[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7579-7583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            ILLEGAL NARCOTICS AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bono). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, I am pleased to come to the 
floor again tonight and will be coming to the floor each and every week 
I get the opportunity to talk about a situation that I think is our 
number one national social problem, and that is the problem of illegal 
narcotics and substance abuse in our Nation.
  In this Congress, as many of my colleagues know, I was assigned a 
responsibility to chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug 
Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform.
  With that responsibility, I inherited a position that was really held 
by the former chair of the national security subcommittee on which I 
served, and the chair of that subcommittee was the honorable gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is now Speaker of the House.
  I may say at this time that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
helped put back together our national effort to begin to address the 
problem of drug abuse, illegal narcotics trafficking, and address in a 
very serious fashion for the first time since this administration took 
office the problem of illegal narcotics that face our Nation and our 
community. So I am pleased to inherit that responsibility.
  I am also troubled by that responsibility because the problem is so 
enormous. The scope of this problem, my colleagues, goes beyond 
anything we see on the nightly news. I know the attention of the Nation 
and the Congress and all Americans has been focused on the tragedy in 
Colorado; and certainly that was a tremendous human tragedy, with a 
loss of some 15 precious lives.
  I know also, my colleagues, that the attention of the Nation and the 
Congress is focused today and tonight and will be this week on the 
situation in Kosovo, in harm's way. But my colleagues, a very, very 
serious situation faces this Congress, and that is what to do about the 
rising use of illegal narcotics, particularly among our young people 
and among our population across this Nation.
  And it is not just a question of use. If there was not any damage, if 
there was not any result, people may very well turn their heads the 
other way and ignore the problem. But, my colleagues, the problem is 
absolutely enormous. Over 14,000 and possibly up to 20,000 Americans, 
depending on whose statistics we use, last year lost their lives in our 
Nation as a result of drug-related causes. This is an astronomical 
figure.
  And I have said on the House floor since this President took office, 
approximately 100,000 Americans, the population of some of our larger 
cities in this country, have died at the hands and through the use and 
abuse of illegal narcotics and the tragedy that it has brought to their 
lives and to their families.
  So tonight I am back again, with that responsibility, seeking 
answers; and tonight I plan to focus a bit again on the history of how 
we got into this situation and review that. Because I think it is 
important that we learn from the mistakes of the past, we learn from 
the mistakes of the Congress, we learn from the mistakes of this 
administration, we learn from the mistakes of this President and we try 
to improve on what we are doing both in policy and legislative action.
  It is important, I think, also that we focus beyond the past at what 
we are doing as a Congress now, what programs have been instituted. I 
will talk about those briefly.
  And then I want to talk about another subject that fits into the 
question of interdiction and stopping illegal narcotics in a cost-
effective manner before they ever reach our shores so that we limit the 
shear quantity and supply of illegal hard narcotics coming into the 
United States of America. And that subject will deal tonight with the 
question of Panama and this administration's failed negotiations, this 
administration's failed planning and this administration's complete 
lack of response to a situation that confronts us in the next few days.
  In fact, May 1 we must stop all flights from Panama and we are giving 
up all of our assets in the Panama Canal. I want to talk about how that 
affects our ability to conduct and advance surveillance, how it is 
going to cost the American taxpayers a huge sum of money to deal with 
the failed negotiations again of this administration.
  Incidentally, I will be holding a hearing next week on the Panama 
Canal situation as it relates to the narcotics trafficking issue. But 
later in this month I will be holding a hearing on the question of drug 
legalization.
  Since I have taken over as chair of this subcommittee, I have 
received many requests to look at decriminalization, legalization, and 
other alternatives to incarceration. And I think that that subject 
deserves a review by the Congress, a serious study, and an examination 
as to how we can better address this growing problem of the people who 
are affected through the problems of trafficking or use of illegal 
narcotics. So those are some of the topics I plan to discuss tonight.
  I would like to go back to the situation for a minute. I hate to 
repeat this. But I have to review how we got in this situation. I think 
history records it first, so the American people pay attention to it 
second. And thirdly, that we do not repeat these mistakes.
  The first thing that was done was by this administration and this 
President was to in fact, basically, throw out the window all of the 
programs that had been instituted back in the 1980s, first by President 
Reagan and then by President Bush, to address a problem that we had 
with the cocaine epidemic and some hard drugs coming into the country 
at the beginning of the 1980s.
  Many programs were put into place and cost-effective programs: 
interdiction, eradication of illegal narcotics at their source in the 
country, interdiction as the drugs left that source country, use of the 
military, use of other

[[Page 7580]]

United States assets to try to stop illegal narcotics coming across 
into our borders and increasing the supply of hard drugs available.
  Each of these programs in 1993, when the President controlled, of 
course, the White House as chief executive, had complete control and 
wide margins of majorities in both the other body and the House of 
Representatives.
  What took place, again, was an error we should not repeat. The first 
thing he did was to cut the drug czar's office and budget dramatically. 
The next thing, and I think one of the most damaging things and 
something we are really feeling the ravages of across our Nation today, 
is our young people.
  Our young people are smart, and when our young people hear a leader 
of the United States or someone who wants to be leader of the United 
States to say it just does not matter, they can do these things, 
something is wrong.
  This President appointed a surgeon general, the highest health 
officer in the United States of America, to an important position of 
responsibility, Joycelyn Elders, who came up with this policy of just 
say maybe.
  So we fail to have leadership from the President. We fail to have 
leadership from our chief executive medical officer of the Nation. And 
I think we are still suffering from that lack of direction, lack of 
message.
  The message during the Reagan administration was very clear, ``just 
say no.'' It was very simple but it was very direct, and even our young 
people understood it. But this just say maybe and then cutting the 
programs that were instituted, again under President Reagan and 
President Bush, to cost-effectively stem the tide, the shear tide, of 
illegal hard drugs coming into the Nation, these things were cast 
aside.
  The military was taken out of the war on drugs. The Coast Guard's 
budget was cut dramatically, which protects our borders. I know in 
Florida we saw the Coast Guard budget dramatically cut around Puerto 
Rico. And that directly affected Florida, the citizens of Florida, 
because drug dealers started using Puerto Rico, without that 
protection, as an entry point for illegal narcotics.
  Our State has been flooded, particularly with heroin, and we have 
experienced in central Florida and throughout Florida record deaths 
weekly through the use of heroin which is coming through that route.
  Moreover, we saw something happen that should shake up every Member 
of Congress and every citizen of this country. The use of heroin by our 
teen population from 1993 to 1997 jumped 875 percent, use by teens of a 
very hard and deadly drug.
  What was different about some of the narcotics that came into 1980, 
including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, was that in those days and that 
decade we had a very low purity level. The heroin that we have been 
seeing come into the United States both from Mexico, from Colombia and 
transited through other areas is of incredible purity, sometimes 80, 90 
percent pure. Cocaine has also increased. And marijuana's potency has 
also increased.
  So, particularly with heroin, we have seen young people mixing it 
with alcohol or some other substance or first-time users getting a dose 
of these high proportions of purity and not recovering, dying the most 
horrible deaths imaginable from their use and sometimes experimentation 
and addiction to heroin.

                              {time}  1830

  Madam Speaker, the cost of all this is absolutely astronomical. We 
are putting together right now a bill that will be close to $18 
billion. I might say that this new majority, the Republicans, again 
under the direction of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), put 
together all the programs that were dismantled, again the cost-
effective programs of interdiction, close to the source, and first of 
all eradication at the source, very cost effectively. A few millions of 
dollars do an incredible amount of good there.
  I use as an example what has taken place in Peru and Bolivia in the 
last couple of years. This new majority has worked with the leaders 
there, President Fujimori and President Hugo Banzer of Bolivia. We 
have, in fact, dramatically decreased the production of cocaine from 
those countries. Unfortunately, this administration has had a policy of 
trying to stop any aid, assistance, resources, helicopter, ammunition, 
anything to fight in the war on drugs, to Colombia; and Colombia has 
now become the major producer of heroin entering the United States. And 
also it was not in 1993 on the charts as any type of a producer of coca 
and is now the largest coca and cocaine producer in the world.
  So the policy of this administration, in fact, has caused us to fail 
in a very important area, that is, Colombia, as a direct result of 
policies of this administration.
  The second area where we are seeing actually the majority of hard 
drugs transiting into the United States is Mexico. I have spoken many 
times about the problems with Mexico, in absolute frustration. We have 
given Mexico trade assistance. We have backed them from a financial 
standpoint in all of the international financial agencies. We have been 
a good ally. We have opened up our border from a commercial standpoint. 
What we have gotten in return is a flood of drugs. Again a policy of 
this administration has been to certify repeatedly Mexico and its 
officials as fully cooperating in our effort to eradicate the 
production of illegal narcotics and the trafficking of illegal 
narcotics. By any measure, Mexico has failed to assist and fully 
cooperate as required under Federal law. But again this administration 
repeatedly certifies them, fails to hold their feet to the fire.
  This Congress requested Mexico, time and time again, to aid in some 
simple request to curtail the drug trafficking. First we asked for 
extradition of major drug officials. Two years ago this month, this 
Congress passed a resolution by a rather wide margin, and we find that 
to date not really one major drug trafficker who is a Mexican national 
has been extradited from that country. We have asked Mexico to sign a 
maritime agreement so we could stop some of the drugs that are 
transiting through the seas off the coast of Mexico and dealing with 
Mexican nationals, and still they have not signed a maritime agreement. 
We have asked Mexican officials again to allow our DEA agents to 
protect themselves, actually to increase the presence of our DEA. We 
have a very limited force down there working with Mexican officials. 
Again these requests have been denied. Radar to the south to keep drugs 
coming from Colombia and Panama, transiting through the isthmus and up 
through Central America, again almost no action.
  And then we have asked for enforcement of laws that the Mexicans have 
passed and actions against illegal narcotics traffickers in Mexico. 
What have we gotten in return? Our customs officials uncovered one of 
the most incredible banking scandals in the Western Hemisphere. It 
involved Mexican officials. This sting operation was conducted with 
full knowledge of the highest Mexican officials. Unfortunately, 
sometimes we cannot give them the entire story because corruption goes 
from the bottom to the top in that country, but they were aware of what 
was going on. Did they fully cooperate as required by our law to 
receive trade, aid, financial benefits? No, in fact they threatened to 
indict our United States customs officials who were involved in that 
operation.
  Then if we look at the hard facts about Mexico and what it has done 
in the last year to deserve, again, extended United States trade and 
aid benefits and financial support, all the things we give them, what 
have they done? It is almost pitiful. The seizures of cocaine are 
dramatically down, over 30 percent in Mexico last year. And hard heroin 
and opium, also dramatic decreases in seizures by Mexican officials. 
The number of vessels that are seized has also decreased. We have seen 
the takeover of the entire Baja Peninsula which is now raging with 
narcoterrorists, 315 killed last year, some horrendous murders where 
they line up women and children and gun them down in these drug wars; 
and the Yucatan Peninsula where our President went to meet with 
President

[[Page 7581]]

Zedillo of Mexico. Totally corrupt. The Governor, we were promised, of 
the Yucatan Peninsula would be arrested, would be confined the minute 
he left office. We were told that they were not going to arrest him 
before he left office because Mexican law gives him immunity and it is 
difficult to prosecute. So they were going to go after this guy after, 
in fact, he left office. But our latest report is that he fled, the 
Governor of the Yucatan Peninsula, in Quintana Roo, left several days 
before he left office. Some reports have him on an island off of Cuba 
at this time.
  So that is the kind of cooperation that we get really dirt kicked in 
our face. And some people turned a blind eye to it because of the trade 
relationship. Some people do not want to upset the Mexican Government.
  What was astounding was we recently held a hearing on this subject 
and we will also be holding a hearing, I believe the week of the 11th 
of May for the information of my colleagues, on the situation in 
Mexico. But the last hearing we held, we had testimony of another 
Customs agent who testified that 1 out of 4 major Mexican generals, one 
Mexican general was trying to launder $1.1 billion. Where does a 
Mexican general get $1.1 billion, I ask?
  So this is what we get in return. This is the policy of this 
administration. Unfortunately it has created a disaster. The disaster, 
as I said, will cost us over $18 billion, direct costs that we will be 
funding in the next few months.
  The cost to the American society is estimated at a quarter of a 
trillion dollars. Drug and substance abuse costs the taxpayers, the 
citizens, all Americans, a quarter of a trillion dollars, $250 billion 
in social costs when we add in all the lost wages, when we add in the 
welfare, the social payments, the cost of the criminal justice system, 
the incarceration, not to mention the heartache and the deaths that 
have been incurred by so many by this tragedy.
  So I wanted to review and I will continue to review the past errors 
of this administration. I do want to also say that I think it is 
important that we as a new majority be responsive to the errors that 
were made and correct them. I think we have done that.
  Last year we have added over $1 billion, and I think in very cost-
effective areas, to increase education almost $200 million, and that 
program is now underway. That program requires public service 
announcements which you may or may not be seeing on your television or 
in your media. Both newspapers and other forms of media should have 
that proposal.
  I was concerned that our education effort was somewhat diminished in 
the past era of this administration. I was concerned that during, 
again, their control of the Congress and also the White House, that 
they did not pay proper attention to what should be done. I did 
propose, almost 4 years ago, legislation that would require an increase 
in public service announcements paid for really by those that hold 
Federal communications licenses. Each year if we look at it since 1990, 
those folks have lessened their public commitment, their public trust 
responsibility in my opinion, and should be doing more rather than 
less.
  The White House proposed as an alternative to spend a rather large 
amount of money. We ended up with a compromise. For every one of the 
$190 million that the Congress has appropriated, we must have donated 
the equivalent time or resources towards these public service 
announcements and this education effort.
  That is a small part of everything we have done. We have restored the 
cuts in the Coast Guard, we have restored the military's involvement in 
the interdiction effort. And most importantly and most cost-
effectively, we are going back and making certain that the source 
countries, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Mr. Speaker, 99 percent of the 
cocaine comes from Bolivia, Peru and Colombia that is entering the 
United States. It is a no-brainer to use a few dollars to stop these 
drugs at their source from getting into the United States and 
penetrating our borders. So we can do that very cost-effectively, those 
things.
  Again, the new majority has restored those programs and getting the 
assets to Colombia so that the new President, in working with General 
Serrano, the head of their national police force and others, that we 
can make a difference where those drugs are being produced and at their 
source, again so cost-effectively.
  I believe that it is important, as I said tonight, that we also focus 
on the situation of those drugs that are coming in in huge quantities 
into the United States, and what is happening to our efforts to curtail 
those narcotics, again, source country I think is so important, and 
interdiction before they get to our borders.
  Something that has been brought to my attention and I think should be 
on the radar screen of every Member of Congress and every citizen this 
week is the date of May 1. I say May 1 is an important date, because 
May 1 will be the day that the United States of America will no longer 
be able to have any flight operations in the Republic of Panama or the 
Panama Canal or at any of our bases there. This really is the result of 
an incredibly failed negotiation by this administration that most 
people have not paid much attention to. But the United States is about 
to turn over the keys and lower our flags on our bases and facilities 
in Panama as part of the Panama Canal transfer.
  By the end of this year, the United States military will have 
returned property consisting of about 70,000 acres, not to mention the 
improvements thereupon, including one very expensive canal, plus 5,600 
buildings. These assets are estimated with a value of $10 billion. So 
what President Carter started, President Clinton is finishing with a 
bang, that we have in negotiations totally lost any rights, any ability 
to have any presence in Panama.
  Now, that might not be a big problem, Mr. Speaker, but, in fact, all 
of our forward-operating operations for the war on drugs, for our 
international surveillance over these areas I just described of 
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia where these drugs are coming from, from 
sources, not to mention where they are being transited from, every bit 
of our forward observation locations, every one of those and our 
ability to launch reconnaissance flights from there are ending this 
week, May 1.

                              {time}  1845

  Again, it is incredible that the negotiations which the 
administration and State Department and others said were coming along, 
were coming along, fell on their face. It was not until we took a 
congressional delegation down there several months ago to ask the 
status that we found out there were not even interim agreements.
  In the past few weeks the administration has scurried and has managed 
to put together several interim agreements. Let me show you what we are 
facing with this situation.
  All of our operations have been located, again, in surveillance on 
illegal narcotics production and trafficking from Panama. To deal with 
this situation we had hoped that the administration would negotiate 
some agreements with Panama to continue launching these flights there, 
and we have conducted annually some 15,000 flights there. We had 10,000 
troops; we are down to 4,000 troops, and they will soon be out of that 
area and unable to conduct these flights or these operations.
  Now, in addition to losing the $10 billion in assets, the buildings, 
the canal and a little bit of pride, what is absolutely incredible is 
the taxpayers are going to foot the bill to relocate these operations 
to a very big tune, and that is going to be $80 to $100 million dollars 
on an interim basis. Madam Speaker, this is so disorganized that they 
really do not know where they are going to house the folks who serve 
this country who are responsible for these flights.
  But scary is if we look at this chart, this chart shows the ability 
of our operations, our forward operations, to cover the areas. If we 
took 100 percent as what we are covering right now for surveillance and 
observation, come the end of this week we may have just an incredibly 
reduced capability even with the interim agreements that are being

[[Page 7582]]

signed with Aruba, and Curacao and Ecuador; we may at best some time in 
May get up to 70 percent, and even after we spend the $100 million, we 
will be lucky if we get to 80 percent.
  So, we have gotten ourselves kicked out of the Panama Canal, lost our 
assets that our taxpayers have helped contribute, again, buildings and 
resources there, and we have also gotten our advance international 
narcotics Western Hemisphere forward surveillance operations and all 
flight operations canceled.
  Most folks did not pay attention, but several weeks ago we turned 
over the keys to our naval operations, and that brings to mind 
something that I want to bring before the Congress, the House, tonight, 
and that is my concern about what has taken place, and I learned that 
in a meeting with our officials and also with others who have been 
involved in observing what is going on in Panama.
  The situation in my estimation has the potential for a future 
disaster. This administration allowed our naval bases, former naval 
ports, of course to disappear, and the two ports in the Panama Republic 
have now really been turned over to others, and to describe what has 
taken place I want to read from an article that Robert Morton, and I do 
not want to say this, I want someone else to say this; but let me tell 
my colleagues what has taken place and quote from Robert Morton in an 
op-ed he did March 4, 1999:
  ``The Clintonesque government of Panama in effect sold Chinese rights 
to two prime, American-built port facilities that flank the Canal Zone 
both to the east and the west. The 50-year contract awarded Balboa, on 
the Pacific side, and Cristobal, on the Atlantic side, to a giant Hong 
Kong shipping firm, Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd. By any analysis this 
company, headed by Li Kashing, is an interesting operation.''
  And he goes on to report ``Hutchison has worked closely with the 
China Ocean Shipping Co.,'' and that is COSCO, which we have heard 
about before, and let me go on, on shipping deals in Asia even before 
Hong Kong reverted to Beijing's control in 1997. COSCO, you may 
remember, is the PLA, and the PLA,'' is the Chinese Army, ``PLA-
controlled company that almost succeeded in gaining control of the 
abandoned naval station in Long Beach, California,'' and there was 
quite an uproar about that.
  ``Li Kashing has served on the board of directors of China 
International Trust and Investment Corp., a PLA,'' again, Chinese Army, 
``affiliated giant run by Wang Jun whose name may ring a bell. Yes, the 
very same Wang Jun enjoyed coffee at the White House in exchange for a 
modest donation to the Clinton-Gore 1996 slush fund,'' and let me 
continue here.
  ``As retired U.S. Navy Admiral Thomas H. Moorer testified before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 16, 1998, `My specific 
concern is that this company is controlled by the communist Chinese. 
And they have virtually accomplished, without a single shot being 
fired, a stronghold on the Panama Canal, something which took our 
country so many years to accomplish.' '' That is one quote that I 
thought that the Congress should have on the record.
  Another observation that I found that I thought was interesting about 
what is taking place in Panama was really expressed by a Panamanian 
last year who was running for president, and there is an election in 
Panama coming up. But this presidential candidate, and I will quote his 
comments and his concerns, and this is approximately a year ago:
  A Panamanian presidential candidate has asked the U.S. Justice 
Department to investigate China's activities around the canal and the 
possibility of a quid pro quo between the Clinton administration and 
the Asian Communist power.
  ``Concerned about possible executive branch complicity and China's 
gatekeeper status at the Panama Canal, Panamanian presidential 
candidate William Bright Marine,'' and Marine is a dual U.S.-Panamanian 
citizen who was born and raised in the Canal Zone, I might add, but 
according to him, he wrote to the Justice Department on May 4 last year 
and said, ``I have yet to speak with one single American who is not 
outraged at the fact that the Clinton administration has allowed 
Communist China to obtain control of U.S. ports, U.S. basis, and 
functions of the Panama Canal. They today, effectively control access 
to the Panama Canal.''
  This agreement could not have happened without the consent of the 
Clinton administration. The executive branch has been copied by my 
correspondence regarding communist China dating back to 1996. They 
cannot claim ignorance.
  And just one more word on this from a retired Lieutenant General, 
Gordon Sumner, who also observed recently, and let me quote his quote:
  ``The deal grants a 2-year waiver of labor laws and veto rights over 
the use of abutting properties, in clear violation of the Panama Canal 
Treaty.'' A Hutchison lawyer by the name of Hugo Torrijos was also the 
head of the port authority that awarded the contract.
  So these contracts have been let, these ports are already lost, and I 
am told confidentially and I am also told publicly that these tenders 
for control of these two ports were very corrupt tenders and, in fact, 
also greased with Red Chinese influence. In fact, Red Chinese influence 
in Panama is growing in many ways. Recently the Bank of China extended 
a 15-year, $120 million loan to Panama at 3 percent interest to finance 
the government's investment program.
  So we have a situation where the Panama Canal, an important strategic 
asset to the United States, 13 percent of all the shipping, the 
international shipping and commerce, flows through the canal, and it 
has an incredible amount of trade that relies on the use of the canal, 
and this again this Saturday will be second turning over of the canal 
and its properties to Panama and a prohibition against any further 
flights by the United States in our war on drugs. This, in fact, is 
going to strain our Department of Defense's ability to keep a watchful 
eye on drug shipments and transit routes and will really hurt our 
efforts in eradicating drugs at their source, which again is, I 
believe, so cost effective.
  Either more assets will be needed to provide the same relative level 
of coverage, or we are trying to do the same job with again a limited 
number of coverage areas, which I showed on the chart, and we will 
greatly diminish our ability to cover those areas that were previously 
cost effective. They were covered by our bases out of the Panama Canal 
and Panama Canal Zone, and again the taxpayers are going to pick up the 
bill for this $100 million to relocate these operations which will not 
be by any measures as effective, at least at the beginning on the short 
term will be somewhat disorganized, because this administration again 
has not completed any long term agreements, only short term.
  And I am told that the next round of expenses that we can expect, in 
addition to this $100 million expense, will be a tab for up to $200 
million for repairs and for improvements in the Ecuador situation. Even 
the Ecuador agreement, which is an interim agreement, is only a short-
term agreement, and we will face a serious problem because that 
government right now of Ecuador and that country is undergoing some 
very difficult political and domestic turmoil.
  It is sort of sad to think about it and reflect on it. President Bush 
about a decade ago sent our troops into Panama, and why did he do that? 
To stop drug trafficking, to stop the chief executive of that country, 
General Noriega, in his tracks as he was charged with illegal narcotics 
trafficking, money laundering and other offenses dealing again with the 
illicit drugs. Our troops went in there, our troops fought, wounded, 
and others lost in that effort, but we made an effort. We took that 
country back.
  Now that was the approach of the previous administration to deal with 
a corrupt chief of state and others who were responsible for, again, 
illegal narcotics trafficking.

                              {time}  1900

  General Noriega still sits in jail in the United States for those 
offenses.

[[Page 7583]]

This is the policy of this administration: to fail in a negotiation to 
maintain any of the assets, to maintain any of our locations or 
capability to launch a drug effort.
  What concerns me tonight, my colleagues, is we are looking at some 
potential dramatic costs and disaster for the future. One of the things 
that the United States did when they went into Panama was to really 
help dissolve the military organization which was corrupt, which was 
the tool of General Noriega, and also involved in some of this illegal 
and corrupt activity.
  We have in fact dismantled most of the military in Panama, leaving 
them with a weak national police force. What concerns me is that Panama 
has had on its border and within its border the FARC organization and a 
Marxist rebel group which are conducting operations, both from Panama 
now and also in Colombia. As they see the opportunity for corruption to 
take hold, as we lose control of any assets, any military presence in 
the Canal Zone, I think we are creating a vacuum, and I think some of 
these rebels from the south, again, will move further into Panama and 
create a very unstable situation.
  So we may be back in Panama at great cost, at great sacrifice, in the 
future, but it is in fact the failed negotiations, again, that have 
gotten us into this situation, into this cost and into this potential 
for future activity by these Marxist guerrillas who are already located 
in Panama and, I think, again will take advantage of this.
  Panama has always been a major narcotics route and it always will be 
because of its location as an isthmus and as a route linking South 
America and Central America and North America. Again, I believe that we 
are going to pay a very high price in the future by the decline of our 
ability to conduct advanced surveillance operations from the location 
we have had.
  Panama historically has had a notoriously corrupt political class, 
and, again, we are faced with only a small police force to deal with 
this impending situation with the departure of the United States 
forces. Both the country and the canal, in my estimation, are in 
danger, and we are about to turn over this entire operation at great 
cost and great loss to the taxpayer. We will hear more about this in 
the hearing that we will be conducting next week as that action takes 
place on May 1.
  I also want to just talk briefly tonight about the national debate 
that is raging on the question of use of illegal narcotics in this 
country. I said earlier, as chairman I have pledged to hold a hearing 
and will do that, I hope, later this month on the question of 
legalization and also decriminalization of illegal narcotics.
  I myself do not favor that action by our government, by our Congress. 
In fact, what I think from what I have learned since taking over this 
responsibility and my past work on this issue is that sometimes tough 
enforcement, tough eradication, tough interdiction, does in fact work. 
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate before our subcommittee, 
but I must say that, again, all the evidence I see points to the 
contrary.
  Let me just, as I may in closing, comment on what I have learned 
about the question of tough enforcement versus legalization. I have 
here a chart, and I will put it up here for a few minutes, and it is 
narcotics arrest index crime comparison for New York City.
  This chart dramatically shows as the numbers of arrests for narcotics 
offenses increased, that in fact the incidence of crime dramatically 
was reduced. This is pretty dramatic, and it covers the period from 
1993 to 1998 under the regime of Mayor Giuliani. So when drug arrests 
are enforced and executed, in fact crime goes down. The proof is in 
this chart and in these statistics, and I think is not refutable.
  I would like to compare that. I got this chart from Tom Constantine, 
who is the United States Drug Enforcement Administrator. He looked at 
New York and saw a dramatic decrease in crime in that city. Then, by 
comparison, he looked for a city which had a more liberalized 
philosophy and tolerance of drug use and programs to provide 
alternative substances to drug users.
  A great example, of course, is Baltimore. Baltimore in 1950 had a 
population of 949,000, and it had an addict population of 300. In 1996 
it had a population which was reduced down to 675,000. It had 38,985 
heroin addicts. Absolutely startling statistics. Again, a policy of 
liberalization, not the tough enforcement. New York's statistics are 
absolutely dramatic, not only the crime index that I showed you, but 
the loss of lives.
  Let me, if I may, put up as a final exhibit this chart that shows the 
numbers of murders in New York City in 1993; nearly 2,000, 1,927. In 
1998, I believe it is a 70 percent reduction, 629.
  Therefore, I think that the question of legalization will be 
interesting. The question of decriminalization will be interesting. I 
think we do need to look at some other ways rather than incarceration 
for so many individuals who have ended up in our jails and prisons, 
nearly 2 million Americans at this point. But the facts are, my 
colleagues, that tough enforcement does work.
  Madam Speaker, tonight I have had the opportunity to again raise 
before the Congress and the House what I think is our biggest social 
problem facing this Nation, 14,000 to 20,000 drug-related deaths last 
year across our land, hundreds of them across the district that I 
represent, with heroin, just tragic deaths, cocaine and other hard 
drugs that have taken their toll, particularly among our young people 
and across this Nation at great loss, not only in dollars and cents 
that the Congress must expend and public policy that demands, but also 
the incredible human tragedies.
  I cannot describe how difficult it is to face a parent who has lost a 
son or a daughter in a drug overdose. I cannot describe the agony that 
they as a family must experience, to lose a loved one to this tragedy.
  So as we focus on all the other problems, we cannot forget, again, 
what I consider is the major problem facing the Congress and this 
Nation, the social problem. I do feel confident about learning from the 
past, as I said, not making the mistakes of the past, putting our money 
on programs that work, that are cost effective, looking at some 
alternatives. And I welcome those suggestions from my colleagues and 
others that are interested in this subject so that we can do a better 
job for all Americans, and particularly for young Americans who are the 
biggest victims today of this epidemic facing our land.
  Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the House 
tonight to talk about the subject of illegal narcotics and drug abuse.

                          ____________________