[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6326-6330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ILLEGAL NARCOTICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). 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 come before the House at this hour to 
discuss primarily the issue of illegal narcotics and its effects on our 
young people and our country, but I could not help but hear some of the 
words of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who 
just spoke here and talked about education.
  I want to say to my colleagues and to the American people that I too 
support education. I support anything this Congress can do, anything 
our Nation can do to enhance educational opportunities for each and 
every American. However, I do have some differences with the previous 
speaker.
  The previous speaker represents 40 years of trying to get more 
education power, more education decisions, more education regulation in 
Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  1815

  And I think I represent a new wave of thinking that has come here in 
the last few years that education decisions, education of our children, 
and decisions about education policy are best decided at the local 
level with parents, with local school boards, and through local 
initiatives.
  Then I think we also heard the argument that we are spending money on 
military defense and others, and this money could be converted into 
education. I might remind my colleagues in the House that the number 
one reason that we came together as a Nation to allow us to live a free 
life in a free society is in fact the principal reason for the 
formation of the United States, and that is the question of national 
security.
  Without national security, without the ability to defend ourselves, 
without the ability to have a defense of this Nation, all other things 
are impossible. And under the Constitution, if we care to look at that 
document, that is our prime responsibility and all things flow from 
that level.
  So we cannot discard our military, particularly with an 
administration and folks what want to send our troops to every corner 
of the Earth and every conflict, at great expense, stretching our 
limited Federal dollars, and also spend additional funds or take away 
funds from education. So we cannot have both, but we try to do our best 
in meeting our Federal obligation.
  I might say, and I did not really want to get into this too much 
tonight, but I just had the opportunity to meet with a couple from 
Florida, and they were here and heard some of the debate about 
education in the Congress, and one of these individuals, the wife, was 
a teacher and she was delighted to hear the philosophy of the new 
majority relating to education, that the power and the ability to teach 
and the funds go to the classroom, to the teacher and the student, not 
to the education bureaucracy in Washington, Atlanta, and is forced at 
different layers of the education bureaucracy even within the State and 
in particular in my State of Florida.
  Our discussion was quite interesting because we did not identify the 
problems the way the previous speaker did; we identified the problems I 
think the way parents do, the way teachers do and local citizens who 
examine education. And we do not need a Harvard Education Ph.D. to look 
at American education today and see that teachers are not allowed to 
teach.
  We asked the simple question in our conversation a few minutes ago 
off the floor with this couple from Florida, ``How can you teach, how 
can you have order in a classroom when you cannot have discipline in a 
classroom?'' And the same well-intended liberal policies from the other 
side of the aisle have amassed laws and regulations, which, combined 
with liberal judicial decisions, have handcuffed our teachers so that 
it is almost impossible to have discipline in the classroom through 
this maze of Federal regulations, mandates, and court orders. So we 
have said we want the teacher to have the ability to teach in the 
classroom.
  Now, we also have a unique approach to education because we do not 
think that the money needs to be in Washington and again the power and 
the regulations all coming from Washington, but we think that those 
resources, that those abilities, should be at the local level with the 
teacher, with the parent, with the local school board, again reversing 
this trend where everything has come to Washington at a very heavy 
expense.
  Now, let us also for a minute, before I get into this drug 
discussion, talk about funding of education. My friends and my 
colleagues, the Federal Government only provides between 4 and 5 cents 
of every dollar on education, 4 and 5 cents. Now, of course we can 
provide more. The problem is we provide about 90 percent of the Federal 
regulations in education. So we provide very little money, but all of 
the constraints and mandates and regulations that cause teachers 
instead of teaching, not allowing them to teach, to be filling out 
papers, to be complying with Federal regulations, and to report to a 
maze of bureaucracy that now starts at the local level, goes to the 
State level, goes to the regional level, and ends up at the Federal 
level.
  I was chairman during the past 4 years of the Subcommittee on Civil 
Service. One thing I learned as chairman of that Subcommittee on Civil 
Service is where the bodies in the Federal bureaucracy are buried. The 
first 5,000, if my colleagues ever care to go down to the Department of 
Education, now imagine, there are 3,000 of 5,000 Federal education 
employees in the Department of Education here in Washington D.C., or in 
the close environs, 3,000 people.
  Now, we also got into the discussion of changes in education. And we 
have, as a new majority in the Congress, tried to shift again this 
responsibility from Washington, the authority, the regulation, and do 
away with some of the bureaucracy. We started out with some 760 to 780 
Federal education programs, all well-intended, but each with its own 
administrative level, 760 to 780 of those. We have got it pared down to 
700.
  Quite frankly, we have only begun the paring process. But every one 
of these programs has turned into lobbying organizations, into special 
interest activities; and they justify their existence by lobbying the 
Congress, by telling what a good job they have done. And what, in fact, 
we have again are 3,000 bureaucrats in Washington D.C., most of them 
making between $70,000 and $100,000 if we look at the pay schedules.
  Now, I am not saying that we should abolish the Department of 
Education, but I think we could do it with 10 to 20 percent of the 
personnel that we have just by consolidating the programs.
  In fact, there are proposals and there will be proposals before this 
Congress very shortly to go to a Super EdFlex, where we take the amount 
of money, we divide it by the student population and other criteria and 
we send it to the States. This Congress, under this new Republican 
majority, has tried to reverse the trend in that 80 to 90 percent of 
the Federal dollars do not get into the classroom, do not get to the 
teacher. Now, is that what people want with their Federal money, that 
80 to 90 percent of this Federal money does not get to the classroom, 
to the teacher?
  Again, we have to allow the teacher to teach and discipline in the 
classroom, authority, the responsibility, the ability to teach in the 
classroom. We have to give that first. And secondly, we have to give 
the Federal money to the student and to the teacher, a unique approach, 
not to the 700-plus Federal programs, not to the 700-plus 
administrators.
  If we have only three administrators for each program at the Federal 
level,

[[Page 6327]]

there are 2,100 that help account for the 3,000 just in Washington, 
D.C., in the Federal Department of Education. So we have to ask 
ourselves where we want our dollars to go? Into the classroom? To the 
teacher?
  This Congress, this new Republican majority, said we want those funds 
to go to the classroom and to the teacher. Then what are we teaching? 
Again, in my discussion with this couple from Florida, the wife again 
taught school. My wife was an elementary school teacher. I have a 
degree in education, although I have never taught other than my school 
required certification internship.
  But we have to ask the question, what is a teacher doing in the 
classroom? Does she have authority to control the classroom, first of 
all? Does she have the funds, Federal funds and other funds, coming to 
the classroom? Then the next question is, what is the teacher teaching?
  The answer is, today Federal money goes on everything but basic 
education. Now, show me a student that has basic education, is able to 
read, is able to write, is able to conduct basic mathematics, and I 
will show my colleagues a successful student. But almost all of our 
Federal education programs go for everything except those basic 
education fundamental programs.
  And what is interesting is that the individuals who suffer the most 
from this deficit in a Federal approach to education that again has 
been adopted and culled and now culminates in this bureaucracy from 
Washington and this sad approach to education as the ones who suffer 
the most are our most disadvantaged students.
  So our disadvantaged students are not learning the basic skills. 
Those disadvantaged students, because they do not have these 
opportunities to learn basic educational skills, I will tell my 
colleagues what has happened. They are our first problem in the 
classroom. Ask any teacher. They are our discipline problem. And the 
teacher does not have the right to discipline or have control of her 
classroom because of the Federal regulations and the bureaucracy that 
has been created to make certain that a teacher does not have control 
of the classroom.
  So here we have the most disadvantaged, not able to learn the most 
basic skills that are necessary. They become discipline problems. Then 
next they become dropout problems. After they are dropout problems, 
they become societal problems. They do not have a job. Sometimes they 
get into drugs and into other illegal activities. Just look at the 
statistics for unemployment among our minority youth. Look at the 
statistics about dropouts among our minority youth.
  So if we really care about education, if we really care about those 
disadvantaged children, if we really care about getting dollars into 
the classroom for our students, for our teachers, for basic education, 
why not adopt a different approach? And that is the EdFlex approach 
that we have talked about. And we may want to look at Super EdFlex.
  As chairman of an oversight subcommittee on education, I intend to 
conduct hearings in the future on this subject and see why we cannot 
get more Federal dollars into the classroom, to students, to teachers, 
to do away with the mass of bureaucracy.
  It is interesting now this concept of charter schools. And what does 
a charter school do? A charter school basically lets a teacher teach, 
go back to basic education without the mass of regulations, whether 
they are locally imposed, State imposed, or federally imposed.
  So I did not intend to get off on this subject of education, but when 
I hear those who have helped develop a system that has helped ruin 
public education, and I am a strong advocate of public education. 
Again, my wife taught in public schools; I was educated to teach in 
public schools.
  The public schools helped make this country great. The greatest minds 
of this country, some of them were taught in a one-room public school, 
and I think we can still achieve greatness in our public schools. And 
public education has helped make America great, and our public teachers 
deserve practically a little award of merit, the survivors, those who 
have managed to survive the mass of bureaucracy passed down from 
Washington, the mass of regulations that do not allow them to do what 
they went to an education university or college for, and that is to 
teach students in a disciplined atmosphere basic and fundamental 
education and to help develop that policy of working with parents and 
working with local school board members rather than edicts from some 
bureaucrat at some level who causes them to do everything but what 
their original mission was.
  So I take great exception when I hear those who have helped create 
the disaster talk about criticism about this approach to get back to 
the basics that made American education and public education so great 
in this Nation. And again, I commend our public teachers, those 
survivors of this mass of bureaucracy we sent them from Washington and 
regulations that they must try to deal with every day.
  My purpose tonight also is to talk about another issue, an issue that 
is not on the front page like Kosovo and is not an issue like Iraq. It 
is an issue that I feel is one of the most critical social issues 
facing this Congress, this Nation, our young people, and every American 
in every walk of life now.

                              {time}  1830

  It is a social problem that for many years was limited to folks who 
were the unfortunate victims of illicit narcotics, illicit drugs, 
sometimes lived in urban areas and became drug junkies or drug addicts 
and were the cast-asides of our society. But, ladies and gentlemen of 
the Congress, there exists in our Nation tonight and today a drug 
problem that is of serious dimensions and proportions. Last year, over 
14,000 Americans lost their lives because of drug-related problems, 
drug-related deaths; 14,000. Since President Clinton has taken office 
in 1993, 100,000 Americans have lost their lives. In many instances 
young people, some of those in the prime of their life, have become 
victims to illegal narcotics.
  Now, this problem is so serious that I want to try to bring it into 
some understanding to those individuals who represent various locales 
here in the Congress. But if we took Hattiesburg, Mississippi and we 
wiped it off the map and its population of approximately 100,000, that 
would be equal to the number of individuals who have died because of 
drug-related deaths. If we destroyed Gadsden, Alabama, again close to 
100,000 people would vanish from the face of the planet. Iowa City, 
Iowa would be wiped out, 100,000 died. If we had everyone die now in 
Iowa City, everyone would be alarmed. In Elmira, New York, again a 
population approaching 100,000, 95,000 Americans have died, more than 
95,000, because of illegal narcotics in this country during this 
administration. Bangor, Maine would be wiped out. Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 
the population of that city would be wiped from the face of this 
country. Cheyenne, Wyoming. I could give a long list of others that are 
equal in population to those individuals who have lost their lives in 
this social problem of illegal narcotics, in this criminal enterprise 
now that is affecting every corner of America.
  The cost of illegal narcotics in this country is approaching a 
quarter of a trillion dollars. In addition to lives that I mentioned, 
100,000 over 6 or 7 years, we had 14,000-plus last year, we have a cost 
to this country estimated at over a quarter of a trillion dollars.
  This Congress in our budget debate is debating a number of measures 
to deal with illegal narcotics just in this next fiscal year. The 
estimate is somewhere around $18 billion will be expended. We now have 
in the United States of America 13.9 million Americans who are users of 
illegal narcotics. Drug use by 12 to 17-year-olds in this period since 
President Clinton has taken office to now has doubled, has doubled 
since 1992, drug use by our teenage population. More than 6 percent of 
Americans have used illegal narcotics in the past 30 days.
  What is another dimension of the illegal narcotics problem in this 
country is the change in the pattern of usage. When I came to Congress, 
crack and cocaine were the big problem. Today, heroin is a major, major 
problem, not only

[[Page 6328]]

in our urban areas but in suburban areas across this land, including my 
own area, central Florida, from Orlando to Daytona Beach, one of the 
highest income, highest educated, one of the most prosperous areas in 
America, and we have experienced an incredible heroin epidemic and 
particularly again among our young people.
  In the United States of America, first-time heroin use surged 875 
percent from 1991 to 1996, again under the charge of this 
administration. Heroin-related emergency room admissions increased from 
1989 to 1995 some 80 percent. In Florida, I want to talk about the 
problem that we have been experiencing again with heroin. Recently, a 
number of our newspapers featured headlines that said that heroin 
deaths increased 51 percent in the State of Florida from 1997 to 1998, 
a 51 percent increase in heroin deaths. Two hundred six deaths in 
Florida in 1997. Fortunately no Americans have been killed in Kosovo, 
no Americans have lost their life in the current Iraq crises. Even in 
the Gulf War, we had fewer than that number of casualties. But just in 
the State of Florida, we had 206 heroin deaths in 1997, a 51 percent 
increase from 1997 to 1998.
  In Orlando and again central Florida, a very prosperous area that I 
represent part of, we had 36 deaths, heroin deaths, and we had the 
highest death rate, we had 3.6 per 100,000 population die from heroin 
overdoses or heroin-related deaths. Additionally, our cocaine problem 
still is with us in Florida. We had 1,128 cocaine deaths in Florida in 
1998, up from 1,039 in 1997. So we are seeing an incredible epidemic of 
heroin deaths, particularly among our young people, and even an 
increase in cocaine deaths.
  Now, you might say, how did we get into this situation? Let me 
review, if I may, for the Congress and for the American people the 
history of how this administration got us in this situation with these 
statistics, with an epidemic of heroin, with the continued problems 
with cocaine, with methamphetamine and designer drugs at epidemic 
levels in other parts of our Nation.
  The first thing this President and this Congress did when it was 
under the control of the Democrat Party, and I do not mean to say this 
in a partisan way, it is a matter of fact, but their policy was to 
eliminate much of the war on drugs. Their policy was to try to just 
deal with treatment of those who had drug abuse or illegal narcotics 
problems and put our resources in that area. The first thing this 
President did as President was to cut the positions in the drug czar's 
office, and they were slashed dramatically, practically closed down the 
drug czar's office. This was the very first action, as we may recall.
  The second action was to appoint a surgeon general who really said 
``just say maybe'' to the use of illegal narcotics. Now, if you do not 
think that the chief health officer of the United States, who gives a 
mixed message to our young population, does not influence that young 
population in that important position, if you do not think the 
President of the United States, if he would say that ``I didn't 
inhale'' or ``if I had it to do over again I would,'' if you do not 
think that influences young people, then I think you have another 
thought coming, particularly when you see the statistics of the 
dramatic increase in illegal narcotic use from 1993 to today.
  Additionally, when the Democrats and the Democratic majority 
controlled the other body, the Senate, the House of Representatives and 
the White House, some of their first actions in the Congress in 1993 
and 1994 when they controlled the entire governmental operation was to 
start to slash the efforts of stopping drugs at their source. These are 
source country programs. We know where 100 percent of the cocaine is 
coming from in the world. Every bit of it is coming into the United 
States, or was coming from and comes from today Bolivia, Peru and 
Colombia. That is it. There are no other locales. We knew where heroin 
was coming from, and this administration with this majority on the 
other side slashed the eradication programs, slashed the interdiction.
  Now, the most cost-effective way to stop illegal narcotics is at its 
source, where they are grown, where the supply comes from. The next 
line of defense is interdiction. What did the administration and this 
majority in Congress, this past majority in Congress, do? They cut 
interdiction. They slashed the programs for source countries, to stop 
drugs at their source cost effectively. Then they stopped interdiction 
programs. They also stopped the use of the military. They stopped, at 
least temporarily, the sharing of information with some of the 
countries in shoot-down policies. Only after a great ruckus in Congress 
were we able to reinstitute the information sharing policy that allowed 
us to give assistance and aid to other countries that had shoot-down 
policies, these principal producing countries, so that they could take 
action to stop those illegal narcotics from leaving their borders.
  So we have seen what this administration has done as far as the 
military, interdiction, eradication. Another thing that folks do not 
realize is that the Coast Guard is a great line of defense, 
particularly for Florida, around Puerto Rico. The Coast Guard has been 
the first line of defense around Puerto Rico. It stopped under the Bush 
and Reagan administration most of the illegal narcotics coming into the 
United States. Puerto Rico is part of the United States and once you 
get into Puerto Rico, you are into the United States, and the Coast 
Guard provided that shield.
  This Congress under the previous Democrat majority and under the 
Clinton administration slashed dramatically the budgets of the Coast 
Guard and particularly the defenses and ability to interdict drugs 
around Puerto Rico were eliminated.
  So this is what this administration had done. We know what the other 
administration had done. The Bush administration, the previous Reagan 
administration had put into place programs that cost effectively 
stopped drugs from coming into our borders, stopped our young people 
from using drugs, and we actually saw decreases in use of illegal 
narcotics and drugs coming into our Nation.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on how this administration lost 
the War on Drugs and how under the control of the previous majority 
this country lost the effort to interdict drugs cost-effectively at its 
source. In fact, under this administration and under the previous 
Democratic majority, they slashed stopping these efforts by funding a 
percentage that went from 33 percent of all the funds we expended in 
the drug war down to 12 percent. So basically what they did was gutted 
by two-thirds the programs to stop drugs at their source. Again, their 
emphasis was solely on those wounded in battle, treatment of those 
victims of illegal narcotics.
  This administration also decided to have the Department of Defense 
rank counter-narcotics efforts at the bottom of its priority list. If 
we look at a priority list developed by this administration in its 
priorities, previously under again the Reagan and Bush administrations 
this was a high priority. With DOD, the Department of Defense, it is 
now a low priority. The President, not learning from experiences of the 
past, proposed to this Congress through the Office of Drug Control 
Policy and the Drug Czar a budget to the Congress that is $100 million 
less this year than last year, and again in the areas that are most 
important to stop drugs cost effectively at their source, the President 
also failed to provide adequate proposals for funding of these 
programs, including again the Coast Guard which plays such a vital 
role, including the source country interdiction programs, including the 
use of the military.
  In fact, if my colleagues want to look at the budget, in addition to 
being $100 million less, there is $73 million that is being currently 
used to relocate our forward drug interdiction efforts in Central and 
South America. We have previously been stationed at Howard Air Force 
Base for these efforts, the advanced surveillance activities in our 
illegal narcotics efforts over the South

[[Page 6329]]

American region, again where these drugs come from, again the source of 
production, the source of transshipment of these drugs. Our eyes and 
ears and our frontline defense in the War on Drugs is located in Panama 
at Howard Air Force Base, and $73 million in this budget is to move our 
operations to locations that will not under any circumstances be as 
good because this administration, and it is not widely publicized, but 
basically they blew the negotiating with the Panamanians, and the 
United States of America is being kicked out lock, stock and barrel 
from Panama as I speak here.
  We have lost $10 billion in assets, lost every one of them. They 
negotiated without success. We have lost every asset. There we have 
lost 5,000 buildings, over 5,000 buildings, and we will not be 
conducting one advanced forward drug surveillance operation there. In 
fact, we will be paying $73 million out of this budget that has been 
proposed by the President to make up for the failed negotiations which 
got us totally kicked out of Panama and giving these assets to the 
Panamanians is a disastrous consequences, I predict, not to mention 
that the Panamanians, through a corrupt tender, have given one of the 
ports to a Chinese group that basically is run by the Chinese Army. So 
the Chinese will control one of the ports through a corrupt tender, and 
this is the situation we find ourselves in, and again part of this 
President's budget is being expended. Even though he has $100 million 
less than we proposed last year and appropriated last year, additional 
funds will be paid to correct mistakes by this administration.
  So this is the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a very 
serious drug problem, and I want to, if I may, to put this chart up 
here and show the drug problem that we have in the United States, and 
again, as a result of the inactions or lack of proper actions by this 
administration in the 1990's we see this new pattern of illegal 
narcotics coming from South America. Again, production of cocaine 
through Columbia, Peru and Bolivia, and that was the pattern we saw at 
the beginning, it is the pattern we still see, but we see the drugs now 
coming through Mexico, and we see them coming from Columbia into the 
United States, some through Puerto Rico into the northeast United 
States and other routes, but the two major sources of illegal narcotics 
coming into the United States are Columbia and Mexico.
  Now let us examine, if we can for the record, how we got into the 
situation where again Peru and Bolivia were the primary producers of 
cocaine. I could not possibly believe this would be true if someone 
told me it 5 years ago, but this administration managed to make 
Columbia the biggest cocaine producer in the world, and they have done 
that because in the past 5 or 6 years of this administration they have 
fought every effort by Congress, they have fought every request of 
Members of Congress, they have fought requests of the Drug Task Force 
of Congress to get resources to Columbia to stop the production, to 
stop the trafficking of illegal narcotics from Columbia. This 
administration has done everything possible to make sure that those 
resources did not go to Columbia. They stopped helicopters, they 
stopped ammunition, they stopped resources. Now we have Columbia as the 
number one producer. It has outstripped Peru and Bolivia and is the 
number one producer of cocaine.
  What is even more incredible is 5 years ago Columbia produced almost 
no heroin, almost no heroin. Today Columbia is the source of most of 
the heroin coming into the United States of America.
  While this administration blocked equipment and supplies, resources, 
military and police aid going in to stop the production and transiting, 
when they blocked this, what happened? The drug dealers began 
producing, and of course we heard cocaine. Now they are the major 
producers, but in Columbia they are also now producing heroin, and it 
is not like the heroin of the 1980's. This is tough stuff. This is high 
purity, not 10, 12, 15 percent pure; this is 70, 80 percent. This is 
the heroin that is killing our young people on the streets of Florida 
and across this Nation.
  So again, through the inaction or improper actions or inadequate 
steps that this administration failed to take, Columbia is now the 
biggest drug producer on the globe. It is my hope, it is my prayer, it 
is the intent of almost everyone in the Congress who serves on the 
subcommittees of jurisdiction, that this administration now will allow 
helicopters, equipment, resources to get to Columbia.
  I met several times with the President of Columbia, President 
Pastrana. He is committed to the war on drugs. He has a very difficult 
civil war on his hands. Thousands and thousands of police and military 
have lost their lives at the hands of drug dealers and narco terrorists 
and Marxist terrorists in Columbia. We have a very difficult situation, 
but hopefully now this administration, with the urging again of 
Congress, will get the resources to stop drugs at their source, which 
the source is Columbia.
  Now the other major source area and problem that we have today is 
Mexico. Mexico has become the primary source of hard narcotics and 
marijuana coming into the United States of America. It is the primary 
source. Some of this is heroin and cocaine being produced in Columbia, 
but now in concert with the drug dealers in Mexico, and with the 
cooperation and with the consent in many instances of almost every 
level of government, corrupt government in Mexico, we see the drugs 
coming through Mexico into the United States. They are coming into the 
United States through the largess of this Congress which voted NAFTA, 
which voted almost an open commercial border between Mexico and the 
United States of America through again a policy that allowed us to give 
trade benefits.
  Now we have to stop and think. This Congress gave great trade 
benefits. They are not really an equal trading partner, not when they 
pay people 25, 35 cents, even $1 an hour. These are not equal trading 
partners as we did with Canada, which is a very equal trading partner. 
We gave them a great trade advantage. And what did they give us in 
return? An unprecedented supply of illegal narcotics transiting across 
our border. This is a fact; this is incontrovertible.
  The DEA administrator, who testified before my subcommittee and on 
the other side of the Congress, said the corruption among Mexican anti-
drug authorities was, and let me quote him, ``unparalleled with 
anything I have seen in 39 years of police work.'' This is one of the 
most professional, most dedicated capable administrators we have ever 
had. He does not buy the administration line even though he is a member 
of this administration, and he tells it like it is. He has said that 
the level of corruption in Mexico is absolutely unparalleled.
  Now this administration has certified Mexico. Under Federal law we 
have a certification law that says that every year the President must 
certify whether countries who deal in illegal narcotics or are the 
source of illegal narcotics coming into the United States, that the 
State Department and the President must certify under this Federal law 
that they are fully cooperating with eliminating both the production 
and trafficking of drugs under this 1986 law. And this administration 
has the past several years certified that Mexico is fully cooperating 
and did so just a few weeks ago.
  How can an administration certify that Mexico is cooperating when 
even this Congress asked 2 years ago, this House of Representatives, 
simple steps for the Mexicans to take? First, to extradite those who 
are convicted of illegal narcotics trafficking, and to date I believe 
they extradited one individual, and that is only under the pressure of 
decertification, only under the pressure of so many people, from the 
Minority Leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the 
Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), by a 
bipartisan majority saying that Mexico must take some steps to show 
that they are cooperating. But they fail to extradite major drug 
traffickers, they fail to install radar in the south, they fail to 
allow our DEA agents to arm themselves,

[[Page 6330]]

they fail to raise the level, the number of DEA agents in their country 
that would be adequate to deal with the severe problem that they have, 
and they fail to enforce laws that they put on the books and have made 
a mockery of those laws, including the most egregious incident I have 
ever seen a country take, which was last year in an operation called 
``Casablanca'' in which our Custom officials identified millions and 
millions, hundreds of millions, of illegal drug dollars going through 
Mexican banks and some into the United States, and when it was 
uncovered, the Mexican officials threatened to indict the United States 
Customs officials rather than cooperate with our officials. What we got 
in return was a threat against our agents, and only again until we came 
to the issue of possibly decertifying them through a step of Congress, 
the House of Representatives and the other body, not this 
administration who certified them.
  The President went a few months ago down and met with President 
Zedillo, and he met there in the Yucatan Peninsula, this little point 
here.

                              {time}  1900

  We are told by our DEA officials and others in hearings that I 
conducted that the entire Yucatan Peninsula is corrupt, that it is run 
by drug lords. It is corrupt from the officer on the street to the 
governor.
  In fact, we knew it was corrupt. We are told the entire Baja 
Peninsula is corrupt. We are told that entire other regions and states 
in Mexico are corrupt from the bottom to the top.
  We had testimony at a recent hearing, which I conducted as chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources, that in fact this corruption may go even to the highest 
offices in Mexico. There were indications that there was as much as a 
billion dollars that one Mexican official was trying to place from his 
proceeds of dealing in illegal narcotics.
  Now, President Clinton went with President Zedillo and met in the 
Yucatan Peninsula, one of the, again, centers of corruption, one of the 
centers of illegal narcotics. We knew that the governor of this state 
was corrupt. We knew that he was involved in narcotics, but they have a 
quirk in Mexican law that is interesting, that when you are in office 
you cannot be charged.
  So they were waiting until a few weeks ago when this Mexican 
governor, we were told, would leave office so they could indict him. 
That is what we were told.
  Then what happened? Under investigation, this is The Washington Post, 
April 1, April Fool's Day, this would almost be funny if it was not the 
truth, but this Mexican governor of the Yucatan Peninsula, Quintana Roo 
is the name of the area, under investigation the headline says, 
``Mexican disappears; governor may have fled to avoid expected 
arrest.''
  Now, that should tickle the conscience of everyone in the Congress to 
see that the Mexican official that we were told was going to be 
arrested when he left office fled.
  Now, to really rub salt in the wound, this is the Miami Herald story 
of just a few days ago, missing governor fled to Cuba, paper reports. 
So here is where the President of the United States, the President of 
Mexico met. Here is where we were told it was corrupt from the bottom 
to the top, and now we are told that that official, who was supposed to 
be arrested, has fled the country and possibly may be in Cuba.
  Do they think the Members of Congress are going to ignore this? Do 
they think the American people are going to be fooled by the actions of 
this government to fail to take actions against one of the most corrupt 
officials? Do they believe, in fact, that this Congress will certify 
that Mexico is fully cooperating when they turn a blind eye on the 
escape of one of the major drug traffickers and one of the major 
officials in the Mexican Government?
  So this is where we are today. This is the history of the supposed 
war on drugs by this administration; again, an administration that has 
almost dissolved the Drug Czar's office; again, an administration that 
appointed a Surgeon General that sent a mixed message to our children; 
again, an administration, and the previous majority, the Democrat 
majority that slashed the programs that stopped drugs cost effectively 
at their source.
  These are, again, the results that we see when we certify that a 
country is fully cooperating and they make a mockery of the entire 
process of cooperation, a country that we help with trade, a country 
that we help with financial assistance. When it was going down the 
tubes, the United States Government held back the financial 
instability, that we still back through the International Monetary 
Fund, through world financial organizations and through the 
corporations of America.
  So I ask tonight, where is the outrage? There is outrage about 
Kosovo. There is outrage about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But these folks 
from Mexico, these corrupt individuals, these illegal narcotics 
dealers, have killed 100,000 Americans in the last 6 or 7 years of this 
administration; 14,000 young people, young adults and Americans who 
lost their lives, a cost of a quarter of a trillion dollars to the 
American people. Where is the outrage?
  If it takes every week, if it takes every night, I will be here on 
the floor. If it takes 100 more committee meetings to bring this to the 
attention of the Congress that we need to make certain that we get this 
effort back on track, we need to make certain that we seek the 
cooperation and that we seek working with our allies, such as Mexico, 
to see that the flow of illegal narcotics, the production of illegal 
narcotics, hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, that are 
killing our young people are stopped at their source before they ever 
reach our border, before they ever imprison our young people and 
destroy the lives of so many Americans and destroy the lives of their 
families. So whatever it takes, I will be here.
  I see my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), on the 
floor. The Speaker has appointed myself, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) from Ohio, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is in charge of working on the demand 
side and has done a tremendous job in trying to put together community 
programs which, again, this administration has not adequately funded, 
to educate our young people, to work in our communities, to work with 
local organizations. He has done an outstanding job.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the Speaker has appointed 
him another cochair with me to the Speaker's Working Task Force on the 
Drug Problem for the House of Representatives.
  Both have done an excellent job. I commend them. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) chairs the Subcommittee on Crime and works on 
criminal justice legislation.
  So with those comments, I am pleased to conclude my remarks tonight, 
but I will be back as many times as it takes, as many hearings as it 
takes, and as much attention as we must give this problem that, again, 
I believe is the most important social problem facing our Nation, our 
Congress and the future of all Americans.

                          ____________________