[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10874-10879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         DRUG CRISIS IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). 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 and my colleagues, again tonight I come to the 
floor to discuss this serious situation in our Nation relating to the 
problem of illegal narcotics.
  I was pleased in January to assume responsibility to chair the House 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, 
which deals with formulating our national drug policy.
  I know that on the front pages of tomorrow's newspapers the stories 
of China sabotage and I know that illegally obtained intelligence, the 
fund-raising scandals, money that poured into our country through 
illegal foreign contributions, sabotage of our intelligence, 
information relating to missile technology are serious problems and 
will be splashed across the headlines tomorrow.
  I know what the headlines have been for the past several weeks since 
Columbine and Atlanta that the Nation's attention, the Congress' 
attention, has been riveted on the question of school violence. And we 
all are saddened by these great tragedies.
  But let me say tonight, and I have said it before, that for every 
instance of school violence, if we took all the instances of school 
violence and death in Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; and 
Columbine and we added up all of those tragic deaths the last several 
years, we would still have a small figure of 30 or 40 individuals maybe 
maximum; and, unfortunately, I hate to use this analogy, but 
unfortunately, we have a Columbine times three or four every single day 
in the United States as a result of the use of illegal narcotics.
  The effects of illegal narcotics on our society are dramatic and 
costly. They are indeed costly to over 1.8 million Americans, almost 2 
million Americans who are behind bars. Estimates are that some 60 to 70 
percent of those incarcerated in our prisons and jails and 
penitentiaries are there because of a drug-related offense.
  I might say they are not there for casual use of drugs. They are 
there because they have committed a crime while under the influence of 
illegal narcotics, they are there because they have committed a felony, 
robbery, they have been trafficking and selling illegal narcotics. And 
they are the victims of illegal narcotics. But we have nearly 2 million 
Americans behind bars.
  The cost that this Congress will be considering in a few more weeks 
to fund the anti-narcotics effort is probably in the range of $18 
billion. That is the direct cost that we will look at funding because 
of, again, the problems created by illegal drugs.
  That is only the tip of the iceberg. We spend somewhere in the 
neighborhood of a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in the 
tremendous cost of social, economic, welfare support, judicial systems, 
incarceration, all these costs to our society because of the illegal 
narcotics problem.
  Again, the tragedy is just immense. And again, we have the equivalent 
of a Columbine times three or four every single day. The sad part about 
all this is that many of these tragic deaths are our young people. The 
sad part about this is that last year over 14,000 Americans lost their 
lives to drug-related deaths.
  The tragedy is that, in the past 6 years, under the Clinton 
administration, going on 7, we in fact have lost almost a 100,000 
people. That is the number of Americans killed in some of our wars and 
conflicts. That is the size of entire populations of cities. It is an 
incredible tragedy.
  And somehow tomorrow in the newspapers it will not be publicized 
along with the China sabotage or the Columbine problem. But what will 
be publicized is back in the obituaries or on the local page or the 
State page is a list of human tragedies. And those tragedies will be 
recounted in heroin overdose deaths. They will be recounted if someone 
would have died at the hands of someone under the influence of 
narcotics, someone who is committing a felony, another murder, under 
the influence of illegal drugs. Those are the sad statistics of this 
tragedy that we are facing as a Nation.
  I come again tonight to talk about this, Mr. Speaker, because I think 
it is the most important and critical social problem facing our Nation, 
long ignored, not talked about.
  As chair of that subcommittee, human resources is one of our topics, 
in addition to criminal justice and drug policy. We conducted a hearing 
this past week of over 6 hours, hearing from various school officials 
and law enforcement officials, some district attorneys, and other 
people involved with schools, psychiatrists, psychologists. And they 
repeatedly told our panel that, in fact, illegal narcotics and drug use 
are at the root of most of our school violence problems.
  Of course, we only see splashed across the front pages of our 
newspapers and on our television nightly screens one incident with a 
large number of casualties at one time. This is a slow and tragic 
death, again, thousands of them across the Nation, and an effect on our 
young people that is dramatic. Most of the victims of this tragedy are 
prime youth and are young people.
  Let me also talk tonight about the history of the problem. And I try 
not to be partisan in nature, but I do want to be factual and state 
that part of the

[[Page 10875]]

reason that we have this epidemic particularly of hard narcotics, 
heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, in the United States and other 
dramatic increases in usage of illegal drugs is really the result of 
the policy of the Clinton administration.
  If we look at the charts, and I have said this before, back in the 
1980s we had an explosion of cocaine back in the Reagan administration. 
But we saw that the policies of President Reagan brought the statistics 
down, the usage down, of illegal narcotics and the deaths down from 
hard drugs.

                              {time}  2245

  That continued into the Bush administration, with tough policies, 
tough eradication at the source, tough interdiction, use of the 
military, the Coast Guard, every possible resource of the United States 
to bring down illegal narcotics trafficking and the supply of hard 
drugs into this country.
  Unfortunately the new President in 1993 as one of his first policies 
adopted cuts in the Drug Czar's office, began the elimination of many 
of the personnel in the Drug Czar's office, and then adopted a policy 
which I think we are still seeing the results of today. That is cuts in 
the interdiction forces; that is, trying to stop drugs at their source. 
Cuts and elimination of the source country eradication programs; that 
is, stopping the growth and production of illegal narcotics at their 
source. Again the two most cost-effective ways of stopping illegal 
narcotics. And then we saw the cuts of the military, dramatic cuts of 
use of the United States military in the interdiction of drugs, a 
Federal responsibility of stopping the flow of illegal drugs before 
they came to the borders of the United States. And then we also saw 
dramatic cuts, almost 50 percent cut in some of the Coast Guard budgets 
that protected some of our areas and coastal regions, particularly 
around Puerto Rico, where we had a good barrier to stop illegal 
narcotics coming into the United States through Puerto Rico.
  Then, to top off these cuts, the President appointed a Surgeon 
General and that Surgeon General sent a mixed message. Joycelyn Elders 
did probably as much damage as any public official in the history of 
the United States as far as bad health policy. She sent a mixed message 
that even our young people repeat today, of ``Just say maybe'' to 
casual drug use.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. As a Member of the Republican task force who served 
with the gentleman last year, I want to first say I commend his 
leadership on this because not only is he down here night after night 
speaking about the need for Congress to act quickly but he is doing 
that in committee and he is a consistent national leader on this. I am 
here also because I am a father of a 16-year-old, a 14-year-old and a 
10 and an 8-year-old and much to my shock these children are already 
able to get drugs at their school, as almost all kids across America 
are able to get it in the school yard. The fact that he is saying, 
``Let's attack the source of these drugs, let's enforce the law when 
you are caught with it, and let's work with treatment,'' I think that 
is very important. I too as a parent when the President's appointee 
said the statement, you know, ``Let's legalize marijuana,'' I was 
shocked and very concerned about that.
  Mr. MICA. Our President sets the tone. I think that as a role model, 
as an individual who young people look up to, when you have the 
President appoint a Surgeon General that sends a mixed message, our 
young people pick that up. When you have a President that has said, 
``If I had it to do over again, I would inhale,'' our young people pick 
that up.
  Now, the gentleman told me that he had teenagers. Could he tell me 
the ages of them again?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Sixteen, 14, and one 10 turning 11.
  Mr. MICA. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Speaker, might be 
interested in this National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Administration report dated August 21, 1998. I 
did not know the gentleman from Georgia was coming tonight to mention 
the ages of at least two of his children, but this is the report. For 
kids 12 to 17, first-time heroin use surged a whopping 875 percent from 
1992 to 1996. That is an 875 percent increase in heroin use among our 
teenagers. So I believe that a policy has consequences, and the 
consequences of a bad policy of sending a mixed message and also of not 
having a policy in place that stops drugs at their source in a cost-
effective manner results in an increased supply, a lowering of price, a 
tremendous availability of illegal narcotics at these sources and into 
the United States.
  In my central Florida area, a banner headline in the Orlando Sentinel 
shouted out recently that in fact drug deaths exceeded homicides in 
central Florida. So this is the type of result we are seeing from a 
policy that was enacted some 6 years ago and again through repeated 
failures of this administration.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to make 
sure that in a nutshell what he is saying, as the usage has actually 
gone up, the number of arrests and enforcement has gone down?
  Mr. MICA. The number of arrests, I believe, have gone up. The 
enforcement prosecution did go down with this administration. Now, we 
have hammered them some and there has been more prosecution. However, 
those statistics are dramatically impacted by New York City and several 
other tough Republican mayors. The statistics in New York City are so 
dramatic where you have had tough enforcement by Mayor Guiliani. For 
example, they had approximately 2,000 murders, 1,980 we will say, in 
the year he took office. Tough enforcement has resulted in a 70 percent 
drop, somewhere in the range of 600 murders in the entire population of 
New York City. So that type of tough enforcement, tough prosecution has 
actually skewed some of the national figures.
  But if we look at the Department of Justice under this 
administration, they failed to go after drug dealers and hard core drug 
offenders in the numbers that they should have.
  I also wanted to point out to my colleagues that according to the 
Drug Abuse Warning Network, which is called DAWN, the annual number of 
heroin-related emergency room admissions and incidents increased from 
42,000 in 1989 to 76,000 in 1995, an 80 percent increase. This is from 
the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumer Committee report in 
November of 1998. The number of Americans who used heroin in the past 
month has increased steadily since 1992. The number of Americans who 
used heroin in the past month increased from 68,000 in 1993, the year 
this President took office, that was 68,000, to 325,000 in 1997. This 
is also according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. This 
is the most recent data we have from 1997. Heroin users are becoming 
younger, they are becoming more diverse. And because the heroin that we 
are seeing come into the United States today has much higher purity 
levels, we are seeing dramatic increases in deaths, particularly among 
first-time users, particularly among young people who mix heroin with 
some other substance, alcohol, other drugs and do not know that the 
purity levels are absolutely deadly. So that is why we are seeing so 
many young people dropping like flies in Florida and in other areas of 
the United States.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Where does the heroin primarily come from? Is this also 
Colombia?
  Mr. MICA. I am glad the gentleman asked.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman just happens to have a chart.
  Mr. MICA. I brought back tonight one of my charts to show the flow of 
illegal narcotics. This is a pretty simple pattern. Before the 
President took office in 1993, Colombia was really more of a transit 
country and drug processing country. Now, since we have had such good 
results with President Fujimori of Peru who has also had a tough 
enforcement program and President Hugo Banzer in Bolivia, the 
production of cocaine and coca is down

[[Page 10876]]

dramatically in those countries. In the past 2 years, the Republican 
majority has helped those two countries in stopping drugs at the 
source, cutting drug production through eradication policies and 
alternative crop policies.
  Now, would you not know it, but in 1993, again there was almost no 
coca produced in Colombia. It was almost all produced in Bolivia and 
Peru. But this administration through its policy managed to make 
Colombia the largest producer of cocaine in the world. In 1993, there 
was almost no heroin produced in Colombia. Most of our heroin came in 
from Asia or through Afghanistan and Balkan routes. This administration 
managed through its policy of stopping aid and assistance to Colombia 
to make Colombia the source of 75 percent of the heroin. It is the 
largest heroin producer in the world today. They managed to do all this 
since 1993. The way this heroin and cocaine is now coming up, the 
Colombians have formed cartels with the Mexicans, and then some is 
coming up through and past Puerto Rico and into the United States 
through these routes. So the very direct policy, despite letters, 
despite pleas by the chairman of our Committee on International 
Relations, by the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, by 
numerous Members of Congress to get helicopters, to get ammunition, to 
get assistance and resources to Colombia to stop this production and 
trafficking, Colombia now is the major producing area.
  I will say that with some of those individuals I mentioned, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), we participated in a dedication and contract signing of six 
helicopters which are on their way to Colombia, these are Black Hawk 
helicopters, to start in an eradication program.
  Now, our other problem area, and this is Mexico, and despite this 
administration giving NAFTA approval, underwriting the finances of 
Mexico, Mexico is the largest source of illegal narcotics coming into 
the United States through these routes. Again, despite being a good 
ally, a good friend, Mexico has turned almost into a narcoterrorist 
state as a result of the amount of trafficking.
  So this is the pattern of illegal narcotics. Heroin, cocaine and 
methamphetamine coming into the United States today. What is disturbing 
about this pattern is that in spite of all of the assistance this 
Congress and this administration has given to Mexico, Mexico has really 
slapped the United States in the face.
  When both of my colleagues who are on the floor were with me 2 years 
ago in March, the House of Representatives passed a resolution asking 
Mexico to help in about five different areas. First of all, we asked 
Mexico to extradite a major drug trafficker or major drug traffickers, 
assist us in extraditing those who have been indicted in the United 
States, Mexican nationals, and send them to the United States. And what 
did we get in return? This past week, the New York Times, ``Setback for 
Mexico in 2 Big Drug Cases.'' Major producer, again we have helped 
Mexico, we are a good friend and ally of Mexico. What did they do? Let 
me read this:
  ``Mexico City, May 19. Efforts to prosecute the Amezcua Contreras 
brothers whom the American authorities say rank among the world's 
largest producers of illegal methamphetamines appear to be 
collapsing.''
  They have in fact let these brothers who were part of this 
methamphetamine operation off the hook, dropped the charges against 
them. Two of them, I understand, are still held in detention. One has 
been set free. Even the Mexicans, who are corrupt from the bottom to 
the very top, and I can prove what I am saying with those remarks, are 
chagrined that even their judicial system has collapsed, even their 
judicial system is corrupt, and these decisions go as high as their 
Supreme Court in Mexico.

                              {time}  2300

  So, it is a very sad day when we have not one major Mexican drug 
dealer extradited to date. We have had one Mexican national, and that 
is only one, and that was a minor player, but not one major Mexican 
drug dealer has been extradited to the United States, and again, this 
is in spite of the assistance that this Congress has given that 
country, in spite of financial aid, NAFTA trade and other benefits that 
we have bestowed on Mexico.
  And part of it is because of the failed policy of this 
administration. They made a charade out of the certification process, 
rather than decertifying Mexico and giving them a national interest 
waiver and holding them under the microscope of our law which says that 
we must certify whether a country is fully cooperating.
  Now I ask you: Is Mexico fully cooperating when they let drug 
traffickers out? Is Mexico fully cooperating when last year these 
statistics were provided us?
  Mexican drug seizures were down in 1998. Opium was down, the seizure 
of opium in Mexico, 56 percent. The seizure of cocaine was down in 
Mexico by 35 percent. The seizure of vehicles and vessels involved in 
narcotic trafficking was down.
  To top it off, we held a hearing in our subcommittee to find out what 
was going on in Mexico, and I talked about corruption. This is a March 
16 article from the New York Times. This should absolutely frighten 
every Member of Congress, every member and parliamentarian in any 
civilized legislative body, to know that one country could be so 
corrupt from the bottom to the top, and particularly one that is a 
close ally of the United States.
  This article by Tim Golden details how our Customs agents penetrated 
Mexican military and other Mexican high officials' offices and 
discovered that the Mexicans, in this case a general and maybe as high 
as the Minister of Defense, were attempting to launder $1.15 billion. 
That is one individual was trying to launder $1.15 billion. That is how 
high the corruption has grown in this country, and that is how serious 
this problem is. And think about that. That is over a billion dollars 
that one individual was trying to launder in that country.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, what is the benefit to a 
country being certified, and why do we decertify it, and why has it 
become so political, because it does appear by the bipartisan findings 
of the gentleman's committee that Mexico is not cooperating in giving 
us the statistics that we need to fight drugs, but it seems to get 
politicized once the issue gets to the floor of the House.
  Mr. MICA. Well, only in this administration has it so politicized. 
The law is a simple law. The law was passed in 1986. President Reagan 
and the Republican Senate passed the law that just tied foreign aid and 
foreign assistance to cooperation in eradicating drugs and trafficking, 
stopping trafficking in their drugs.
  So the law is simple. It says that if a country is cooperating with 
the United States to stop illegal narcotics, then they get our finance 
benefits, they get our trade benefits, they get our foreign aid.
  Now Mexico does not get a lot in the way of foreign aid, as some 
Third World countries may get from the United States, but what it gets 
is tremendous trade benefits, a trade benefit and now we have an 
incredible imbalance, that many more cheap Mexican goods are pouring 
into the United States. We have lost tens of thousands of jobs to 
Mexico.
  We have provided most of the financing and underwriting for Mexico, 
including a bailout which basically saved their financial system. So in 
turn we ask for very little. We have asked for cooperation in going 
after these corrupt officials, we have asked for extradition.
  This is what Tom Constantine, our DEA administrator, said on February 
24, 1999. He said: In spite of existing United States warrants, 
government of Mexico indictments and actionable investigative leads 
provided to Mexico by U.S. enforcement, limited enforcement action has 
taken place within the last year.
  This is Tom Constantine, and I might say that one of the saddest bits 
of news that I bring to the floor tonight is that

[[Page 10877]]

Tom Constantine, who has been a shining light in this scandal-ridden 
administration, who has been a tough spokesperson in restarting the War 
on Drugs, there was no War on Drugs under this administration except 
for what Tom Constantine has done, Tom Constantine has unfortunately 
announced that he will be leaving this summer, a tremendous blow to our 
efforts. He is the only one who has been speaking out, the only one who 
has repeatedly said that we have to restore the eradication programs, 
the interdiction programs, the use of the military, the Coast Guard, 
and that tough law enforcement does work, and he has proved it time and 
time again before our committee with statistics, with facts. So, it is 
a great loss to the Congress, it is a great loss to the American 
people, it is a tremendous loss to the war on drugs which we have 
restarted under this Republican Congress, and his departure is a sad 
note for us this evening.
  I wanted to also talk tonight a little bit about some of the other 
things that Mexico was requested to do and has not done.
  First, I mentioned extradition. Then I mentioned going after these 
corrupt officials in enforcing their laws, and they did not enforce 
their laws.
  Even worse is we had an operation, another Customs operation in 
Mexico dealing with money laundering, and we found in this operation, 
which was called Operation Casablanca, that hundreds of millions of 
dollars were being money laundered, and when we discovered this, we 
informed the Mexicans. We know the Mexicans knew about this operation.
  What did the Mexicans do rather than cooperate with the United 
States? They threatened to indict and go after our Customs officials. 
So, did we have cooperation? The answer has to be no based on, again, 
the extradition requests, based on the failure to go after these 
corrupt officials, based on their coming after our agents and 
threatening them.
  So these are several areas, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Florida, and representing a 
border State, as I do in Arizona, I share my colleague's concern, Mr. 
Speaker, because as my friend from Florida has capably laid out for us 
this evening, the time has come for a reasonable, sober reassessment of 
our relationship with our ally, Mexico. That is something I do not say 
lightly, given the fact that the history of Arizona, indeed the history 
of this Congress of the United States has been one of cooperation with 
our neighbor to the south.
  But part of being a good neighbor entails a reasonable interchange 
and expression and ability to achieve common goals. As my friend has 
pointed out, sadly Mexico has devolved into a leading distributor and 
source of illegal drugs in our society, and because of that we must 
have this reassessment.
  It is especially vexing to a State like Arizona with a vast border 
area, with many problems that entail this situation in terms of border 
security, and let us not forget that it is our constitutional charge to 
protect the borders of the United States.

                              {time}  2310

  As compelling as the facts and figures are, I think both my friends 
from Florida and Georgia, Mr. Speaker, and indeed everyone in the 
House, knows there is a very real human equation at work that these 
threats come to Americans, and while this is not warfare in the 
traditional sense, still, it is an assault and an attack on the very 
fiber of our society. We talk about increasing drug usage. We talk 
about a cavalier attitude expressed, sadly, by this President in an 
appearance on MTV when asked by one of the young people in the 
audience, if you had it to do all over again, would you inhale, and the 
President said, yes, I would. To use that cavalier notion toward drug 
usage sets a pattern that is very difficult to break.
  Now our friend tells us of the soon-to-be expected departure of Mr. 
Constantine from his role and indeed, one who has observed this 
administration and tried to work on common goals, those of us in the 
Congress cannot help but note that it is incredibly ironic that many of 
the capable, effective people in a variety of different posts leave, 
and those who should bear the responsibility for a number of 
misadventures and maladroit steps insist on staying on the job in a 
variety of different areas.
  Indeed, I think we are not far afield at all when we point out that 
this is a threat to our families, to our citizenry; indeed, this is a 
threat to our national security. As much as we want to be a good 
neighbor, and I have participated in the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary 
Conference in the past, the State of Arizona has a very strong 
relationship with the Mexican State of Sonora first established by a 
former Governor of Arizona much earlier, now almost 30, maybe in excess 
of 30 years ago when we look at the panorama and the march of time, and 
yet the words of my colleague from Florida are compelling, because they 
insist that this House and this government reassess the relationship 
with Mexico, reassess our relationship with these States that export 
narcoterrorism, and that is something we do not say lightly. Because, 
as my colleague has pointed out, in the past Mexico has been a strong 
ally of the United States. As my colleagues have also pointed out, Mr. 
Speaker, the United States has been a good friend to Mexico.
  I can recall in the first days when I arrived when the now departing 
Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, came to new Members of the 104th 
Congress, asked us to step up to the plate and essentially bail out the 
Mexican economy, prop up the currency there, and of course the 
President found almost what could be called an executive end run to 
provide those loan guarantees because they knew it would be very rough 
going in the Congress of the United States.
  So I share my friend's concern. I salute his determination and his 
dedication to bringing this issue to light, and more than just bringing 
the issue to light, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida, in his 
committee jurisdiction, has also worked, as we did in the 105th 
Congress on the Drug Task Force, to find credible solutions. For that, 
I salute him, and from a border State like Arizona, and indeed across 
the whole phalanx of the Southwestern border of the United States, this 
becomes a major concern.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. Just as we see threats from around the 
world, threats as relevant as tomorrow's headlines in view of 
bipartisan work in other areas, so too do we confront a threat to our 
families, to our children and, sadly, directly in our hemisphere, and 
it is a threat that has gone unabated. It is a threat that has 
increased, and this House is compelled, I think, by the work of our 
colleague from Florida, to take a closer look to deal with the security 
of our homes, the security of our families; indeed, our national 
security in this very important area of rising drug abuse and a 
cavalier attitude that has been expressed.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his 
leadership and coming out tonight to talk about this topic that is so 
important to American society.
  I just want to continue along the line that I had been talking about, 
and that is the problems with Mexico. We have not had one major drug 
dealer extradited. Despite over 200 requests for extradition and 
requests specifically for over 40 major drug dealers, not one Mexican 
national has been extradited today as far as a major drug dealer.
  In addition to that, we talked about the enforcement, lack of 
enforcement, the corruption at the highest level, not enforcing the 
laws that they have on the books. In addition, this Congress asked two 
years ago that the Mexicans install radar to the south. It is a simple 
request. If we look at where the drugs are coming in, they are coming 
in from the south. We asked that they install radar to the south, and 
still no radar to the south that was promised, and again when our 
President met with President Zedillo in the Yucatan Peninsula earlier 
this year. To date, still no maritime agreement signed; there is no 
agreement to go after drug traffickers in these waters, particularly 
Mexican nationals.

[[Page 10878]]

  Finally, we had asked for protection of our drug DEA agents, our drug 
enforcement agents. We have a small number in that country. We had one 
of our agents just horribly tortured and murdered in the 1980s. We do 
not want to see that repeated. We want our agents to be able to defend 
themselves, and still we have been denied that ability for our law 
enforcement agents that are working in Mexico.
  So Mexico, what do we get? This administration ruined the 
certification process, made a joke of it and still continues to certify 
a country as fully cooperating. They are not by any measure.
  I might say tonight that we will have before this House in the not-
too-distant future several measures that will deal with this that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform; the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), our chairman of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), our 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, have been working on with the Members of Congress. So 
there still will be responsibility to the country of Mexico for their 
involvement in illegal narcotics. This new Congress will hold their 
feet to the fire.
  I just want to talk again about another failed policy, international 
policy, and it is our responsibility to deal with these issues of where 
the drugs are coming from. It is tougher as these drugs get to the 
streets, but if we can stop them at their source, their transiting 
before they get here, it is much more cost-effective.
  One of the stories we will not read on the front page of the paper 
tomorrow is about the bungled negotiations of this administration in 
Panama. Now, why is Panama important? Again, I can hold this up and if 
we look and see Colombia through Panama up to Mexico, that is where 
these narcotics transit. But Panama has been the center of all of our 
narcotics operations, all forward surveillance operations for the 
United States and the Caribbean area, the south and Central America. Of 
course we see where drugs are coming from, which is primarily from 
Colombia, one of the major sources that this administration has helped 
make a major source. And as of May 1, 1999, just a few weeks ago, we 
were basically kicked out of Panama. We had 15,000 flights from Panama 
last year, and there were zero as of May 1. This administration bungled 
the negotiations, and we were told months and months ago that 
negotiations were going forward. When we found out earlier this year 
that the State Department had dropped the ball, we asked what was going 
to be done. The administration has scurried the last few months and 
signed interim agreements with Curacao, Aruba, the Netherlands and also 
with Ecuador for temporary bases there.
  We were told that on May 1 we would be ready to go. We were told on 
May 1 we would have flights continuing.

                              {time}  2320

  We were told that, at the very worst, maybe we would have a 50 
percent reduction in flights after May 1 in testimony before our 
subcommittee. What have we found out that has taken place? From 
Ecuador, there are zero. There have been zero flights from Ecuador, 
zero flights. From Aruba and Curacao, just a few limited flights.
  So basically this administration bungled the negotiations with 
Panama. We are turning over 5,600 buildings, $10 billion in assets. 
Already we have seen, in addition to closing down Howard Air Force 
Base, another scandal that should be on the front pages of the 
newspaper, that our two ports in Panama that we had operated out of had 
been given through corrupt vendors, and these are the words of our 
administration officials, through corrupt vendors to foreign countries; 
and one of them happens to be the Chinese.
  In both instances, I believe the Chinese Liberation army owns or has 
a controlling interest in the stock and ownership of those activities. 
So we basically turned over the Panama Canal and one of the ports to 
the Red Chinese Army. The other one, again also through a corrupt 
vendor and through a Taiwan-Hong Kong front, that second port is gone.
  Our major drug operation in that entire region we have been kicked 
out of as of May 1. The interim agreements are not signed. I believe 
the agreement in Ecuador is only for a few months. At the last hearing 
our subcommittee held, we were presented a bill for another $40 plus 
million for improvements in addition to $73 million which the Drug Czar 
put in the budget for relocating the forward surveillance operations of 
the United States.
  So basically we are wide open for the hard drugs to come into this 
United States. Panama is a wide open area. Again we have lost our shirt 
and basically been kicked out. The $73 million originally requested 
plus the supplemental, $43 million, which has not been given yet, is 
only the tip of the iceberg. I am told we may be at a half a billion 
dollars to replace these operating facilities. We do not have a single 
permanent agreement in place.
  I do not know how an administration can possibly bungle anything in a 
more inept manner than they have done with this Panama situation and 
basically closing down all of our forward drug surveillance operations.
  These surveillance operations affect the operations, for example, in 
Peru, where we have gotten the cooperation of the Peruvian government 
to go in and eradicate narcotics fields, coca fields. Basically, that 
information stops because we do not have the operation going forward to 
identify those locations.
  So these are some of the incredible problems that I wanted to detail 
tonight, both with the Mexico, with Colombia failed policy, stopping 
again the equipment from getting into Colombia.
  I do not want to leave on a note that we are only here to criticize 
the administration. I must say that I am very proud of this new 
majority and what they have done. First of all, under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who is now the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, he came in several years ago and chaired the 
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal 
Justice on which I serve. In that capacity, he helped put together the 
war on drugs.
  We have to remember, from the day this President got elected, they 
dismantled the war on drugs. I have heard people say we do not have a 
war on drugs. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have not had a war on drugs. It was 
dismantled in January of 1993 by this President.
  From 1993, this President dismantled the war on drugs. The Congress, 
which was controlled by the Democrats in the House and the other body, 
by wide margins, dismantled systematically all of the programs that the 
Reagan and the Bush administration had put into placement and years and 
years of work.
  Some of that was bipartisan. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
and other Members on both sides of the aisle put together effective 
drug strategy. That was dismantled. There was no war on illegal drugs 
from 1993 to 1995.
  In 1996, the Republicans, who gained control, did damage assessment 
and started restoring some of the funds for eradication programs for 
interdiction, restoring the military in this effort, and for also 
putting back the Coast Guard on watch and active in this antinarcotics 
effort. So that is some of what we have done.
  We have, through the leadership of those that I have mentioned, 
again, including the current Speaker of the House, put back last year 
almost $1 billion in additional funding to support these efforts.
  In addition to the programs that I have talked about, enforcement, 
interdiction, eradication, we also put $195 million in education, which 
is the first time that anything has been done on that scale, to start 
educating our young people.
  If it has to be a paid message, if it is not a high message setting a 
role model from the office of the President of the United States, then 
we will pay

[[Page 10879]]

for it. That $195 million is matched by donations, at least equal to 
that sum.
  So hopefully we will, again, in restarting all of these efforts, and 
particularly in education, we can get out the message. The First Lady 
under President Reagan, Mrs. Reagan, had a simple message: ``Just say 
no.'' It was repeated over and over and effective, and our young people 
heard that message.
  But there has been a gap in this administration. No word, a mixed 
message, a mixed signal, no role model for young people to look up to. 
We have seen the results, and I described them here tonight. There is 
an 875 percent increase in heroin usage by our teenagers 12 to 17, 
dramatic figures that should shock every American and every Member of 
Congress.
  So we have, again, put these programs back together that work. We are 
overseeing those programs. We will see if they are cost effective, if 
they are working, and will continue to expand them.
  In the next few weeks when we return, we will be conducting a hearing 
on the question of legalization and decriminalization. I know the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and his State has taken action on 
this issue. We do not know if they are headed in the right direction or 
the wrong direction. We do know that tough enforcement works.
  The Guiliani in New York City method works. It cuts crime. It cuts 
murders. It cuts drug deaths. It cuts violence in our streets when one 
of our largest cities is one of our safest cities.
  We see the alternative. Baltimore, which Tom Constantine, our DEA 
director, who is leaving, pointed out to us just a few years ago, 
Baltimore had 900,000 people and less than 1,000 heroin addicts. 
Through a liberal policy and a permissive policy Baltimore now has a 
population of 600,000. It has dropped 300,000 people. It has 39,000 
heroin addicts.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who is my former ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Civil Service and on this subcommittee 
has told me privately that the estimate is probably in excess of 50,000 
heroin addicts in Baltimore.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, is it not 
true that Baltimore also had a very aggressive, privately funded by 
very liberal philanthropists, a needle exchange program where addicts 
could have quick and easily available access to free needles? That was 
one of the misguided policies that led to such a dramatic increase in 
the number of addicts.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is true that Baltimore has had one of the 
most liberal policies and has now been devastated. When any city in 
this Nation has 39,000 heroin addicts, we have a major, major problem.

                              {time}  2330

  And the crime, the social disruption, the human tragedy that that has 
caused in a liberal policy is very serious.
  So I intend, as chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug 
Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform to 
conduct hearings beginning in June, when we return, on this question. 
We will examine what is going on in Baltimore, what is going on in New 
York, in other countries.
  And we hope to also look at Arizona, which has had a 
decriminalization program that they have touted. And we will see 
whether that is successful and whether it is something we should look 
at as a model; whether it is something that should have the support of 
this Congress or whether they are headed in the wrong direction and we 
should not support those efforts.
  So I am pleased tonight to come and provide the House, Mr. Speaker, 
with an update on some of our activities in our subcommittee, some of 
my efforts to try to bring to light what I consider is the biggest 
social problem facing this Nation, I know in my lifetime, I know in a 
generation, and that is the problem of illegal narcotics.
  Again, over 14,000 Americans lost their lives last year. Over 100,000 
have died from illegal narcotics since this President took office.
  It is a human tragedy that extends far beyond Columbine or Jonesboro 
or any of the other tragedies we have seen in this Nation. And as I 
said, it is repeated day after day in community after community, and we 
can read it in the obituaries.
  I am not here just to complain about the cost to the Federal 
Government. I am here to complain about the loss in productive lives. 
Even in this city, which is our Nation's Capital, of which we should 
all be proud, each year that I have come here in the last 10 years they 
have lost between 400 and 500 young people, mostly black African-
American males who have been slaughtered on the streets, most in 
tragedies, some by guns, some by knives, some by other violent death, 
but almost all related to illegal narcotics trafficking.
  And that is the root of some of the problems in the streets of 
Washington, D.C., and across our country, when we have 60 to 70 percent 
of those behind bars there because of felonies committed under the 
influence of illegal narcotics or trafficking in illegal narcotics or 
committing felonies under the influence of illegal narcotics.
  So we have a serious social problem. It is ignored by this 
administration, it has been ignored by this President, but it is not 
going to be ignored by this new majority. And if I only serve the 
remainder of this term in Congress, every week I will be here talking 
about this problem and its effects on the American people and what we 
intend to do as far as positive programs to resolve that. And we will 
do that. We will succeed.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Florida again for his leadership 
and for bringing this problem to the floor.
  And again I would say that this is a question of security, personal 
security and the security of our families and our communities. Because, 
as my colleague pointed out very graphically and very tragically, the 
cost in human lives, with the incredible violence that accompanies 
illicit drug distribution and use, is ultimately a question of our 
national security and the security of our borders.
  And, indeed, on the geopolitical stage, the consequence of those who 
would or who have traditionally been our friends is now sadly changing, 
if not to foes, then certainly not aiding us in the traditional sense 
as allies have in the past. And again, from the State of Arizona, from 
my constituents in the Sixth District, and indeed all across America, 
because this is a problem that transcends our borders, that transcends 
State lines, that sadly goes virtually into every community in the 
United States, it is a question we must address.
  This is one of many vexing questions that now have come into our 
purview and that have gained the prominence and attention necessary, 
and again the gentleman is to be saluted for offering a clarion call to 
this House, to this government and, more importantly, to our people in 
terms of the tough choices that loom ahead for this House and for this 
Nation.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman and yield finally to the gentleman 
from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me again say to the gentleman from Florida that we 
appreciate everything he is doing, the diligence that he is showing in 
taking this on. I wish him the best and thank him. And I want him to 
know that he has the support of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) and myself, and we will be following up with the gentleman 
and working with him.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________