     Luis Amezcua-Contreras

  Mr. Speaker, again we will continue to bring to the Congress, to the 
House of Representatives, the problem that we face with illegal 
narcotics, the problem that we face in dealing with countries like 
Mexico where we have 60 to 70 percent of the hard drugs trafficking 
through that country into the United States, now becoming a source 
country of production and a country that has failed miserably in 
cooperating with extraditing both murderers and major drug traffickers 
to the United States. We hope additionally to get assistance from 
Mexico in signing a maritime agreement which we have requested for 2 
years and they have ignored. We hope to get assistance from the 
Mexicans to aid our DEA agents to defend themselves while in Mexican 
territory, and there are just a handful of these brave DEA agents in 
that country. We hope, and we have some reports that Mexico is 
beginning to install radar in the south, and we hope to hold their feet 
to the fire because the drugs coming up from Colombia and South America 
transit through the south of Mexico. Finally, we want to seek the 
cooperation of Mexico in enforcing laws that they have passed dealing 
with illegal narcotics trafficking which they have really thumbed their 
nose at, including Operation Casa Blanca, a U.S. Customs operation 
where last year our Customs investigators uncovered a plot to launder 
hundreds of millions of dollars through banks and arrested individuals, 
indicted individuals, and Mexican officials knew about it and even so 
Mexico when these indictments and arrests were made threatened to 
arrest United States Customs officials and other U.S. law enforcement 
officers. So rather than cooperate fully as the law requires for 
certification, they have actually thumbed their nose at the United 
States.

                              {time}  2015

  So, Mr. Speaker, with those comments tonight, tomorrow we will hear 
more about Mexico and how it has become a haven for murderers and for 
drug traffickers, and we will return to the floor with additional 
information both to the Congress and the American people on the biggest 
social problem facing our Nation and the root problem to many of the 
crimes, the murders, the gun offenses that we see in this Nation. That 
is the problem of illegal narcotics.

                          ____________________