[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15757-15763]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           COSTS THAT ILLEGAL NARCOTICS IMPOSE 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, I come to the floor again tonight to discuss 
the issue of illegal narcotics and the tremendous cost to our Nation. 
Over and over again it is important that I think we repeat the message 
that I have with me here today, and that is a simple one, that drugs 
destroy lives. And I believe if every Member of Congress takes a few 
minutes to look at the impact of illegal narcotics they will be 
absolutely startled as to the damage that it does to our society, the 
cost to countless families across this Nation and also the tremendous 
responsibility cast upon the Congress to finance the social, the 
judicial and other costs that illegal narcotics impose upon our 
society.
  Tonight I want to talk for a few minutes about some of those costs 
and tell the Congress and the American people that there are some very 
specific and direct costs to illegal narcotics and what they have done 
to this Nation and to, again, families and young people. In fact, 
during the past year over 14,000 Americans lost their lives as a direct 
result of the misuse or abuse of illegal narcotics in this Nation.
  I come from a beautiful area in central Florida. My district is 
between Orlando and Daytona Beach, a very peaceful, affluent, high 
employment, high income area. Even my area has been plagued with 
countless deaths. In fact, a recent headline in Orlando Sentinel 
newspaper blasted out that in fact the number of drug-related deaths 
had now exceeded the number of homicides. Drug overdose deaths now 
exceed homicides in central Florida.
  So the statistics are not only bad in my area but across the Nation, 
with more than 14,000, and again we do not count in all of those that 
are in traffic accidents or in suicides or other unreported deaths that 
may have some other report of the demise of the individual which is not 
included in this 14,000 figure.
  In 1995, we had almost 532,000 drug-related emergencies which 
occurred across this Nation, and that figure has been on the upswing 
particularly among our young people, which should be of concern again 
to every Member of Congress. In 1995 we also have a figure that is 
reported of a retail value of the illicit drug business being over $49 
billion.
  The cost goes on and on again to our society. Across the land tonight 
there

[[Page 15758]]

are over 1.8 million, nearly 2 million, Americans incarcerated in our 
jails and prisons across the land. This is at incredible cost, the cost 
of the judicial system, the cost of the lost wages, the cost of social 
support for the families who have their loved ones incarcerated. So the 
cost is not just 1.8 million people behind bars but in fact much 
greater cost. It is estimated out of the nearly 2 million in our jails, 
prisons and State facilities that 60 to 70 percent are there directly 
because of a drug-related offense, and these are not small offenses 
like possession of minor drugs, and these are not one time or 
misdemeanor occurrences or offenses. These are, in fact, we find from 
the hearings that we have conducted with our criminal justice drug 
policy subcommittee, these are, in fact, very serious felonies. And 
most of those people behind bars, again in studies, confirm this as 
recently as the hearings that we held today in our subcommittee, that 
these folks in most instances are violent offenders, that in fact those 
that are there because of drug-related crimes are there because they 
trafficked in drugs, they committed a murder, they committed a rape and 
an assault, a robbery while under the influence of illegal narcotics or 
in the pursuit of acquiring money or drugs.

                              {time}  2030

  So again, 2 million people behind bars is only the tip of the 
iceberg.
  Drug-related illnesses in the United States and death and crime are 
estimated to cost Americans some $67 billion plus a year in the United 
States. This translates into very specific costs to every American who 
has to pay $1,000 a year to carry the costs of health care, extra law 
enforcement, car and automobile accidents, and crime and lost 
productivity due to drug abuse and use.
  Eighteen percent of the 2,000 fatally injured drivers from seven 
States had drugs rather than alcohol in their systems when they died. 
Again, drugs do in fact destroy lives, and have a very specific cost 
impact to the American taxpayer, to every American citizen, in addition 
to just the incarceration cost and judicial cost.
  Drug use and misuse and illegal narcotics also dramatically impact 
the productivity of America's workers. Seventy-one percent of all 
illicit drug users are 18 years of age or older, and they are also, 
interestingly enough, employed.
  In a study by the U.S. Postal Service, the data collected showed that 
among drug users, absenteeism is 66 percent higher and health benefit 
utilization is 84 percent greater in dollar terms when compared against 
other workers. So in fact, the billions that we are talking about are 
only the tip of the iceberg when we translate this into lost 
productivity and absenteeism, and then the overutilization of our 
health benefit programs. Again, all of that does translate into extra 
costs for every citizen.
  Again, drugs destroy lives, they cost us lives, and they cost every 
American in this Congress dearly.
  Disciplinary actions are, interestingly, 90 percent higher for 
employees who are drug users as opposed to nonusers of drugs, another 
high price tag to pay for those who are involved in illegal narcotics 
or in drug use.
  Let me talk tonight about how some specific drugs impact our society 
and young people in this Nation, and what the effects of some of these 
drugs are.
  First of all, let me talk about crack and cocaine. The use and abuse 
of crack and cocaine, which also destroys lives, has somewhat evened 
out among the adult population. That is only because now we have an 
incredible supply of heroin, we have an unbelievable supply of 
methamphetamine.
  So, for example, my area has a very substantial increase in heroin 
use and abuse and deaths, and the Midwest and some other areas have 
been impacted by methamphetamine, so crack and cocaine has leveled out. 
The supply availability and price of other drugs such as 
methamphetamines and heroin is available.
  Even first-time crack or cocaine users can be subject to heart 
attacks which can be fatal. We heard testimony today from a wonderful 
lady, Mrs. Bennett, who testified before our subcommittee. She lost her 
young son, a first-time cocaine user who suffered a fatal reaction and 
died at a very young age. She brought his picture to our subcommittee, 
which conducted a hearing on the question of decriminalization and 
legalization of illegal narcotics.
  She will tell the Members that drugs in fact destroy lives. They 
destroyed the life of her son, and this report that I have tonight 
about the use of crack or cocaine adding to your incidence of seizures 
or heart attacks is in fact very real. Even one hit of crack or cocaine 
can in fact kill one, because it can cause heart attacks, strokes, or 
breathing problems. This has medically been proven.
  Crack and cocaine use are also connected, and abuse, are connected to 
car crashes, to falls, burns, drowning, and suicide, and sometimes, 
again, these go unreported. But my point again is that illegal 
narcotics, hard drugs like crack and cocaine do destroy lives.
  The addiction we have not talked about, but that can ruin the 
physical and mental health of so many individuals, and often is not 
counted into the statistics that we report here. So again, we have an 
instance of one drug which has a devastating impact on so many lives, 
and does in fact destroy lives.
  The other drug I will talk about for a few minutes is heroin. Heroin 
users are getting younger and younger. Since 1993, the use of heroin 
among our teenage population has risen some 875 percent in the United 
States. We have a tremendous supply of heroin coming into the United 
States. We have a reduction in price.
  I will talk in a few minutes about how we are getting that tremendous 
supply coming in. But in fact, the people who are most subjected to 
heroin's deadly effects are our young people. Heroin users are getting 
younger. A recent survey indicates that kids are trying heroin at 
younger and younger ages.
  For example, in 1995, this report that I have says that 141,000 
people in America tried heroin for the first time. About a quarter of 
these first-time users were somewhere between the ages of 12 and 17. 
Even worse, more than half the people who were admitted to hospital 
emergency rooms for heroin-related problems were under age 18.
  Again, the theme that we bring to the floor tonight is that drugs 
destroy lives, and drugs destroy young lives in an incredible number of 
instances. These statistics do indicate that we have a tremendous 
heroin abuse problem among our young people. Heroin is dangerous, and 
you have to be just totally irresponsible to put yourself using it.
  We have also found in our studies and hearings that the heroin that 
is coming into the United States in 1998, 1999, today, is not the 
heroin that came in 10 or 15 years ago. The purity levels that were 
down in single digits are now 60, 70 percent pure. Young people and 
adults who try heroin have very deadly results, as I cited. Just in my 
local central Florida district and area, we now have heroin overdose 
deaths exceeding homicides. That picture is being repeated over and 
over across the land. In fact, we are now up to over 4,000 heroin 
deaths in the Nation, and the number is growing every year.
  Most disturbingly, again, we see young people as the victims of 
heroin overdoses and heroin deaths. Drugs destroy lives. Again, let me 
cite some of the information that we found in our hearings on our 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Over 
half the crime in this country is committed by individuals under the 
influence of drugs.
  In the hearing that we held today we had Tom Constantine, who is the 
immediate former director of our Drug Enforcement Agency of the United 
States, just retired in the last few days. He told us that over half of 
the individuals who had been arrested for Federal offenses are now 
testing positive for illegal narcotics.
  We heard the sheriff of Plano County, the city of Plano and that 
area, testify before our subcommittee today. He

[[Page 15759]]

also indicated that a very high number of those arrested for any 
offense in his jurisdiction also have some drug in their system.
  The National Institute of Justice's ADAM, the drug testing program, 
it is referred to also as the Adam testing program, found that more 
than 60 percent of adult male arrestees tested positive for drugs.
  It was interesting, in some of the information we obtained today, and 
this figure is very high for adult males, but I believe the figure was 
71 percent of the women who were arrested tested positive for drugs, a 
startling statistic that, although we have fewer female arrestees, that 
a greater percentage of them are involved with illegal narcotics and 
have them in their system when they are tested upon arrest.
  In most cities, over half the young male arrestees are under the 
influence of marijuana. Importantly, the majority of these crimes 
result from the effects of the drug and did not result from the fact 
that the drugs are illegal.
  According to a study of the National Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 80 percent of the men and women 
behind bars, about 1.4 million inmates, are seriously involved with 
alcohol and other drug abuse. I am going to try to refer a little bit 
later, if we have time, to the results of that report from the National 
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
  This is an absolutely fascinating report just released this morning, 
and it talks about marijuana. It is the most comprehensive study ever 
conducted, that highlights the critical distinction between non-medical 
marijuana, medical uses of marijuana, and what is going on with those 
who abuse this substance, and some incredible statistics about, again, 
the effect on those individuals and how many of them are now in some 
type of a treatment program, and the problems that are related to this. 
We will talk more about that.
  The former Secretary, I believe, of one of the administrations, Joe 
Califano, was involved, he was a former HEW Secretary, with this study. 
He is now president of that organization. We hope to have him testify 
at a future hearing on the results of their study.
  Again, it is a dramatic study that does show that we have an 
incredible number of young people who are the victims of marijuana, 
which many try to tout as a soft drug or a non-harmful narcotic. But 
again, all the studies, the reports, the information lead us to one 
simple conclusion; again, that drugs destroy lives.
  According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association last year, non-drug users who lived in households where 
drugs, including marijuana, are used are 11 times as likely to be 
killed as those living in drug-free households. So if a young person or 
an individual comes from a house where drugs are being used, this study 
by the American Medical Association said they increase their chances of 
being killed by 11 times. So again, these are more statistics that 
confirm that drugs destroy lives.
  Drug abuse in a home increased a woman's risk of being killed, 
according to this study, by a close relative, some 28 times. So those 
that are concerned, and we heard testimony today about spousal abuse, 
an incredible statistic, some 80 percent of the spousal abuse cases 
involved methamphetamines in one jurisdiction that was studied, and 
that would be abuse, battery, assault of a woman, a wife, a spouse.
  But in a home that has drug use, a woman's risk of being killed is 
increased by 28 times, according to this AMA study.
  Additionally, to confirm again the message we bring tonight that 
drugs destroy lives, I have a study by the Parent Resources and Drug 
Information Center. This is also referred to as PRIDE, the 
organization, and this PRIDE organization reported some of these facts.
  Of high school students who reported having carried guns to school, 
and certainly there has been a great deal of talk about guns in this 
Congress on the floor of the House of Representatives, this said 
students who were reported having carried guns to school, 31 percent 
used cocaine, compared to 2 percent of the students who never carried 
guns to school.

                              {time}  2045

  The same relationship was found among junior high school. So more 
than likely, the school violence and those involved with carrying 
lethal weapons such as guns to school are much more likely to be drug 
abusers, drug users. Nineteen percent of gang members reported cocaine 
use compared to 2 percent among youths who were not in gangs. So 
whether it is someone carrying a gun to school or someone involved in a 
gang, drugs destroy their lives. And, in fact, drugs contribute to the 
crime disruption of our public school system and education. Again, 
drugs destroy lives.
  Today, the subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, as I mentioned earlier, began 
another hearing to look into the question of drug legalization, drug 
decriminalization.
  We heard from a number of witnesses, some on different sides of the 
issue. I try to always bring in a balanced approach. We heard one 
witness in particular in favor of legalization of marijuana, a 
representative from the NORMAL organization, it is called. We heard 
another individual report from a study who gave some of the comparisons 
that had been reviewed on marijuana use. And we heard from, again, a 
parent involved with a national organization. She had lost her son, as 
I mentioned, and was there testifying against decriminalization, 
against legalization.
  We also heard from the police chief of Plano, Texas, also who spoke 
against legalization. We found also that we had some interesting 
testimony from our lead witness who was Tom Constantine, and as I 
mentioned he is the former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Mr. 
Constantine used several examples in his testimony to show how drugs 
drive demand.
  A few years back, the Colombian drug cartels decided to enter the 
heroin market. Now 75 percent of the heroin sold in the United States 
is of Colombian origin.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about some of these 
narcotics and what Mr. Constantine brought up and what we heard today. 
If I can, I would like to take this down and have the chart on the drug 
Signature program.
  All these illegal narcotics come from some place. And, in fact, we 
know today through scientific studies and through programs such as the 
heroin Signature program exactly where illegal narcotics originate. 
This is not a guessing game. This is today a science just like DNA. 
They can trace DNA to individuals; they can trace illegal narcotics 
back to their source.
  Mr. Constantine, again, former DEA director, talked a little bit 
today about the heroin problem that we have. This 1997 study that he 
also presented to our subcommittee in a previous hearing shows exactly 
where heroin, one of the most deadly drugs, is coming from. And we know 
that 75 percent of the heroin is coming today from South America. We 
know that 14 percent is coming from Mexico. And then we have about 5 
and 6 percent from Southwest and Southeast Asia. So we know very 
specifically that 89 percent of the heroin is coming from either 
Colombia or Mexico.
  Some 6 years ago, this chart would be quite different. Most of the 
illegal narcotics were coming in from, in this case, heroin, was coming 
in from Southeast Asia and from other sources. In fact, 6 years ago, 
there was almost no heroin produced in Colombia.
  How did we get to 75 percent, as Mr. Constantine testified and this 
chart documents? It is a simple thing. It is the policy of this 
administration.
  Let me review for a moment, if I may, what took place and how we got 
into this situation. I have heard repeatedly, and I hear it over and 
over again, the war on drugs is a failure. I have heard it in the 
media, and I have heard it recast that the war on drugs is a failure. 
They would have the public and the Congress believe that the war on 
drugs is a failure.

[[Page 15760]]

  In fact, since 1993, there has not been a war on drugs. In 1993, the 
Clinton administration basically closed down the war on drugs. What 
they did was they began very systematically. The first thing they cut 
was almost 90 percent of the drug czar's office and operations. So the 
drug czar's office was cut first, demoted, really. They brought in a 
drug czar who really ignored the problem, ignored promotion of any 
antinarcotics programs either before the Congress or with this 
administration.
  What else did this administration do? The first thing they did was 
hire so many recent drug abusers in the White House that the Secret 
Service insisted on a program to do drug testing of White House 
employees. And I sat on the Committee on Government Operations and 
heard testimony to that effect.
  But again, first they closed down the drug czar's office very nearly, 
then began hiring people who had very recent illegal narcotics use, 
forcing the Secret Service to force the White House to institute a drug 
testing program.
  Next thing they did was hire probably the worst Surgeon General, the 
highest health officer, that this Nation had ever had and that was 
Joycelyn Elders. She sent a message to our young people that said just 
say maybe. And the statistics I cited tonight about heroin, about 
marijuana, about cocaine and about the increase in incidence among our 
young people I think can be traced from the beginning point of that 
policy of that closedown, of that shutdown, that ending of the war on 
drugs with a chief health officer of the United States of America 
saying to our young people just say maybe.
  Then, if I can get the smallest charts here, again this is repeated 
over and over that the war on drugs is a failure. Let me have these 
charts here. These charts do not lie. They tell the truth. And I do not 
know if my colleagues can see them, but this shows drug spending on 
international programs. Now, international would be stopping drugs at 
their source, probably the most effective utilization of taxpayer 
dollars.
  We know that in 1993 and prior to that time that nearly 100 percent 
of the cocaine was coming from Peru and from Bolivia, a little tiny bit 
from Colombia. We knew where cocaine was coming from then and coca 
could only be grown at certain altitudes in a certain terrain. There 
are not many places. It cannot be grown in Florida or North Carolina, 
to my knowledge. It can be grown only in that area.
  In 1993, the next thing the Clinton administration did, and we have 
to remember they controlled the White House, they controlled the other 
body, the United States Senate, and they controlled a big majority of 
the House of Representatives. The first thing they did was cut these 
international programs, the source country programs.
  The slashes here are incredible. Again, back under President Bush we 
had 660, and this is millions of dollars. We are not talking billions. 
But they slashed them to less than half by 1995-1996. This is where the 
Republicans took over the Congress.
  In the last 2, 3 years we have really begun to restart the war on 
drugs. I sat on the Committee on Government Operations during that 
period when Mr. Brown was the drug czar, the drug czar in name. Even 
though I had requests from 130-plus Members of the House of 
Representatives on both sides of the aisle, only one hearing was held 
during the Democrat domination of the Congress and the White House. 
Only one hearing as I was a member of that committee, and that was for 
less than an hour. It was almost farcical. So the war on drugs was 
closed down and specifically the most cost-effective part of the war on 
drugs was closed down.
  The other chart that I had here showed Colombia now producing 75 
percent of the heroin. Colombia was not even on the charts as producing 
heroin in 1992, 1993. This administration stopped funding, cut this in 
less than half the international program. So there was not funding to 
stop drugs at their source.
  If we look at 1998 and 1999, and take that in 1991-1992 dollars, we 
are not even up to the levels of the end of the Bush administration. 
And again this is so cost effective because we know where the heroin is 
produced. We have the Signature programs that show us exactly where the 
heroin is produced.
  Now in addition to cutting these programs, what this administration 
did through a very direct policy was to stop money going to Colombia. 
The results in Colombia are incredible. I read a Washington Post piece, 
which the reporter really did not research well, but if we go back and 
look at what this administration did with the cuts here, they totally 
cut off Colombia as far as receiving any resources, helicopters, 
assistance, because they were afraid that some of that money might be 
used to fight the Marxist guerrillas who were in the jungles there.
  So what this administration's direct policy was, and it was in direct 
conflict with the requests for the last 4 years since we have taken 
over the House of Representatives with a new majority, we begged, we 
pleaded, we sent letters, get aid, get assistance, get resources to 
Colombia.
  What has happened? Colombia now produces 75 percent of the heroin 
coming into the United States since we closed down that program 
effectively. Seventy-five percent of the heroin coming in. No heroin 
produced in 1992, 1993, not even on the charts. Additionally, we could 
talk about Mexico, which is up to 14 percent. We get 89 percent of the 
heroin from the two of them, and that is part of another failed Clinton 
policy in certifying Mexico as cooperating.
  But think about Colombia and what this policy has done. Not only do 
we have the heroin which was not there in 1992-1993, coming in in 
unbelievable quantities at a quality that is as deadly as can be, that 
is what is killing the kids in Plano. That is what is killing the kids 
in Orlando, Florida. That is what is destroying the lives again by the 
thousands, deadly high-purity heroin coming in through this policy.
  But what is interesting is in 1992, 1993, Colombia produced almost no 
cocaine. It did process coca and it was a big producer. The coca which 
was partially processed was brought into Colombia and processed there 
and shipped out either directly to the United States or with their 
buddies and network through Mexico.
  What has happened since that time, 1992, 1993, the last 
administration, is that in fact Colombia again is deprived of any 
assistance. We cut this program on source country in half, plus we 
completely decimated Colombia. Colombia is now the biggest producer of 
cocaine in the world. Tom Constantine testified today it is somewhere 
up in the 60 percent.

                              {time}  2100

  Fortunately, this new majority, under the leadership of first Mr. 
Zeliff, who began restarting the war on drugs, a former Member, and the 
former chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International 
Affairs, and Criminal Justice was the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker 
Hastert), who is now Speaker of the House was chair and was responsible 
for restarting the war on drugs. So that is why we see those figures 
going up here.
  But even the funds that were put in last year, and I checked this, 
because, again, a recent story in the Washington Post and repeated 
across the land is that so much of our foreign assistance is going to 
Colombia. Well, that is bull, and that is nutso. That is not the truth.
  This past year, we appropriated somewhere in the neighborhood of $280 
million for Colombia. My colleagues have got to remember, up to this 
date, almost no money went to Colombia in fighting illegal narcotics. 
In fact, this administration kept the resources, the helicopters, the 
ammunition from this country.
  So I checked to see where the money is that we appropriated last year 
and that the press is talking about, saying the war on drugs is a 
failure, and that the third biggest foreign aid recipient after Israel 
and Egypt is Colombia. Well, that is true for this fiscal year that 
that money is appropriated. But

[[Page 15761]]

so far, according to our staff investigation, somewhere between $2 
million and $3 million has gotten to Colombia. So we have not had a war 
on drugs. This other side of the aisle has killed the war on drugs. 
They completely decimated the war on drugs.
  This just international programs and, again, the dollars that were 
slashed, they were kept from Colombia. If my colleagues think that it 
is bad enough we have cocaine and heroin coming in in these incredible 
quantities through a direct failed policy of this administration and 
the other side of the aisle, what they did, stop and think about what 
is happening in Colombia.
  Everybody gets upset about Kosovo. Over a million people have been 
displaced in Colombia by the Civil War, by the Marxist guerillas who 
are funded almost totally by illegal narcotics profits and illegal 
narcotics trafficking. Thirty-five thousand people have died in 
Colombia. Thousands of judges, thousands and thousands of policemen, 
elected officials have been murdered and slaughtered in Colombia. It 
has disseminated a great nation. The reason was we did not want any 
arms to get there.
  Now, an area the size of Switzerland is in control, and the new 
president, and I have to admire him, is trying to bring peace about, 
trying to negotiate with the guerillas. Some oppose that. Some of are 
in favor of it. But one cannot have a resolution to the problems with 
illegal narcotics which are funding the Marxist activities or a 
resolution of illegal narcotics transiting or being produced there, 
coming into the United States until we have peace plans.
  So I have been supportive. I have met with President Pastrana. He has 
begged for our assistance. He has begged for our patience. He has 
begged for our understanding. He is trying to do anything.
  He brought down the head of the New York Stock Exchange to talk to 
the guerillas to try to tell them that a free enterprise system is 
better than dogging it in the jungle and conducting war and slaughter 
of the Colombian people.
  I say give peace a chance. I also say give a chance to restarting the 
war on drugs. These are the facts. What the newspapers have printed is 
bologna. It is not the truth about these international programs.
  We have been able, through Speaker Hastert, again, who chaired the 
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
Justice, who had responsibility before my new Subcommittee of Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Relations inherited it, but the Speaker 
was successful.
  I went down with him. We met with President Fujimori of Peru. We met 
with President Hugo Banzer of Bolivia. Those two presidents have cut 
drug production of cocaine with a little bit of help from their friend. 
We are only talking $20 million, $30 million out of billions and 
billions that we are spending on law enforcement, incarceration, and 
treatment. Those two presidents have acted with a little bit of help 
and the few dollars in the international programs which we have 
restarted and cut 50 percent of the cocaine production. That is why we 
see cocaine down and more difficult to get.
  The latest figures I have is President Fujimori in Peru, through his 
hard line, through his assistance, through the small amount of dollars 
we have gotten there, has reduced 60 percent. Both of them have plans 
to eliminate that. So a little bit of help in these international 
programs can be so cost effective. Do not tell me any different. I have 
been there. I have seen it. These are the facts.
  Again, we hear the comments that interdiction and the war on drugs 
does not work and that we are spending too much money on interdiction. 
Look at what the Clinton administration did. Again, during the last 
years of the Bush administration, we were in the $2 billion on 
interdiction, in that range. The war on drugs was killed as far as 
interdicting drugs.
  The second most cost effective way to get drugs is to stop them as 
they are coming in. Once they get passed the borders, forget it, folks. 
It is harder and harder. Ask any policeman. Ask anyone who has dealt 
with law enforcement. It is tough.
  But here is what they did. They killed the war on drugs. The Clinton 
administration, which does not like the military to begin with, took 
the military out of the war on drugs. Look. From 1991 to 1992, $2 
billion level down to about $1 billion, cut in half.
  This just shows the military. I have not brought up the Coast Guard 
which protects Puerto Rico, which protects our coast line. They slashed 
the budgets there.
  So that is why we have Colombia as the major producer of heroin, we 
know where it is coming from, the major producer of cocaine. This is 
why we have a stream, a supply. That is simple economics. It is 
economics 101, my friends, that, in fact, as one has a tremendous 
supply, the price goes down, and it is available. It is available to 
who at a low price? Our young people.
  That is why the statistics I quoted here tonight and the theme that I 
had here tonight that drugs destroy lives is so true. This is the 
policy. The war on drugs died in January of 1993 with this President, 
with this administration.
  My colleagues can see that, in 1998, 1999, we are barely getting back 
to the level we were with the Bush administration. So we have not even 
been able to restart the war on drugs.
  The next myth is that we have not spent enough money on treatment. I 
believe in treatment. I think anyone who has a problem, we should get 
treatment to them. We should spend whatever. If we could spend $3 
billion in Kosovo in a few months, we can certainly spend money on 
those who are addicted to illegal narcotics in the United States of 
America.
  But, Mr. Speaker, here is the next point that I want to make. If we 
look back in 1991, 1992, we were spending $1.8 billion, $2.2 billion on 
treatment. 1999, it is not quite double. But in fact they have been 
putting their eggs in the treatment basket, and some of it has helped. 
But this also should destroy a myth that we have not increased money 
for treatment.
  What is interesting is, since the Republicans took over the Congress, 
we can see some pretty dramatic increases in money for treatment. So, 
again, the myth that all the money is going into planes and to source 
country programs and interdiction equipment is just that, it is a myth. 
It is not the truth.
  So that is a little bit of an update on how we got into this 
situation, where we are on the war on drugs. It is nice to come up here 
and talk about this. But I must say that, rather than just talk about 
it, we have tried to act. We have tried to act by putting our dollars 
into these programs. We have tried to look at those that are most cost 
effective.
  Treatment. Again, we have no problem with treatment. Education 
basically was not on the charts. If we look back here at the beginning 
of this administration, almost no money for education.
  Under Speaker Gingrich and under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is now the Speaker, we put in $195 million 
into an education program. It is relatively new. It has not completed 
its first year. But that money is matched by donations and by equal 
contributions. So we should have almost a half billion dollars in 
resources towards an education program.
  It takes education. It takes treatment. It takes, as I said, most 
effectively, source country programs to eradicate drugs where they are 
grown and where they come from. Then it takes interdiction and also 
takes enforcement. So it takes all of these activities.
  That is why, if we go back and look at the Bush administration and 
back to the Reagan administration when we had the beginning of the 
crack and the cocaine problem in the early 1980s, we saw an actual 
decrease in the number of individuals involved with illegal narcotics, 
or we saw some of the activity coming down where we saw the seizures 
going up and again some dramatic changes.
  The most dramatic change that we have experienced, though, is the end 
of

[[Page 15762]]

the war in drugs in January of 1993. It is so difficult to start that 
back up again.
  In addition to providing an update on the war on drugs and where we 
are in the war on drugs, I also wanted to talk tonight, as I conclude, 
a little bit about some of the things that our subcommittee has been 
doing, our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human 
Resources.
  Several weeks ago, we conducted a hearing at the request of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). As my colleagues may know, I have 
been highly critical, and our subcommittee has held extensive hearings 
on the question of assistance in Mexico. Because if we look at Colombia 
and we have seen the results of what happens in our failed policy with 
Colombia, we see where illegal narcotics, the tough stuff like heroin, 
cocaine are coming from. If we looked at the rest of the picture to see 
where the rest of the drugs are coming from, probably the balance of 
the drugs and 60 to 70 percent of all the hard narcotics and marijuana 
and everything coming into the United States comes in through Mexico.
  Mexico has not cooperated. This Congress asked over a year ago, 2 
years ago now, for Mexico to extradite individuals, Mexican nationals, 
drug lords, those who have been indicted in the United States and for 
whom we are seeking extradition. They have not complied. I will talk a 
little bit more about that in just a second.
  In addition, we asked Mexico to sign a maritime agreement. To date, 
they still have not signed a maritime agreement to cooperate in going 
after people who are transiting and dealing in drugs in the high seas.
  In addition, we asked Mexico to arm our DEA agents. They still have 
not allowed our DEA agents to protect themselves. My colleagues may 
say, why? Why? Because Enrique Camarena, one of our agents was 
tortured, an incredibly horrible death. We have a cap actually imposed 
by Mexico on the number of agents. We have a very small number. It is 
almost incredible for the size of the problem. But even so, those who 
are there are still put at risk, and Mexico still refused to help us.

                              {time}  2115

  Radar in the south. And I am getting some word that Mexico is 
beginning to cooperate in getting radar to the south so before the 
drugs come into Mexico, and we know they are coming from Colombia and 
Panama and other locations, that we could stop those illegal narcotics. 
But that is still not in place.
  And then enforcing the laws that are passed. Now, we have gotten 
Mexico to pass some laws, and the laws are on the books, but there is 
not the enforcement. They have a corrupt judicial system; they have a 
corrupt law enforcement system from the guy on the beat or the gal on 
the beat all the way to the President's office. And that has been 
documented with the former President Salinas and his family, with those 
in incredible positions of power, with incredible amounts of money that 
they have skimmed off of the drug trade, including one Mexican general 
who tried to place $1.1 billion that he had gotten. We know he had 
gotten it through illegal narcotics proceeds, and he tried to place it 
in legitimate financial institutions. But we have not had cooperation.
  I started with extradition. And let me say that several weeks ago, as 
I began to mention, our subcommittee, at the request of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Miller), conducted a hearing on one of the 275 
extradition requests that we have. This was a case relating to the 
murder of Mrs. Bellush, a young mother of about five or six young 
children in Florida in Sarasota who was murdered several years ago. She 
was shot and then stabbed to death and left to die, with her young baby 
children left in the pool of her blood until the family members came 
home and found her.
  We held a hearing to protest and to look into and investigate why 
Mexico had refused to extradite Mr. Del Toro.
  Mr. Del Toro was not a Hispanic citizen. He was a citizen of the 
United States, born in the United States to parents who are United 
States citizens; and he helped commit this incredibly horrible crime 
and then fled to Mexico and has for the past several years used the 
Mexican judicial system to avoid coming back and facing justice in the 
United States. Thank goodness last night the Attorney General called me 
and said that the Mexican Supreme Court had ruled in favor of 
extradition and Mr. Del Toro is on his way back to face justice.
  It is small compensation, small condolence to the Bellush family, but 
it is one extradition. Unfortunately, there are 274 other extradition 
requests on some 40 major drug dealers, Mexican nationals, who have 
been involved in illegal narcotics. Now, I believe we have had one 
Mexican national who has been extradited, but I have brought to the 
floor again some of the mugshots of these individuals.
  Agustin Vasquez-Mendoza. He is wanted on conspiracy to commit armed 
robbery and highly involved in illegal narcotics trafficking and 
kidnapping and aggravated assault. He is a fugitive, has not been 
arrested and one of the individuals who we are trying to get back to 
the United States. Again I bring up the Amezcua brothers, who we also 
would like extradited to face justice in the United States.
  So we have succeeded in one small case. We have some 200-plus 
requests for extradition of these individuals. I do not believe that 
Mexico, who has always been a close ally, and we have millions of 
Mexican-Americans in the United States, I do not believe these friends 
that we have had or Mexican-Americans agree with Mexico's current 
stance to thumb their nose at the United States and refuse to extradite 
these individuals who have been involved in murder, illegal narcotics, 
and trafficking.
  So we will continue to put pressure on Mexico, which is now a major 
producer of heroin, but also the source of 60 to 70 percent of the 
illegal narcotics transiting into the United States. We will do 
everything possible.
  We did introduce, just before we went into recess, a resolution which 
we hope to bring up on the floor which does praise Mexico for some of 
the small steps that they have taken, but also holds Mexico's feet to 
the fire to produce on extradition, to produce on a maritime agreement, 
to produce on assisting our DEA agents, to produce on enforcing the 
laws that they have passed rather than thumbing their nose at the 
United States.
  So until we start working with the programs that do work, that are 
cost effective and at the source, in cooperation with these countries 
and as a cooperative partner, getting them the resources through these 
programs, we will not be successful.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I am pleased to sum up tonight with the 
message that I started out with and that is that drugs destroy lives. 
Over 14,000 Americans lost their lives last year, almost 100,000 since 
the beginning of the end of the drug war, which was January 1993. And 
again the statistics show and the facts show and prove that the war on 
drugs ended with the beginning of this administration, and it is so 
difficult to start it up and that there has been so much damage to our 
Nation, to our young people, and so many families across this land.
  Mr. Speaker, since I have some time left, I would like to provide a 
little update as to what is going on as far as narcotics around the 
world. If my colleagues think the United States is tough, the headlines 
in one of the recent newspapers is, ``Three Beheaded in Saudi Arabia 
For Drug Trafficking.''
  This is a report of Friday, May 8. ``Three convicted drug traffickers 
were beheaded in Saudi Arabia on Friday. Saudi Arabia's Islamic courts 
imposed death sentences for murder, rape and drug trafficking. So far 
this year, 21 people have been executed, 29 put to death.''
  ``China executes 58 to mark world anti-narcotics day.'' In China, 
they have a different approach to illegal narcotics. ``China marked 
world anti-narcotics day by executing 58 drug traffickers.'' So just a 
little update on the news in China and how they treat drug traffickers.
  Then this report from today's Financial Times. ``Caribbean court will 
speed

[[Page 15763]]

hangings.'' And this deals with drug trafficking which has prompted 
crimes. Let me read from this: ``Many islands have witnessed rapid 
increases in murders and other violent crime over the past decade. 
Murders in Jamaica last year averaged 2.6 a day, twice the level of 10 
years ago. Murders have doubled in Trinidad and Tobago over the past 5 
years, with many of those linked to narcotics smuggling, say 
officials.''
  So they have a treatment, and the treatment really cuts down on 
recidivism, and that is hanging, which is being demanded by these 
nations that have also felt this scourge of illegal narcotics.
  Mr. Speaker, I like to provide Members of Congress and the American 
people with little updates on what is going on in the war on drugs and 
how others from time to time approach this serious problem. Not that I 
recommend any of these procedures or remedies that I have reported here 
tonight. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I 
will return again next week.

                          ____________________