[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23902-23907]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        DRUG PROBLEMS IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Toomey). 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 thank the Chair for the opportunity to come 
before the House this evening, as I do on most Tuesday evenings when 
the House is in session, to talk about an area of responsibility that I 
inherited in this particular session of Congress. That responsibility 
is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
Human Relations of the House. It is an investigations and oversight 
panel of Congress.
  One of its primary responsibilities is to try to develop a coherent 
and effective national drug policy. It is a very difficult task, but a 
very important task, because illegal narcotics have taken an incredible 
toll among our citizens.
  We have a costs estimated at $250 billion a year affecting our 
economy, not only the cost of criminal justice, but lost employment, 
social disruption, costs that just transcends every part of our 
society. Those are the dollar and cents costs, not talking about human 
suffering and the effects on families and children across our Nation. 
Certainly illegal narcotics must be our biggest social problem.
  Additionally, the statistics are staggering as to the number of 
people incarcerated. Somewhere between 1.8 million and 2 million 
Americans are in jails and prisons, Federal facilities, across the 
Nation. It is estimated that 60 to 70 percent of those individuals 
incarcerated are there because of a drug-related offense.

[[Page 23903]]

  Now, there are many myths and misconceptions about some of these 
problems related to illegal narcotics. Tonight, I would like to touch 
upon a few of them.
  As Chairman of this subcommittee with this responsibility, I have 
tried to not ignore the problem, not ignore the various alternatives, 
but try to have an open, free, and honest debate in our subcommittee 
and also stimulate it here in the Congress and the House of 
Representatives and among the American people, because we have a very, 
very serious problem facing our Nation.
  In that regard, we have held a number of hearings, on average, three 
or four a month in this year. Prior to my assuming that responsibility, 
that responsibility was held by the former chairman of the Subcommittee 
on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice on 
which I served. That individual who chaired that responsibility and 
that subcommittee was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who is 
now the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He reawakened some of 
the interest in this topic and also certainly gave impetus to 
congressional action for a refocus, reexamination of this issue.
  I might, as I have done in the past, review a bit of the history of 
the illegal narcotics problem and the efforts of this Congress and past 
Congresses to deal with this problem.
  During the Reagan administration, and having been a staff member in 
the other body during 1981 to 1985, I witnessed firsthand the beginning 
of what was actually a war on drugs, a multifaceted approach to 
attacking illegal narcotics, drug abuse, and misuse by our population. 
That was continued for the most part through the Bush administration 
until, again, this House of Representatives and the United States 
Senate and the White House were all dominated by one party in 1992 with 
that election.
  It happened to be the year I was elected, so I saw firsthand the 
dismantling of any real Federal effort with regard to illegal 
narcotics. The national drug policy was pretty much taken apart, 
dismantled. Our interdiction efforts, which is a national 
responsibility were decimated, halved.
  The source country and international programs, also a Federal 
responsibility, were cut dramatically, also halved. Most of the 
resources were put into treatment programs and to other priorities 
that, again, changed dramatically.
  The Drug Czar's office was dramatically reduced in size, probably 70 
percent reduction. Appointees of the administration were individuals 
who had a different philosophy, ``just say maybe to illegal 
narcotics.''
  Some of that has had a very specific result with our population. 
Attitudes particularly among leaders of Congress and the Nation, and 
also our chief health officer for the country, certainly those 
attitudes certainly do impact our population's thinking and 
particularly the actions of our young people.
  I have used these charts before to show exactly what happened. 
Tonight I will use them once again. Even today, we had Governor Gary 
Johnson, a Republican Governor from New Mexico who participated in a 
national symposium on a new attitude towards illegal narcotics. He 
talked about and also has made statements that the war on drugs has 
been a failure.
  I submit that the war on drugs has basically, again, closed down in 
the 1990 to 1993 period. Again, a Federal responsibility was Federal 
expenditures for international programs. International programs would 
be stopping illegal narcotics at their source.
  This is an interesting chart in that it shows, again, a dramatic 
reduction. My colleagues see back where the Republicans, new majority 
took over. Right now, in 1999, we are getting back in 1992 dollars to 
where we were in 1992 and 1999 on these international programs.
  These international programs do make a difference. For example, let 
me cite, if I may, one success that we have seen from the Coast Guard. 
The Coast Guard seized a record 111,689 pounds of cocaine with a street 
value of $3.9 billion in fiscal 1999, an increase of 35 percent over 
last year, the agency said on Tuesday.

                              {time}  2230

  More than two-thirds of the cocaine seized in 1999 was the Miami-
based 7th Coast Guard district that included Florida, South Carolina, 
Georgia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and most of the Caribbean. 
Secretary of Transportation who oversees the Coast Guard, and in this 
case Secretary Slater, attributed the record seizures in part to a 10-
month-old counternarcotics initiative in the Caribbean. And that, of 
course, was funded by the initiative that was undertaken by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) some 2 years ago in restarting a 
war on drugs and, again, a Federal responsibility to stop drugs at 
their source and interdicting them.
  What I have spoken to here is really the success of the interdiction. 
This chart shows the failure of interdiction and the cutting in just 
about half of expenditures for interdiction, that is stopping drugs as 
they come from their source, before they reach our border, utilizing 
the Coast Guard, the military and other Federal resources to stop drugs 
cost effectively as they come from their source to our borders.
  We can see the dramatic close-down of the war on drugs in 1993 and we 
can see the restart again under the new leadership of the House of 
Representatives under Republican control of the House. Again, we are 
back in 1999 to about where we were in 1992, and we have some very 
specific results for our efforts for those expenditures. We have seen 
not only a dramatic increase in the seizures of cocaine but also less 
cocaine on the streets in the United States. So we know that this 
interdiction works.
  What is interesting is we know what does not work, and that is the 
policy of this past administration. We saw the charts with funds and 
efforts for our international programs to stop drugs cost effectively 
at their source and also to interdict drugs before they reach our 
borders. This is a very interesting chart. It shows from the 1980s, the 
late 1980s to 1992, this would be part of the Reagan and Bush era, and 
we can see a declining in 12th grade drug use. This would be lifetime 
annual in the red here, green is lifetime annual use and 30 day use.
  So in all of these usages by 12th graders, we see a decline up until 
this change in the drug policy. Then we see, again, the change in 
Federal leadership, the attitude, the ``just say maybe,'' cutting the 
drug czar's office, cutting the programs as far as the supply, the 
incredible supply of illegal narcotics coming into the country, and 
then this upsurge. Then again in 1995, the Republicans took control, 
began instituting this policy and changing it, and now we see a decline 
and beginning of a reversal. Because we know that a multifaceted 
approach to illegal narcotics works.
  First, we have to stop drugs cost effectively at their source, then 
we must interdict those illegal narcotics before they come in. And I 
might say, even to those legalizers, to those who have been in town, 
including Governor Johnson of New Mexico, promoting legalization of 
what are now illegal narcotics, even under their plan, it would still 
be a requirement for the United States to stop illegal narcotics at 
their source. They would be illegal, even if they were legalized in the 
United States; drugs through interdiction.
  And, again, education, which I think Governor Johnson and others have 
been promoting along with legalization, does not work. We find the same 
thing that is very interesting in this administration's approach to 
tobacco. They have done everything they can to bring tobacco companies 
into lawsuits. They have expended incredible historic amounts in anti-
narcotics advertising and have forced attention to the problem as far 
as education of young people. But what is interesting, even the most 
recent statistics that they show, even with all this effort, shows that 
we still have an upsurge in the use of tobacco products among our young 
people.
  So it does not work by itself. Education is one of a number of 
elements

[[Page 23904]]

that must be used. This is very interesting to show; that as the 
Federal efforts for interdiction and source country program eradication 
declined, and again a change in policy, we saw our young people using 
more illegal narcotics.
  What is really sad is some of the statistics that have evolved from 
this situation. And I just received today the latest figures, which 
were released in August, published the last June of 1999, on the number 
of drug deaths in the United States. These are deaths from drug-induced 
causes.
  My colleagues have heard me cite before on the floor of the House of 
Representatives over 14,000 drug deaths, and that was in 1996. The 
policy that we have seen promoted by this administration and this 
Congress now has us up to 15,973 deaths in 1997. These are drug-induced 
causes in the United States. That is a 7.6 percent increase.
  I added up the statistics from this report just received today on the 
number of drug deaths since 1993, the beginning of this 
administration's policy, and it is 72,232 deaths. I am sure that we 
will reach 100,000 before the end of this tenure. So we have still a 
continuing problem. We have more and more deaths caused by illegal 
narcotics.
  Part of the problem, as I have explained before in these special 
orders, is that the cocaine and the heroin that we see on the streets 
today is not the cocaine or heroin that was on the streets in the 1970s 
or 1980s. In those years we saw cocaine and heroin of sometimes 4 to 10 
percent in purity. Today, we are seeing on a very common basis a purity 
of 60 and 70 percent. We are seeing heroin and cocaine that is deadly 
in form. And many of these deaths are attributed to young people who 
are trying illegal narcotics, and do not recover in many instances from 
first-time use, or by combining those very potent and high purity 
illegal narcotics with other substances of abuse.
  Again, we see record numbers of deaths from drug-induced causes in 
the latest statistics produced, I believe, by the Department of HHS. 
Again, these just came out.
  Of course, we have the deaths that I cited that are very easy to 
identify, and then we have the deaths that I also report. And whether 
we legalize or decriminalize what are now illegal narcotics, we would 
still have situations like this. This was reported in this week's 
October 2 edition in Carnesville, Georgia, a lady by the name of 
Shannon Nicole Moss has been in jail since May for allegedly taking 
cocaine during her pregnancy and causing the death of her daughter. Ms. 
Moss, 21, gave birth to twins on April 21, but one child, Angel Hope 
Schneider, died shortly after birth. Franklin County Investigator Chad 
Bennett said Ms. Moss tested positive for both cocaine and 
methamphetamine. The child's death was consistent with cocaine use by 
the mother, said Bennett.
  I do not know if this young baby's death will be counted in these 
statistics. I doubt it. But as I have cited, there are thousands of 
other deaths that are related to illegal narcotics.
  In this week's Christian Science Monitor we see another example of 
drug use and abuse among our population. This particular story focuses 
on Plano, Texas. It says, ``With its gated communities, leafy parks, 
and Fortune 500 jobs, Plano is not the sort of town to have a big city 
drug problem. At least that is what most residents thought. Then, in 
1997, some of the young people of Plano discovered the latest craze, 
heroin, and started overdosing at the rate of one a month. The youngest 
victim was a 7th grader, Victor Garcia. The oldest and most famous was 
former Dallas Cowboy, Mark Tuinei. The string of deaths, 18 in Plano, 
along with half a dozen from nearby towns, does not appear to be 
over.''
  We have cited Plano as an example of a very prosperous community, 
just like the one I come from in Central Florida, north of Orlando, 
which is my district. We have had over 60 drug-related deaths. Deaths 
by drugs and drug overdoses now exceed homicides in our central Florida 
communities. So we see a tremendous impact of illegal narcotics on our 
communities. I am not sure what difference legalization would make in 
people overdosing, and particularly young people, on these illegal 
narcotics.
  If it was not bad enough that we had cocaine and heroin, we have on 
the scene and coming from primarily Mexico, also an international 
import and again a Federal responsibility to control this type of 
activity, a report of methamphetamines spiraling out of control in some 
of our communities. This is a report that appeared in this week's news 
media and it is date lined Tulsa, Oklahoma. ``The number of 
methamphetamine labs in Oklahoma is exploding. State records show that 
officials have discovered 60 times the number of clandestine 
laboratories making methamphetamines than they had found just 5 years 
ago. State officials call problems with the highly-addictive drug 
epidemic. And they said the meteoric rise in the drug's popularity has 
to do in how easy it is to make.''
  This is not a harmless illegal narcotic, and it is illegal. 
``Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper David `Rocky' Eales,'' the story went 
on to say, ``was killed in an attempt to serve methamphetamine-related 
warrants on September 25. Another trooper was wounded.''
  It is also interesting to note, and I have some information that we 
received in one of the hearings that we conducted on legalization of 
what are now illegal narcotics, and we did try to conduct an open 
hearing on that subject, but we had a scientist who produced these 
images. I think I have shown these images one other time about 
methamphetamine, and this is one of the drugs that some folks would 
like to legalize. This particular photograph, and these images, 
demonstrate the long-lasting effects that methamphetamine has on the 
brain.
  The brighter colors reflect greater dopamine-binding capacity. 
Dopamine function is critical to emotional regulation and it is 
involved in the normal experience of pleasure. It is also involved in 
controlling an individual's motor functions. The scan on the left is a 
nondrug user. The second scan is a chronic methamphetamine abuser who 
was drug free for 3 years prior to this image. The third scan is a 
chronic meth abuser who was drug free for 3 years prior to the image. 
The last brain is a scan of an individual newly diagnosed with 
Parkinson's Disease, a disease known to deplete dopamine.

                              {time}  2245

  So you see what methamphetamine, the so-called harmless, what is now 
an illegal narcotic that some would like to make legal, does to 
individuals. Drugs are dangerous. This is very clear scientific 
evidence produced again by a scientist, not by a congressional 
committee, about the effects of this particular illegal narcotic.
  I wanted to also cite tonight again some of the comments that have 
been made in this national forum that talked about legalization or a 
new approach to illegal narcotics, and let me say that I am open to any 
reasonable approach that we can take to deal with this mounting 
problem. Our subcommittee has been open, we have held hearings on the 
question of legalization, of decriminalization, on the problems of 
incarceration, on enforcement, on interdiction, on the source 
countries, and we will be doing one in just a few weeks on our first 
anniversary of our national education program to review all of these 
programs' effectiveness and various approaches.
  But the meeting that was conducted today and this week in Washington 
about new approaches featured, I guess, a new rage on the drug, 
national drug scene, and that is New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. He 
again has said that the Nation's War on Drugs has been a multibillion-
dollar failure and unjustifiably throwing thousands of people in prison 
and lying to children about the dangers of marijuana. I happened to 
catch some of that particular presentation of Governor Johnson, a 
Republican from New Mexico, and I wanted to respond to some of the 
points that he has raised.
  Again, one of these is graphically illustrated by one of the 
substances that some proponents would like to legalize, and we can show 
similar graphic displays for other substances, and we have

[[Page 23905]]

one, another one here we will just put up here. But we do have, in 
fact, scientific evidence that there is danger to the brain from 
cocaine, from heroin, from methamphetamine, and it is documented, and 
the Governor has said that the War on Drugs has been a multibillion-
dollar failure. In fact, I think he stated that we went from 1 billion 
in the 1970s to $18 billion. I think if we look at the way the dollars 
have been spent, again there were dramatic decreases in a multi-faceted 
approach to combat illegal narcotics both at the source and through 
interdiction.
  I have often showed the treatment dollars, and we do not have a chart 
of that tonight, but in fact the chart would show you that treatment 
dollars since 1992 have in fact doubled, and we are spending a great 
deal of that $18 billion on treatment programs. I would as much as 
anyone would like to see a reduction in those expenditures, but we find 
that if we take out one element, whether it is a source country, 
international programs, interdiction, law enforcement, education, 
treatment or prevention, then the efforts begin to crumble and the 
effect, as we have seen, is devastating particularly among our young 
people.
  He made a rash statement, and I heard him say that soon we will be 
spending the entire national gross product on enforcement, and that 
just is not correct. The Governor is incorrect, that of the $18 billion 
that we will be spending this year, a small percentage of that is on 
enforcement although that is Federal money and there are substantial 
dollars spent at the State and local level.
  The question is:
  Does a liberal policy work or does a tough enforcement policy work 
and are they cost effective?
  Let me take these charts down and again cite one of the best examples 
that we have of a liberal policy, and I believe in a legalization or 
liberal policy we would have to look at some model where they have 
tried this.
  And again we have to point to Baltimore. I do not have a whole lot of 
areas, although Washington, D.C., is now trying to emulate this program 
that they adopted in Baltimore with free needle exchanges and, again, a 
more liberal attitude.
  But this is an interesting chart that was given to me by the head of 
our Drug Enforcement Agency in one of our hearings, and I will recite 
it.
  In Baltimore we saw the population in 1950 at nearly a million drop 
to, it is around 600,000 now, not half, but on its way down. We saw a 
small number of heroin addicts, and this was the population of the 
heroin addicts, about 39,000 in 1996. The latest figures or unofficial 
figures are 60,000, and I cited a council person from Baltimore who 
said 1 in 8 citizens in Baltimore are now addicted to heroin.
  Now this is a liberal policy, this needle exchange policy. We have 
seen that that policy, and again, if we had legalization, I do not know 
what would stop people from becoming addicted, but in fact we have 1 in 
8 in this city as a heroin addict, which is absolutely astounding, a 
model I do not think any of us would want to copy.
  I have also pointed out as a counter example New York City with Mayor 
Giuliani, and I bring this up again, a tough enforcement policy, and 
Governor Johnson said that we are spending too much money, and I think, 
if we look and go back and look at per capita expenses, dollar 
expenses, and we compared New York with Baltimore, we would see that 
there would probably be similar expenditures.
  But this particular chart shows the narcotics arrests index and the 
crime index, and we see that crime is going down as the number of tough 
enforcement was undertaken in that city. Pretty dramatic figures in New 
York, and let me cite a few of them, if I may.
  First of all, the total number of major felony crimes fell from 1993 
to 1998 in New York City by 51 percent. Just from 1997 to 1998 with a 
zero tolerance policy there was 11 percent decrease in major felony 
crimes. In New York City murder and nonnegligent manslaughter also 
declined. There was a 67 percent decrease from 1993 to 1998, and in 
just one year, from 1997 to 1998, an 18 percent decrease in murder and 
nonnegligent manslaughter.
  And what about some other crimes? Total felony and misdemeanor 
narcotics arrests in the city actually increased, and we went from less 
than 70,000 to 120 between 1993 and 1998, but in that period of time 
you saw the dramatic decrease in murders. In fact, in New York City in 
1998 it was the lowest number of murders committed in New York in 36 
years. The murders fell from approximately, this chart will show, from 
over 2,000 in this period, 1991 to somewhere in the 600 to 629 in 1998, 
dramatic decreases as there were some increase in narcotic offenses.
  So the cost effectiveness of these programs, and I am sure if we 
looked at the social implications, the destruction of families, abuse 
in Baltimore, and we look at what has taken place in New York City, we 
would see that we have, in fact, a success, and again not a total 
success. We still have some dramatic problems not only in New York.
  But what is amazing, if you look at this last chart again, as a 
result of Mayor Giuliani's zero tolerance policies that he established 
and based on what the murder rate was before he took office, over 3,500 
people just in New York City are alive today who otherwise would be 
fatality statistics. That is a pretty dramatic figure.
  The other misconception that Governor Johnson stated in his speech, 
and again I heard part of it today; he said that, and I think he was 
citing more in his State; he said there were arresting Mexican citizens 
coming across the border for $200, and he said if we looked at the 
profile of people arrested, you would find marijuana users selling a 
little bit of marijuana and crack users selling a little crack and 
going to jail for that. Those were some of his comments.
  I did not take it down in shorthand, but there are many myths about 
people who are in prison for drug related offenses, and the most recent 
study that our subcommittee found was one that was conducted in New 
York State by that New York State Office of Justice, and it was a 
rather telling example of what is really taking place with those 
convicted of various offenses related to narcotics, and this was again 
in spring, very recent. We had testimony to this affect, that there are 
roughly 22,000 individuals serving time in New York State prison for 
drug offenses. Again this is very comprehensive study. Eighty-seven 
percent of them are actually serving time for selling drugs, 87 percent 
of them are there for selling drugs. Seventy percent of them have had 
one or more felony convictions on their record.
  So these are not just these innocent little Mexicans crossing the 
border for $200 reward or some innocent marijuana users selling enough 
marijuana to supply his habit or some minor crack dealer. Seventy 
percent of these 22,000 individuals have one or more felony convictions 
on their record.
  Of the people who are serving time for drug possession charges, 76 
percent were actually arrested for sale or intent to sell charges that 
eventually pled down to possession. So there is a great myth about who 
is behind bars and why they are there and what offenses they have 
committed.
  We also found from this study and in our hearing about New York drug 
offenses that the 1998 arrestee drug abuse monitoring program report 
issued by the National Institute of Justice documents an estimated 80 
percent of persons arrested each year in New York City tested positive 
for drugs. So we have a situation where these people have, who are 
arrested also, have illegal narcotics in their system, and that is also 
part of the problem, and we do need to revisit our treatment programs 
both at State level and the Federal level.

                              {time}  2300

  But there is a great myth about who is serving time. This study was 
quite interesting, because it showed and documented very specifically 
that, at least in New York State, you really have to try, you have to 
commit a number of serious felonies and you have to be a dealer in very 
large quantities of hard illegal narcotics to make your way into 
prison. You had to work to get

[[Page 23906]]

into prison in New York. We found that same pattern in other states. So 
the information that Governor Johnson used is not correct.
  He also said half the arrests in the United States involved United 
States Hispanics selling marijuana. I do not know where he got that 
figure. I have never seen that figure.
  We do know that the latest statistics that our subcommittee has 
received from DEA and HHS do indicate that one of the victims of 
illegal narcotics are teenage Hispanics and young Hispanics; that, in 
fact, with addiction, they have the highest percentage of increases.
  What we also know from the most recent report that I have received is 
that the biggest problem with addiction among our young people, and I 
would think it would be alcohol, is not alcohol, but in fact is 
marijuana, another startling fact. Of course, many people do not want 
to deal with facts or reality on this subject. They want to deal with 
their own personal viewpoint.
  The Governor also, I heard him say, Governor Johnson, that the war on 
drugs was 1,000 miles wide and a half inch thick. The war on drugs in 
fact is thousands and thousands of miles wide and, as you may have seen 
by what I illustrated, it was reduced down to an inch thick. But the 
war on drugs does not work when you have no resources in it, and they 
were eviscerated by this Congress back in 1993, 1994 and 1995 under 
this Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, Senate and the 
presidency. That approach did not work, and we had some very, again, 
well-documented results. That was not and is not today pleasing.
  His final comment was ``stop arresting the entire country.'' Again, 
this is Governor Johnson. I do not think any of us want to arrest 
anyone. We do know that individuals that have used illegal narcotics, 
probably marijuana is one of the most frequently. Maybe it does not 
have all of the effects of some of the other hard drugs that we cited, 
cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines. We have shown here we do know the 
levels of purity are much, much higher than that marijuana that was 
used in the seventies and eighties, and it also has an effect on the 
brain.
  Again, we do know from facts that today our biggest problem with 
addiction among young people, again, I was even surprised by this, and 
these are statistics that are DEA and HHS documented, our biggest 
problem with addiction now is marijuana with our young people. Whether 
it gets to be a gateway drug or not is a question for debate, and we 
certainly had plenty of testimony that did point to the first use of 
that substance or other substance abuse and then on to harder drugs.
  Legalization just has not been acceptable as an alternative, and 
neither has decriminalization, although we are looking very carefully 
at the programs we have for those incarcerated. We have also looked at 
the Arizona model, which is not a decriminalization, and had testimony 
from officials from Arizona who do take first-time drug offenders and 
give them alternatives before their final sentencing, but the 
sentencing is withheld pending their performance. The moment that they 
backslide or get back into the narcotics habit, which is a tremendous 
problem, recidivism with illegal narcotics use in these programs, those 
individuals do go on, are sentenced and serve time.
  So, again, I think everyone wants to see that our prisons are free of 
so-called casual drug users. But, again, the people that end up there, 
unfortunately, commit felonies and crimes while under the influence of 
these illegal narcotics, were selling quantities of illegal narcotics 
which would be illegal under decriminalization or the legalization 
scheme that has been mentioned by anyone to date.
  What is interesting is even with these efforts to liberalize national 
drug policy, even the latest surveys, and again the surveys can be 
subject to the way the questions are asked or framed, but the latest 
surveys that we have, this one is by the Melman Group and it was a 
survey by telephone of 800 registered voters at the beginning of 
September, found some of these topics on the public's mind.
  Voters want education, Social Security and drug trafficking to be top 
priorities of the Congress and the President. HMO restrictions and 
illegal drugs are top worries for the largest number of voters. We have 
heard most of the special orders tonight on the topic of HMOs. I am the 
soul one on the second subject, illegal drugs.
  Women and minorities are more likely to think that drug issues should 
be a top national priority. The poll also found that Americans want 
cracking down on drug smuggling to be Washington's highest priority. 
Preventing drugs from entering the United States, reducing the supply, 
is the most important effective way to deal with the problem. Again, 
this poll of 800 Americans showed three-fourths of Americans favor 
increasing funding for interdiction. Even with the $2 billion price 
tag, the majority still favor increasing funding for interdiction. By 
more than two to one, voters favor additional dollars on interdiction 
over anti-drug advertising.
  As I said, our subcommittee continues to monitor the reinstitution of 
our national and international efforts on interdiction and source 
country programs. We will be carefully reviewing our $200 million with 
private donations, probably half a billion dollar total expenditures 
for an anti-drug advertising program, the first year of which will have 
been concluded this past week, and we will do a hearing on that and 
review an examination of those expenditures and the effectiveness of 
that program.
  Congressional Democrats, the poll finally says, enjoy an advantage 
over Republicans on almost every issue except keeping illegal drugs out 
of the U.S. I am not sure what that means for Republicans, being a 
Republican, but at least hopefully I am on the right side of one issue.
  The rest of the special order that I wanted to do tonight really 
would get away from the topic of legalization, decriminalization or 
liberalization, as Governor Johnson of New Mexico has advocated, and 
talk about again one of our responsibilities, which is stopping illegal 
narcotics that are coming into the United States.
  Again, under any of these schemes, no matter how wild they may be for 
liberalization or decriminalization or legalization, one of the 
responsibilities of this Congress, of any administration, will be to 
stop these hard drugs from coming in to the United States.

                              {time}  2310

  The source of more than 50 percent or probably in the 60 or 70 
percent of all illegal antibiotics, we could start with marijuana, go 
on to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, the source of all the hard 
narcotics and even, again, the soft narcotic, if you want to call it 
that, marijuana, coming into the United States is through Mexico. Most 
of the cocaine and heroin is now produced in Colombia, but they have 
melded forces with corrupt officials in Mexico and corrupt dealers in 
Mexico, and these gangs are now filtering and transiting illegal 
narcotics through Mexico.
  Mexico is our big problem on an international level, and will 
continue to be. That is in spite of the fact that our trade with Mexico 
has been at an all-time high. We have given Mexico, as I have cited, 
incredible trade advantages, both with NAFTA, and we have underwritten 
Mexico in its financially difficult times.
  The United States' exports to Mexico now surpass U.S. exports to 
Japan, making Mexico our second most important export partner. However, 
with NAFTA, exports to the United States, from the United States to 
Mexico, were $71 billion in 1998. Imports to the United States from 
Mexico were $87 billion. We experienced in 1998 a $15.7 billion trade 
deficit, so we are good partners, we have given them help. We are good 
neighbors, good allies. We have given them a trade advantage that is 
now hurting us economically.
  The U.S.-Mexican border is 2,000 miles long and 60 miles deep on 
either side of the border, consisting of four U.S. States, California, 
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, all on the borders, of course. They 
border six Mexican

[[Page 23907]]

States. We have 45 border crossings with an estimated 278 to 351 
million persons legally crossing the border from Mexico to the United 
States in 1998.
  The INS, at great expense, apprehended 1.5 million undocumented 
immigrants on the southwest border in fiscal year 1998. According to 
DEA, almost all of the estimated six tons of heroin produced in Mexico 
in 1998 will reach the United States markets. Mexico remains a major 
source country for marijuana and heroin sold in the United States.
  The DEA estimates that the majority of methamphetamine available in 
the United States is either produced and transported to the United 
States or is manufactured in the United States now by Mexican drug 
traffickers.
  According to the United States Department of State, Mexico continues 
to be the primary haven for money laundering in all of Latin America. 
This of course has had incredible consequences in Mexico. The Baja 
Peninsula along this end is completely controlled by drug traffickers. 
In fact, this chart shows Mexico-based drug trafficking. The Yucatan 
Peninsula is controlled by drug traffickers, and different states and 
such regions of Mexico are almost totally controlled by drug 
traffickers.
  I cited methamphetamine, a new phenomenon. It is incredible, but 90 
percent of the methamphetamine seized in Iowa this year came from 
Mexico. That is from the U.S. Attorney's office in Iowa's northern 
district. About 85 percent of the methamphetamine in Minnesota, all the 
way up, it is not even on this chart, in Minnesota is smuggled from 
Mexico. The source is the Minneapolis Star Tribune, in an investigation 
that was conducted there.
  Most of the methamphetamine available in the upper Midwest is 
trafficked by Mexican-controlled criminal organizations connected to 
sources of supply in California and Mexico that were based in smaller 
midwestern cities with existing Mexican-American populations. The 
source of that is the Drug Enforcement Administration, in a 1996 
report.
  Unfortunately, even with all this activity, with the trade benefits, 
financial benefits, pledges of cooperation with Mexico, drug seizures 
are dramatically down. The amount of heroin seized from 1997 to 1998 
dropped 56 percent. The amount of cocaine dropped some 35 percent in 
the same year. The number of vehicles seized from 1997 at sea went from 
135 to 96, a 9 percent decrease.
  We have asked for maritime cooperation. We have not gotten it. We 
have asked for seizure cooperation. We have not gotten it. We have also 
asked for extradition of Mexicans who have been involved in illegal 
narcotics.
  Tonight let me display a couple of folks we are looking for and 
describe them. To date we have not had a single Mexican major drug 
trafficker extradited.
  This individual is Lewis Ignacio Amezcua-Contreras, and this 
individual is one of the chief producers of methamphetamine in really 
the world. Recently, despite overwhelming evidence, all Mexican drug 
charges have been dismissed. We are hoping that this individual will be 
extradited to the United States.
  Again, our requests, this Congress passed a resolution, the House of 
Representatives several years ago, asking for cooperation in 
extradition of major drug traffickers. To date, we have not had one 
Mexican major drug kingpin extradited.
  We have another star tonight in our array of requests for 
extradition. This is another individual that we have asked for. This is 
Vincent Carrillo Fuentes. He is a major cocaine trafficker. He has not 
been arrested. We think he is at large in Mexico. He is a United States 
fugitive. This is another individual.
  There are 45 of these major drug traffickers we would like extradited 
to stand trial, it is the thing they fear most, in the United States. I 
would say for both of these individuals, I believe there are some 
substantial rewards in the million dollar range, so if anyone would 
like to turn these individuals in, I am sure they would also like to 
receive the reward that is available.
  United States officials testified before my subcommittee that there 
are 275 extradition requests that are pending with Mexico. Mexico has 
only approved 45 extradition requests since 1996, and as I said, not 
one major Mexican drug kingpin. Only 20 of the extradition requests 
that Mexico has approved have been drug-related, and only one of those 
has been a Mexican citizen. But again, there have been no major drug 
kingpins.
  On November 13, 1997, the United States and Mexico signed a protocol 
to the current extradition treaty. I think that treaty goes back to 
1978. The protocol is basically the way the extradition would operate, 
and all the details.
  The protocol has been ratified by United States Senate, the other 
body, and is currently being delayed in Mexico's Senate. To date they 
still have not resolved or approved an extradition protocol with the 
United States.
  Additionally, this Congress several years ago asked Mexico for 
cooperation in enforcing the laws on the books. It was not a tough 
request: extradition, maritime cooperation. The United States customs 
agency ran an undercover operation called Operation Casablanca. This 
undercover operation was the largest money laundering sting in the 
history of the United States, absolutely incredible money laundering.
  Members will not be able to see this chart too well. Maybe they can 
focus for a few minutes. Let me talk a little about this. Forty Mexican 
and Venezuelan bankers, businessmen, and suspected drug cartel members 
were arrested, and 70 others were indicted as fugitives.
  The United States informed Mexican counterparts of the operation, but 
they did not tell them all the details because they feared Mexican 
corruption would or could endanger the lives of some of our agents.

                              {time}  2320

  And as we know from history, one of our agents, Kiki Camarena, was 
brutally murdered in Mexico and even today some of his murderers and 
those involved in his horrible death have not been brought to justice.
  Operation Casablanca involved three of Mexico's most prominent banks, 
Bancomer, Banca Serfin, and Confia, and all of these three major banks 
were implicated in the investigations. A former senior United States 
Customs agent who led the Casablanca probe declared that the corruption 
reached the highest levels of the Zedillo government when he implicated 
the defense minister in this event.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can have justice prevail in this 
situation and next week we will continue the rest of the story as it 
relates to corruption in the Mexican Government and Mexican drug 
trafficking.

                          ____________________