[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2937-2943]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          OUR BATTLE AGAINST ILLEGAL NARCOTICS IN THIS COUNTRY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 60 
minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I and others tonight will be using most of 
this hour to talk about the drug issue and our battle against illegal 
narcotics in this country, but I wanted to take a few moments at the 
beginning here to kind of put some of the other issues in context.
  For the last hour we have heard from the Blue Dog coalition, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) put an offer on the table that I 
think we should consider in the weeks and months to come, and that is 
to use some of this special order time, perhaps each splitting some of 
our time, to have an honest discussion and frank discussion about how 
we can actually work through and address some of these Social Security 
tax cuts and those issues. But I wanted to make a few comments based 
off of what I have been listening to for the last hour in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, that is, I think, there is still some, and first let me 
pay tribute to most of the Blue Dog Coalition. It has had a strong 
track record here of working towards a balanced budget. Sometimes I 
wonder if they are called the Blue Dogs because they have turned blue 
holding their breath waiting for the President and most of their party 
to agree with them. But the bulk, the truth, is that a number of them 
have joined with the Republicans indeed to have a bipartisan effort 
since 1995 to rein in what is now an at least annual surplus. It is, as 
was mentioned by my colleagues across the aisle, an artificial surplus. 
We really do not have a surplus because we have not accounted for the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  Former Congressman Neumann, a fellow member of the class of 1994, put 
a budget in front of this Congress numerous times which many of us 
voted for that would have taken Social Security off and provided the 
tax cuts and lived within the balanced budget amendment, but if you 
make every current program protected and then argue against tax cuts, 
you are taking a bunch off the table.
  Now we have to be able to work through here because part of the 
reason we finally achieved an annual surplus is because for the first 
time we actually proved that the Reaganomics theory worked, and that 
combination is if you cut taxes but slow the growth of spending below 
the rate of the growth of the economy plus inflation, you, in fact, 
will at least wind up with annual surpluses.
  Now it is a legitimate question of at what point do we replace them 
out from the Social Security Trust Fund, and how fast, and how do we 
invest that. Does it go in the market? Does it go back to individuals 
to invest? Do we put it in certain types of bonds? And we need to work 
that through because now, because of the combination of controlling 
spending and the tax cuts that this Congress and the past Congress 
implemented, we have economic growth without at least targeted tax 
cuts.
  And let me make one other comment here. Sometimes the other side 
loves straw men. There was a proposal never formally proposed but a 
number of individuals were debating for 10 percent across the board. It 
has been stated in the media, and it is certainly the opinion of most 
of our conference, that that is not going to have enough votes to pass 
and, in fact, was never adopted by our conference nor put forth as a 
Republican position. That is a straw man. Perhaps it will be, but we 
have not had a vote on that yet. It is unlikely that that will be in 
the budget or a Republican position.
  We will probably, however, have some tax cuts. Without tax cuts such 
as capital gains cuts or other inheritance tax changes or investment 
tax changes, you will not have the economic growth to sustain the 
surpluses that keep Social Security going.
  If you do not have the economic growth in the high-paying jobs, we 
will not have the FICA taxes with which to do that. It is both sides of 
the coin have to work.
  How do we keep enough money in investment and in businesses and in 
individual's hands plus so we stimulate the growth plus control the 
spending so that there is enough money there when baby boomers like 
myself, and I am sorry to say, turning 49 this summer, I have no hope 
right now of seeing Social Security unless we can combine economic 
growth with spending.
  Earlier this afternoon we also heard from the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce of which I am a part. There is no question. Not only we are 
looking at Social Security in tax cuts as a primary problem for this 
country in sustaining economic growth but how to improve the quality of 
education. Because if we are going to compete internationally, if we 
are going to have good jobs in Indiana and Florida and in Texas and all 
over this country, we need to have the premier education system in the 
world. How much of that is the Federal role, State role or local role 
we are going to debate.
  I favor ed flex, giving more flexibility to the local levels, but 
through the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce you are going to see 
innovative proposals coming out as we look at the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act and for creative things there.
  You have also been hearing over this week and you will hear in the 
weeks to come about the devastating decline in our national defense, 
particularly our missile systems, and we are going to have to address 
that in our budget because we have been wandering around for good 
humanitarian purposes with our troops all over the world, but that puts 
a tremendous squeeze on our readiness in our military.
  Furthermore, we have not kept up with these terrorist groups, these 
rogue nations, whether it is Bin Laden, whether it is Iraq, whether it 
is who knows who with some kind of chemical, biological and nuclear 
weapon. It is not just the communists any more that we have to worry 
about with that threat to the United States, it is all sorts of 
terrorist groups. So we are going to be looking at national defense.
  But without a doubt at the grassroots level every single person in 
this country knows that back home they are facing rising crime and this 
pressure in crime. Yes, we have had decline in homicides in some cities 
and up in other cities, but when you are at home and you are on the 
street, you know that drug and alcohol abuse has put your family at 
risk, your kids at risk, you at risk driving down the highway, whether 
it is your kids at school, whether it is trying to go to the mall or go 
to the parking lot at a mall, regardless where you are in America, 
whether it is a rural area, whether it is a small town, whether it is a 
suburban area.
  Here on the Washington TV last night we are hearing about a rapist 
who is out there threatening numbers of people. In my hometown, in Ft. 
Wayne, we have had numerous articles in the last week on the drug and 
alcohol abuse related things. There is no question that this problem is 
everywhere. Let me share you with a few statistics:
  From 1993 to 1997 youth ages 12 to 17 that used illegal drugs has 
more than doubled 120 percent, and there has been a 27 percent increase 
between 1996 and 1997 alone.
  Now the key variable there was youth between 12 and 17, because the 
drop in crime and the drop in drug uses we are seeing is among older 
individuals, but we have a rising problem among our younger generation 
that has not gotten the message on usage. That is from the 1998 
National Household Survey.
  In 1999, a study shows that over the past 10 years, fueled by illegal 
drugs and alcohol, the number of abused and neglected children has more 
than doubled, from 1.4 million in 1986 to more than 3 million in 1997. 
That is consistent in this study. We hear at every county from the 
prosecutors, from the sheriffs, that 70 to 85 percent; it varies

[[Page 2938]]

by county; of all crime including child abuse, including spouse abuse, 
including neglect as well as traditional drug and alcohol related 
crimes are related to drug and alcohol.
  The 1997 Dawn Report said that between 1992 and 1997 drug related 
emergency room episodes nationwide increased 25 percent, and they 
increased 7 percent between 1996 and 1997.
  The 1998 National Household Survey said the overall number of past 
month heroin users increased 378 percent from 1993 to 1997, and we 
particularly had that heroin risk heightened in certain areas, 
including the chairman's area we will hear from in a minute in Florida.
  One other comment on heroin. When I was in Miami with the Coast 
Guard, they have machines now that can take your, and usually I do not 
have a 20, but actually I have a 20 and take your money through and 
test it to see if there are traces of drugs on this that can be up to 2 
years old. They took a 20 from my billfold and, admittedly, even though 
I got this 20 from an ATM machine in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, it could have 
come from somewhere else. But they ran it through the machine to see if 
my $20 bill, and you need to know I have never even smoked or I have 
inhaled because other people smoke, but I have never even smoked a 
cigarette, yet alone marijuana, heroin or cocaine, but on my $20 bill 
from Ft. Wayne they not only found cocaine, they found heroin.

                              {time}  1730

  Heroin has soared in every part of the country as a high risk drug.
  I see we have also been joined by the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations and I will yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), our distinguished chairman, who has been not only since 
we have taken the majority a leader in international efforts through 
drug prevention, through interdiction and eradication but, before that, 
with the Republican leader on the Narcotics Special Committee and has 
been a crusader against illegal drugs for his whole career here in 
Washington, D.C. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) for yielding, and I want to commend him for his continual 
efforts and commitment to our war on drugs. I want to compliment the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for taking the time to discuss some 
recent success stories on fighting drugs.
  Too often we hear nothing but the voices of doom and gloom and 
despair. The other morning, when we were at a meeting that was arranged 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and our Senate narcotics 
caucus committee, Mr. Bennett was there, our former drug czar, and he 
leaned over and said what we should be doing is focusing attention on 
some of the success stories and some of the victories that we have had.
  Too often, of course, we hear only the doom and gloom stories and it 
is time we did focus, and we are making some progress in many areas. We 
must fight this scourge of narcotics, both on the supply and demand 
side and we have to do that simultaneously, without emphasis of one to 
the detriment of the other.
  Too many voices that we often hear say nothing can be done, and 
therefore we should throw in the towel. Why do not we just legalize it? 
We have all heard that too often. Of course, that is all wrong and that 
is not the way to go.
  The five major battle fronts in the real war on drugs include 
reduction of supply through eradication at its source and providing 
alternative crops to replace the illicit coca or opium use for drug 
production.
  Secondly, interdiction of the drugs once they have left the source 
nation before those drugs can reach our shorelines and destroy our 
communities and impact our young people.
  Third, strong law enforcement, once these drugs reach our shorelines, 
to be able to arrest, to prosecute and lock up the drug dealers who 
traffic in these deadly substances.
  Then in addition to that, educating to reduce demand as well supply 
by educating our young people on the dangers of drugs so we can prevent 
them ever from using drugs in the first place. Teach them that drugs 
are not just recreational; they are deadly.
  Finally, treatment and rehabilitation of those who have become 
addicted so that we can help restore them as productive members of our 
society. We have to do all of those at the same time and not neglect 
one for the other.
  When we fought the war on drugs that way, along with President Reagan 
and the First Lady, Nancy Reagan, she told us just say no, taught us 
about the just say no policy, between 1985 and 1992 we reduced monthly 
cocaine use by nearly 80 percent here in our own country, results that 
very few Federal programs can point to today.
  Around the world, things in many places are going equally as well. 
For example, today in Peru we have a 56 percent reduction in coca leaf 
production in just 3 years; 56 percent reduction. Poor Peruvian coca 
farmers are walking away from their coca fields in droves since the 
price has fallen below the cost of production. Those results flow from 
a no nonsense policy adopted by the administration in Peru of shooting 
down planes that carry illicit coca base for coca production in nearby 
Colombia.
  Another example, in Bolivia, the story is the same. A government 
committed to eliminating coca production in just a few years has cut 
production by nearly 20 percent.
  In Colombia, another one of the Latin American producers of drugs, 
under the outstanding leadership of General Jose Serrano of the 
Colombian National Police, nearly 70,000 hectares of coca were 
eradicated last year, 70,000 hectares eradicated despite the lack of 
proper equipment, especially helicopters that have been so sorely 
needed.
  In one port city alone, Cartagena, Colombia, the CNP, the drug 
police, seized 18 tons of cocaine. We used to think a seizure of a few 
grams was important. Imagine, 18 tons of cocaine, almost more than what 
the entire country of Mexico seized in the way of cocaine during the 
same time period. In one city, 18 tons. If that was marketed on the 
streets of New York, it would inure millions and millions of dollars.
  Here at home, where we hurt today, when a no-nonsense approach is 
taken to crime and drugs, good things can happen as well. Our New York 
City mayor, Rudy Guiliani testified before the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources chaired by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), that getting tough on crime and drugs has reduced 
murders by nearly 50 percent in the city of New York and overall crime 
by nearly 70 percent. He reminded us that 70 percent of the prison 
cells are filled by drug people, who have been criminally charged with 
drug possession or drug trafficking.
  In cities like Baltimore, where those who argue that we ought to take 
a hands-off approach, the results are exactly the reverse. The mayor of 
Baltimore for many years has said that we should legalize and not go 
after the drug people. Murder and crime are soaring in Baltimore and de 
facto legalization has solved nothing, just made things worse.
  One set of figures tells the whole story. While population declined 
from 950,000 in 1950 to 675,000 in 1996, the heroin addict population 
went from 300 to 38,000 in 1996, the city of Baltimore. That is what 
despair and the wrong message can do from city leaders who throw in the 
towel.
  The voices of doom and gloom do not speak from a true understanding 
of what is going on today and what can be accomplished in most of the 
world. Yes, we can and we will win this war on drugs if we do it right 
and if we have the international community working with us. There has 
to be full cooperation throughout the world.
  As Pino Arlacchi, the UNDCP director of the United Nations drug 
agency, said just a few days ago when he appeared before our committee, 
we have not lost the war on drugs; we never began to wage one.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for

[[Page 2939]]

their continual efforts in this direction.
  We cannot say enough to the entire world, that there is an 
opportunity to do something about this drug situation if we all work 
together and we focus on what the accomplishments are that have 
occurred when people work together and put their shoulder behind the 
wheel.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations because he has 
frequently been down in these countries that he has complimented and 
seen firsthand the successful efforts or the progress being made in 
Peru and Bolivia. Without his help in Colombia, where people are 
fighting and dying, we would have lost that country and we are going to 
lose it unless we continue to help them. He has been at the forefront 
in particular in Colombia and in struggling with these other nations. 
There are good news stories, as well as more difficult ones.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Just recently he headed a 
CODEL, a congressional delegation, to Central and South America, and we 
want to review some of that.
  First, partly what we need to understand as Americans, with what the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) just talked about, what I alluded 
to, is we are facing on our streets some progress here and there but 
net as a country, particularly among young people, a terrible threat. 
To understand why we are focusing on the Indian countries and why we 
are looking at the problems in Mexico and other places, we have to 
understand what is happening to us first.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to take this opportunity 
to thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for 
yielding. He reserved the time tonight. He has been a tireless worker 
in the effort to bring to the attention of the Congress and the 
American people the situation that we face as a nation and communities 
relating to illegal narcotics.
  He has been at the forefront of trying to save our children, trying 
to save the resources of life that are being drained and sapped by this 
problem and crisis that we face across this land, the scourge of 
illegal narcotics, and I salute the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 
on his tremendous and tireless effort since he has come to Congress.
  I also want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman). I had the opportunity to see the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) when I was a staffer. I worked for the United States Senate 
back in the early eighties. The gentleman from New York was there when 
they helped put together the drug programs that we have today. The 
gentleman from New York was there when drug use among our population 
was increasing in a dramatic fashion and he helped turn that around and 
decrease it.
  The gentleman from New York was there when they developed an Andean 
Strategy to stop drugs very cost effectively at their source. The 
gentleman from New York was there when I worked with him and others to 
create a certification process by which countries that did not 
cooperate do not receive foreign assistance, do not receive trade 
benefits, do not receive international assistance, all benefits of the 
United States. The gentleman from New York, myself and others said 
these countries should not receive these benefits if they are not 
cooperating in stopping drugs and illegal narcotics at their source and 
also in international trafficking. Again, the gentleman from New York 
was there.
  Again, the gentleman from New York has taken up the cause. I remember 
when I came as a freshman in 1993 and they would not listen to us. This 
administration would not listen. The other side of the aisle would not 
listen, and they controlled the other body, they controlled this House 
and the White House. What happened is they cut those programs. They 
slashed the participation of our military in interdiction. They cut 
dramatically the source country programs. They denuded the programs 
that stopped the growing of illegal narcotics in these foreign 
countries.
  The Coast Guard was kept from participating as the head in keeping 
drugs away from our shores in particularly places like Puerto Rico 
which became a sieve through which the drugs have flowed.
  So the gentleman from New York and others, their voices were heard. 
My voice was not heard then. In 2 years from 1993 to 1995, and I had 
bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats signed a request for 
hearings on a national drug policy that was headed for disaster. One 
hearing was held; one hearing was held on a drug policy that was 
leading to disaster.
  Let me say the disaster is here. Ladies and gentlemen, we have 1.8 
million Americans behind bars. The estimates are somewhere between 60 
and 70 percent of those individuals incarcerated in our prisons, in 
jails across this land, are there because of drug-related offenses. I 
am not talking about purchasing a small amount of narcotics. I am 
talking about drug dealing. I am talking about major drug transit. I am 
talking about murders and heinous crimes committed while under the 
influence, who were trying to obtain illegal narcotics.
  Our entire nation has been devastated and now one can almost ask 
anywhere, at any level, the inner cities, the affluent, the rich, every 
family in this country can point to someone who has been involved and a 
victim of illegal narcotics and narcotics abuse.
  What concerns me is this problem has grown from a minor problem to, 
again, a major problem. Who is it affecting? Well, the apologists would 
say it is not affecting the adult population. They are sort of leveling 
out, and maybe those statistics are true but the fact is, this is 
causing devastation among our young people.

                              {time}  1745

  Now listen to this statistic: 14,200 young people, mostly, died in 
this country from drug overdoses or related effects last year. Over 
14,200. That figure has nearly doubled since 1993. The heroin deaths 
have doubled in a short period of time from 2,000 to 4,000.
  Let me talk about the national drug crisis that we have and how it is 
affecting particularly the most vulnerable in our society, our young 
people. In 1998, more than three-quarters of our high school teens 
report that drugs are sold or kept at their schools, a 6 percent 
increase over 1996. Are drugs increasing with our youth or decreasing?
  From 1993 to 1997, youth age 12 to 17 using illegal drugs has more 
than doubled, 120 percent. And there has been a 27 percent increase 
between 1996 and 1997 alone. Has drug use and abuse among our young 
people increased or decreased? That is a 1998 national household 
survey.
  The overall number of past month heroin users increased from 1993 to 
1997 by a whopping 378 percent. Between 1993 and 1997, LSD emergency 
room incidents increased 142 percent. That is a 1997 Dawn report. And 
during 1997, statistically significant increases in heroin emergency 
room incidents were observed in Miami, a 77 percent increase; in New 
Orleans, a 63 percent increase; in Phoenix, a 49 percent increase; and 
in Chicago, a 47 percent increase. Just a small sampling of dramatic 
increases in a drug that is deadly and devastating.
  These are the hard, cold facts about what has happened. The most 
astounding figure to me is for kids from 12 to 17, first-time heroin 
use, first-time heroin use, which is proven to kill so many of these 
young people, surged a whopping 875 percent from 1992 to 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from central Florida. This is the headline from 
my newspaper. Read this headline. This is a recent headline, the last 
few days of last year: ``Drug deaths top homicides.'' We are not 
talking about Detroit. We are not talking about New York City. We are 
not talking about Los Angeles. We are not talking about some inner city 
population. No one should die or suffer from illegal narcotics. We are 
talking about one of the

[[Page 2940]]

most affluent, one of the most economically advanced, one of the 
highest educated populations in the State of Florida, and drug deaths 
top homicides.
  Again, what is devastating about this, again what should shock the 
conscience of everyone in this Nation is most of these deaths are young 
people.
  I was asked to take on the responsibility of chairing a subcommittee 
to oversee our national drug policy. I inherited that position, was 
requested to take that position by the Speaker of the House, Mr. 
Hastert.
  Mr. Hastert, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), myself, all 
served on a subcommittee in the previous Congress that had that 
responsibility. We did everything we could to put back together the 
programs that had been taken apart and destroyed during the 1993 to 
1995 period. I took on that responsibility because of this headline and 
because of other headlines in my State. I took on that responsibility 
because, and maybe for a selfish reason, because of the drug crisis in 
my State and my community. But I also see what it is doing to our 
Nation.
  In central Florida, I will tell a little bit about what has happened 
in my area. Heroin killed twice as many people in 1998 as it did in 
1997. The death toll is expected to break 50 when the final results are 
in. And we are just getting those results now from autopsies and other 
reports.
  Sampling of heroin tested in central Florida revealed purity levels 
ranging from 58 to 92 percent. The national average for heroin has been 
about 40 percent. High purity levels and increased drug availability is 
contributing to the increase in heroin deaths in central Florida and 
across our land.
  Now, if young people are listening, if Americans are listening and 
Members are listening, the heroin that is on our streets, the crack 
cocaine that is on our streets, even the marijuana that is on our 
streets, is not the drug that was on our streets 10 or 12 years ago. 
These are drugs that are deadly. These are drugs that are pure. These 
are drugs that will kill. And they are killing. They are killing our 
young people.
  Mr. Speaker, what is shocking is that in my area in 1995, there were 
1,500 teenagers between the age of 12 and 15 arrested in central 
Florida for using or selling illegal drugs. This number has doubled 
over the last 5 years. Now, when we let down our guard, when we stop 
the eradication programs, when we stop the interdiction programs as 
they did again from 1993 to 1995, when we take the military and the 
Coast Guard out of the effort to stop drugs before they reach our 
shores, what happens?
  In 1991, the cost of 1 kilo of heroin was $210,000. In 1997, the cost 
of one kilo of heroin was $80,000. So what we have done is increased 
the flow, decreased the price, made it available to our young people.
  Let me talk, if I may, a little bit about the pattern of what has 
taken place with illegal narcotics trafficking. This chart here shows 
from the 1970s to the 1980s, the flow of illegal narcotics, primarily 
from Colombia and primarily cocaine. Cocaine or coca is only grown in 
three countries in the world. It is grown in Peru, it is grown in 
Bolivia, and it was grown a little bit in Colombia, but most of it came 
from Peru and Bolivia.
  That cocaine came up, some to Miami. As I said back in the 1980s, we 
had a crisis which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others 
addressed through different legislative initiatives, including the 
Andean Strategy, stopping drugs at their source, and the certification 
process.
  That cocaine and other drugs also went to New York and also to Los 
Angeles. That was the 1970s and the 1980s. Ronald Reagan and George 
Bush developed programs, and people like the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), Senator Hawkins who I worked for, developed programs to 
stop those drugs, and we saw a decline in the flow of drugs and the use 
of drugs.
  Then look at what has taken place in the 1990s. In the 1990s, we now 
have Colombia producing more and more cocaine, growing coca. We have a 
decrease in Peru and Bolivia where we have started and working in 
cooperation, as we heard just a few minutes ago, we have a cooperative 
effort, a restart of those Andean eradication and crop substitution 
programs. A few millions of dollars to again stop drugs at their 
source. Very cost-effective.
  Mr. Hastert, the Speaker of the House who chaired this 
responsibility, helped restart those programs; the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); myself; 
and others. And we have found dramatic decreases in the production of 
cocaine and coca in Peru and Bolivia through the cooperation of 
President Fujimori in Peru, through the courage and cooperation of 
President Hugo Banzer in Bolivia.
  Now Colombia has, for the last several years, become a source. In 
fact, it is now producing, the statistics we heard when we visited 
these areas last week, it is now producing more coca and more cocaine 
than any other region in the world, Colombia.
  Now, why did Colombia suddenly become a source of narcotics? What is 
interesting, again, if we look at the history of what took place, this 
administration has blocked consistently any assistance to Colombia to 
eradicate drugs at their source, to go after drug traffickers and to 
stop the production of drugs. So what has happened is they are now 
becoming producers.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), myself, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the previous chair of this responsibility when 
the Republicans took over the Congress, we went down to Colombia some 4 
years ago. Four years ago, there was almost no heroin being produced in 
Colombia. They told us then, unless the administration freed up the 
constraints on sending ammunition, helicopters, eradication resources 
into that country, there would be a flood of poppies and heroin 
produced. Guess what? That is exactly what has happened. An incredible 
amount of heroin is now being produced, and it is now flowing from 
Colombia.
  Look at this chart. Into Miami. Some came through Puerto Rico, 
because the administration cut the Coast Guard's budget. The Coast 
Guard protects the air around Puerto Rico. They cut that in half. So it 
came into Puerto Rico, it came into Miami and came into central Florida 
and also is coming in through a weak link in the chain which is Mexico.
  This is the new pattern that we see. Mexico has approximately 60 to 
70 percent of the hard narcotics coming into the United States, coming 
in through Mexico, transiting through Mexico.
  Now we have a new development. In addition to a failed policy in 
Colombia which this administration, over the objections of Congress, 
the new majority in Congress, we repeatedly sent letters, requests, we 
passed resolutions, we did everything we could to get them to give 
General Serrano, the head of the National Colombian Police, and others 
the resources and ammunition, eradication equipment to do away with 
drugs at their source. Cost-effective. When they get into our streets, 
into our schools and law enforcement in this country tries to go after 
narcotics, that is the most expensive solution to an expensive problem.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is now a quarter of a trillion dollar 
problem. And that is just the dollars and cents, not the lives lost, 
the families destroyed, and the terrible scourge, again, of illegal 
narcotics.
  This is the new pattern. Now, what concerns me as chairman of this 
new subcommittee and with the responsibility given to me by the Speaker 
is the presentation just over a week ago of the national drug control 
strategy by this administration. One would think that they would learn. 
One would think that if we had an experience and had a bad experience, 
that one would learn from that experience.
  What disturbs me, and tomorrow we are going to hear from the national 
drug czar, and I think General McCaffrey has tried to do a good job. I 
think the former drug czar, Mr. Brown, did a horrible job. He presided 
over death and destruction of this land unparalleled, unequal to 
anything except an attack that we had in Pearl Harbor. But this is the 
proposal by the administration to deal with the problem.

[[Page 2941]]

  Now, again, one would think that they would learn. Let me tell what 
is in this. First of all, they have one of the most clever charts I 
have ever seen in my life. It is, I guess, Clintonesque in its 
explanation. But last year this Congress appropriated $17.9 billion for 
the war on drugs. Now, they managed to develop a chart that showed us 
going from $17.9 billion to $17.8 billion, a net decrease of $109 
million, and show it on a chart as an increase. Now, that is clever in 
its presentation, but it is disastrous in its effect.

                              {time}  1800

  Where do the cuts come in? Let me tell you where these cuts are that 
disturb me, that concern me. Again, have we not learned? Interdiction 
has been cut dramatically again. Crop substitution programs cut again. 
International programs cut again, cut from last year to this year in 
this proposal.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is saying, 
it is not what passed Congress; this is the administration's proposal 
coming to Congress that is actually to reduce interdiction and 
eradication efforts.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, that is right. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) and my other colleagues, we requested of the administration to 
put some specifics in their budget that we know will work, that we know 
will be effective.
  For example, we have been promoting a microherbicide program and 
research and development because we know we have the technical 
capability to destroy drugs as a crop. It is a simple process. It can 
be done. We are making advances in that. We asked for a few dollars to 
effectively develop the final techniques to make this happen. Is it in 
the President's budget? No. Is it cost effective? Yes.
  Now, the other thing that the administration did back in the 1970s 
and 1980s and 1990s, in the 1970s and 1980s, as my colleagues heard, we 
increased our Customs, our air interdiction, our going after drug 
traffickers.
  We must have learned that, from 1993 to 1995, when we decreased that, 
when this administration, this Congress decreased that, that a mistake 
was made. Here we go again. Customs interdiction program, funds 
lacking. We know that is effective. We know it stops drugs before, 
again, it gets into our streets and our communities.
  Counterintelligence. If I have learned nothing else in dealing with 
this problem, I have learned that the most effective means of stopping 
drugs, of getting drugs close to their source before they get into our 
country is counterintelligence. I intend to speak with the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss), who chairs that committee. But, again, they 
have not learned.
  We requested more funds in this area, and they are not in the 
President's budget; and that disturbs me because it is cost effective. 
If we have the intelligence, we can get large quantities, we can get 
the production facilities, we can stop the routing of drugs into our 
Nation even before they get close to our border. So, again, lacking in 
this budget, in this proposal is a concrete expenditure or program for 
counterintelligence.
  My colleagues heard about stopping the Coast Guard and cutting their 
involvement, particularly around Puerto Rico and other places around 
the United States. The Coast Guard was very actively involved.
  I remember working with Admiral Yost and others back in the 1980s who 
helped develop programs that stopped drugs again before they got to our 
streets. In this budget, here it is, folks, in this budget, this 
proposal, the Coast Guard operation and maintenance again not properly 
funded.
  We have the most serious problem facing me as chairman of this 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) who chairs our Committee on International 
Relations; and that is the question of Mexico.
  Mexico has become the sieve. Look at this. Just take a moment and 
look at the drugs coming through here. Sixty to 70 percent of all the 
narcotics, the hard drugs coming into this Nation are coming in through 
Mexico. Mexico is the tough enchilada in this whole equation.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in addition, when the 
gentleman earlier focused on cocaine and talked about the shift of 
cocaine to Colombia, and the gentleman presumably gets into some of 
this here, too, but we have seen a shift in heroin, because we were 
getting it from the Golden Triangle, in Asia, and other places. We have 
now seen this move to Mexican brown in some part of our country.
  So while it looks like, and one of the things that we are hearing is 
that, oh, this Colombian problem is huge and disguising some of the 
problems in relationship to Mexico, the fact is that, simultaneously, 
because of a shift from Turkey and Southeast Asia, we have two places 
that have become the pivotal points.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) makes an excellent point in what I was going 
to lead up to. With this signature heroin program results, we see a 
dramatic increase in Mexican heroin. This is heroin produced in Mexico. 
Just a one digit several years ago is now double digits, 14 percent.
  We see South American heroin 75 percent, most of it coming from 
Colombia. But if my colleagues remember the other chart, most of it is 
flowing through Mexico. Almost all of it is transversing through 
Mexico.
  What does this budget have as far as dealing with the Mexico problem? 
U.S.-Mexico border security funds, again not adequately provided for.
  So do we have in the President's budget a proposal to deal with the 
problems, to deal with the narcotics, and to deal with it in a cost-
effective manner? We can throw money at problems. This Congress is an 
expert at throwing money at problems. But are we solving the problems? 
Are we putting the money into it, and sometimes small amounts of money?
  The program we started in Peru and Bolivia, those countries in the 
next several years, will almost totally eliminate cocaine production. 
Will we start? We need to get our program started back in Colombia. We 
have a new president there, a new opportunity. We need to get equipment 
resources and assistance to stop that production there.
  So this budget is a little bit scary to me because they have not 
learned. We have paid a high price. Thousands and thousands of our 
young people have died. One could not do more damage if one had 
launched a chemical attack on the United States. Over 14,200 died last 
year from drug-related deaths. If we add that up, probably since I 
served in Congress, it is probably close to 100,000 people dead. Most 
of the narcotics are now coming through Mexico.
  That leads up to this past week when the President went to Merida and 
presented this document. This document is a whitewash of the entire 
Mexican-United States drug problem. I have read through it. Some of the 
proposals, some of it, the cooperative efforts are almost laughable.
  I stood on this floor, and we debated decertification of Mexico 2 
years ago. This House voted to decertify Mexico. We made several 
minimal requests 2 years ago asking for Mexico's cooperation. What were 
those items? Let me repeat them if I may.
  First of all, we asked Mexico to sign a maritime agreement. Have they 
signed a maritime agreement? No. We asked Mexico to extradite major 
drug traffickers. Have they extradited major drug traffickers? No. We 
have had one minor drug trafficker who actually killed a border 
patrolman, but not one major cartel trafficker extradited to the United 
States, despite countless requests.
  We asked for the protection of our DEA agents. Why would we do that? 
I would like to have my colleagues come and read with me sometime the 
autopsy report of what Mexican drug traffickers did to our agent, Mr. 
Camarena. It is the most frightening thing that I have ever read.
  But our DEA agents asked for the ability to protect themselves, not 
only with arms, but also insulation in a crime- and corruption-ridden 
country to have basic minimal protection while they operated.

[[Page 2942]]

  We have a cap, I cannot talk about the exact number, I do not want 
to, but it is just a few DEA agents in that country. We have requested 
additional DEA agents. Only a minimal number have been allowed in. 
Quite frankly, to allow them in without adequate protection does not 
make a lot of sense.
  Next, again, we passed this here in the House by an overwhelming vote 
in the decertification 2 years ago. We asked simply that Mexico start 
to put radar and some protections across its southern border. Have they 
done that? No. Not until the threat of decertification just a few weeks 
ago and the President must present his certification proposal in the 
next few days.
  Have we seen any action from Mexico? They are now proposing to do 
what we asked them to do 2 years ago as far as protecting that southern 
border where all those drugs are coming through, and we will see even 
more drugs.
  Then we asked them to execute some of the laws that they had passed 
relating to money laundering and corruption. Money laundering and 
corruption. What have they done? Last year, United States Custom agents 
conducted a sting operation in Mexico. They found incredible 
corruption. We had briefings on it, and it involved hundreds of 
millions of dollars in corruption throughout the financial 
institutions.
  We went after some of those traffickers. Do you know what Mexico had 
the nerve to do? They threatened to indict our Customs officials. It 
was called operation Casa Blanca. The nerve. So instead of enforcing 
and helping us to go after the drug traffickers, they made our Customs 
officials the villains.
  Only because of the threat of decertification has there been a 
resolution within the last 30 to 60 days on the matter called Casa 
Blanca and the threat to indict our officials for doing work to help 
save their country.
  These are some of the items we asked for 2 years ago. This is the 
report. This report again is almost laughable. It was done with great 
fanfare. Do you know where it was done? It was done in Merida. I have 
been to Merida, a beautiful place in Mexico. Merida is located in the 
Yucatan Peninsula.
  Do my colleagues know what we have been told by our Federal agencies 
and those dealing with intelligence and this whole international drug 
trafficking situation? They told us that the Yucatan Peninsula in 
Mexico is lost. It is a narcoterrorist state. They are quivering now 
whether or not to even arrest the governor of that state who is up to 
his eyeballs in illegal narcotics trafficking. So the Mexicans have 
lost the Yucatan to a narcoterrorist state.
  Then we found that, in the Baja Peninsula, another cartel has taken 
the entire Baja Peninsula. Not only have they taken it, they have 
slaughtered and intimidated. They lined up 22 people just recently, 
women and children, to create in the Baja Peninsula a narcoterrorist 
state. They have killed 315 people in the last year and lined up 22 
women and children and taken that region.
  As we go over the map of Mexico, we see more and more of Mexico that 
has now been encircled by drug traffickers. So we have a friend, we 
have a neighbor, we have a trading ally who we have provided financial 
assistance, who we have provided trading benefits, who is now being 
taken over by drug trafficking. It is a very, very serious problem.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and I and other members of 
our subcommittee visited and we met with the president of Colombia, 
President Pastrana, last week. He is doing and committed to an 
eradication crop substitution and going after drug traffickers at every 
turn. He is committed to that.
  We met with President Fujimori and President Hugo Banzer who are both 
not only committed but also have dramatically reduced the production 
and trafficking of illegal narcotics.

                              {time}  1815

  Now we have the big problem of Mexico. Will the President, will this 
administration certify a country that is not meeting its 
responsibility; who has not followed through on the requests of 
Congress from 2 years ago; who does not have before us any requests or 
plan to deal with what has happened with their country being taken over 
by narcoterrorism?
  So we are in a very difficult situation. Wall Street will not be 
happy if we decertify Mexico, because now we are doing business with 
them. But is it worth it to sell our souls for a few bucks?
  We have some very serious questions to answer before us in the next 
few days and the next few weeks. The President must certify or 
decertify this major drug trafficking Nation, Mexico, by Monday, March 
1, and the Congress has 30 days to act.
  I will continue to review the information. I will continue to extend 
my hand to the Mexican government and officials to come up with a plan 
that has some measurable objectives on how to deal with this horrible 
problem. But right now I do not see in this budget a plan to deal with 
this situation. I do not see in this proposal that was presented in 
Merida anything concrete to deal with the situation that has grown out 
of control.
  Now, we can whitewash this, we can forget it, or we can address it. 
The results are going to be pretty dramatic for our young people and 
for our Nation.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. SOUDER. I would like to conclude, Madam Speaker. We are about out 
of time here.
  If the gentleman could put the one chart up there that had Colombia 
on it. And let me thank the gentleman for laying out systematically the 
background of the problems that we have and the immediate pressure that 
we have in front of us.
  Just yesterday, right before I did my 5-minute speech, they delivered 
a report on the Western Hemisphere Drug Alliance and the President of 
the United States. It is in yesterday's Congressional Record. Not only 
do they not have the dollars to continue the interdiction efforts, but 
in this document we are seeing more of what the Speaker, myself, and 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) heard when we went down to the 
Summit of the Americas. We heard at that point that the proposal that 
the President is holding out is a counternarcotics multilateral 
evaluation mechanism in the hemisphere. Basically, what they want to 
eliminate is what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) first developed 
as a staffer for Senator Hawkins, the drug certification process.
  What we have seen in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, and others is 
that because of this annual review, not of whether or not they are good 
people, not of whether or not they are a good government, but whether 
we as the United States should use taxpayer dollars in the United 
States to invest in their countries, that we have a legitimate review 
on the part of our country of their policies, because it is our money 
that we are proposing to deal with, it is our trade policies that we 
are looking at, and they are trying to, in effect, water this down.
  We strongly believe that we do need to work with these countries. We 
applaud the administration's efforts to work on drug prevention and 
drug treatment programs around the world and to encourage these 
countries to engage. That is not the question here. Furthermore, this 
is not really a question of motives at this point. It is not like what 
was happening in Colombia, where we saw the narco dollars going 
directly into the campaign of then President Samper. What we have is a 
lack of results in Mexico.
  When we were down there the last few days we saw lots of plans. Over 
the next few days we will be looking at those and debating those and 
trying to see if we can work out something, because we believe that 
their leadership is, in fact, working towards solutions. What we need 
to see, however, are some results.
  The facts are that all of our intelligence was compromised. The facts 
are we do not have certain agents in certain parts of the country. We 
saw many of the things that the gentleman from Florida outlined. So we 
have a real dilemma in our face. How much do we

[[Page 2943]]

want the trade dollars versus the ability to use that as a leverage? 
The fact is that as we used that as a leverage with Colombia, they 
engaged more aggressively. It enabled those people in Mexico, like 
those people in Colombia, who are fighting this problem, to have their 
hand strengthened relative to those who would undermine it.
  We are all for drug prevention. The drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, has 
done an amazing job of getting this administration back engaged. But 
there is drug prevention in education, drug prevention in treatment, 
drug prevention in law enforcement, and there is also drug prevention 
in elimination. Every coca leaf, every lab that we destroy is less 
drugs coming into Illinois, to Indiana, to Florida, wherever. That is 
one of the best ways to prevent it, is to keep it from getting there. 
Similarly with eradication.
  One last point here. That map is drawn in a way to show the Colombia-
Mexico traffic. But there is actually not blue water between Mexico and 
Colombia. That is Central America. Next to Colombia is Panama, the 
Darien Peninsula, which used to be part of Colombia. As we are turning 
the canal over in less than a year and pulling our troops out, we are 
in danger of having our trade threatened through the canal.
  On the other side of Colombia it is not blue water either. It is 
Venezuela. Our number one oil supplier. I think it is roughly 18 
percent. And Colombia is number two in by-products. We have had money 
intended for eradication and interdiction diverted to Bosnia. We have 
had it diverted into all sorts of humanitarian well-sounding goals.
  This is a compelling national interest. We can argue whether Kosovo 
is a compelling national interest, we can argue whether Bosnia is a 
compelling national interest, we can argue whether Somalia was a 
compelling national interest, we can argue whether Iraq is a compelling 
national interest, but this is a compelling national interest. It has 
drugs coming in to my hometown, my kids' schools. It is threatening our 
oil and energy. It is threatening our trade in Panama. This is a 
compelling national interest.
  Are we going to help these people fight? Are we going to get them the 
weapons they need? They are increasingly willing to carry the battle, 
which is in large part caused by our consumption. But when we went to 
move Black Hawk helicopters 4 years with the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) and my colleague with me here tonight, because they could 
not get to where they were starting to plant the poppy in the higher 
parts of the Andes, we would not give them the mechanisms to go get it. 
So now we are shocked that 40 percent of their country is inundated and 
controlled by terrorist groups.
  We have to give them the resources necessary or the danger is they 
are going to ask us to come in, like other countries throughout the 
world, to help fix these problems that are clearly in our national 
interest.
  So as we head into these certification processes, we are going to be 
bringing, in the education bill this year, drug-free school stuff; and 
we are going to work with education programs to try to figure out how 
to reach these kids. We will look at the prison population, as the 
President is talking about, because if we can get people who are 
heavily addicted off, that will benefit us in the drug war.
  But there is only so much the kids can do in our schools and the 
teachers and the school boards and the police departments when the 
price drops, when the purity soars, as it did in 1993 through 1995, as 
the gentleman pointed out. There is only so much they can do on the 
streets of Fort Wayne when that price is dropped down. It is both ends 
of supply and demand here that are responsible.
  We need to encourage and build up those governments' efforts and also 
hold them accountable when they are falling behind.
  The gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. In closing, I thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________