[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15234-15239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    ILLEGAL NARCOTICS AND DRUG ABUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 am pleased to come to the floor of the House 
tonight to address the House on the topic of illegal narcotics and drug 
abuse, the problems that it presents for our whole Nation, the 
challenge for the United States Congress.
  I would be remiss, however, if I did not comment for just a moment 
tonight on the passing of our dear colleague in the other body, the 
United States Senate, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Paul Coverdell, 
who passed away today.
  Certainly, our hearts and prayers are with his family at this time 
and the whole Congress mourns this great loss, his many contributions I 
know in the war on narcotics. I know in the war on narcotics there was 
always a true leader and friend who we had the opportunity to work 
with. His presence will be sorely missed by the entire Congress, I know 
by the state of Georgia that he so ably represented, and by the 
American people for his dedication to our nation.
  So our heartfelt sympathy is extended to the State of Georgia and his 
loved ones as they now cope with this tragic loss. And we have indeed 
lost one of the fighters in our war on narcotics, illegal drug 
trafficking, and the problem of substance abuse.
  So, with those comments, again, we mourn this great loss to this 
esteemed institution and again to our country.
  Tonight, as is customary for me as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, I attempt to use 
this special order and usually try to take an hour and discuss some of 
the problems and challenges we face with the problem of substance abuse 
in this country, with the problem of illegal narcotics, the problem of 
drug and illegal narcotic production and trafficking that has affected 
our entire Nation, that has affected every city, every community small, 
large, rural or urban.
  Almost every family in America has been affected by substance abuse 
and the ravages of illegal narcotics. I always cite that the most 
recent statistic of 15,973 Americans have lost their lives as a direct 
result of illegal narcotics. And those are again the numbers in direct 
death.
  Our drug czar estimates that over 52,000 Americans have died in the 
last year because of substance abuse, illegal narcotics direct, and 
indirect results. And the toll does go on and on.
  Again, so many families are tragically affected. It is not only a 
cost in lost lives but a cost in our economy in the third of a trillion 
dollar range each year, a loss of jobs, and also of income, the 
glutting of our judicial system, our jails with nearly 2 million 
Americans incarcerated behind bars. Some 60 to 70

[[Page 15235]]

percent of those behind bars in most of our communities and States are 
there because of drug-related offenses.

                              {time}  2215

  As I have also tried to point out in my presentations based on the 
facts and substantial studies that have been conducted, the most recent 
being last spring in New York which analyzed the effects of the 20 some 
thousand incarcerated in that State for drug-related offenses, most of 
them are there for repeated felonies, most of them are there because 
they have really gamed the system and not cooperated. Some 70 percent, 
as I said, are there because of multiple felonies, but again you go 
back to illegal narcotics, drug abuse and the problems that it creates 
among those individuals and you cannot help but to say that we have a 
situation that is intolerable for our judicial system, that is 
intolerable for those incarcerated, their families, and for our society 
at large.
  So our challenge has been the last year and a half plus of the 
subcommittee to try to weave together a coherent national drug policy, 
to look at all the options that we have for dealing with this problem, 
to review some of the initiatives and actions that have taken place 
across the Nation, see if they make sense, see if they can be adapted 
to other situations, and see if they provide some opportunity for 
relief from the situation.
  I always like to take a minute and review how we got ourselves into 
this situation. I heard this weekend, just within the last few days, 
people repeat the question, is the war on drugs a failure? What is 
happening in the war on drugs? If people listen and take a few minutes 
to understand what has happened, I think there is a very clear picture 
of what works and what does not work. You would have people tell you 
that the war on drugs is again a failure, and I say absolutely not, 
that a war on drugs as devised by the Reagan administration and the 
Bush administration was in fact a success. In fact, the statistics, the 
facts, the pure facts, bear out the success of the war on drugs 
conducted by the two previous Presidents.
  I have cited and I will cite again a national household survey that 
said based on the data that they collected, and this is consistent data 
over a good time period, illicit drug use declined by 50 percent from 
1985 to 1992. That is a pretty dramatic decrease. If we look at the 
statistics from the beginning of the Clinton administration to the 
present time, we have almost the opposite, almost a 50 percent increase 
in illicit and illegal drug use. So the facts bear out, there are again 
surveys that have been conducted over a long period of time show that 
indeed a true, full-fledged effort, leadership by the President, 
leadership by the Vice President, at that time Mr. Bush who went on to 
be the President and also continued the policy, a multifaceted approach 
in which you have presidential leadership, you have a program to stop 
drugs at their source, a successful international drug program that 
deals with elimination of the crops, elimination of the narcotic at its 
source, which is most cost effective, and an interdiction policy, one 
that incorporates the use of our national resources and assets such as 
our military in a war on drugs to stop drugs as they leave their source 
where they are grown or where they begin and stop those drugs, those 
illegal narcotics in their tracks, a comprehensive program of 
prevention and treatment. We know that it takes again a multifaceted 
effort, that you must have successful treatment, you must have a 
successful prevention program, you must have a campaign that reiterates 
that illegal drugs do harm even if it is the first lady who has a 
``Just Say No'' program or a DARE program in school, many of the 
programs that again were so successful under the Reagan and Bush 
administration that resulted from 1985 to 1992 in a 50 percent 
reduction of illicit drug use. Again part of a multifaceted approach, 
the utilization of all of our resources at the Federal level, the Coast 
Guard, the military, surveillance and intelligence information and, of 
course, a tough zero tolerance in law enforcement.
  All that changed and took a 180 degree turn with this 
administration's coming into office, but again the success was really 
incredible during the past two administrations.
  Let me, if I may, put this chart up here. Again, this shows the 
statistic that I just relayed from the national household survey. You 
see from the beginning of the Reagan administration through the Bush 
administration, a real war on drugs, a decline in the prevalence of 
lifetime drug use and abuse. You see the beginning of the Clinton 
administration, 1992, 1993, the tragedy we now see ourselves in. Only 
since the advent of the new Republican Congress have we seen any slight 
leveling out in again this long-term picture. Overall casual drug use 
was cut by more than half if we went back to 1997 and 1992. Casual 
cocaine use fell some 79 percent while monthly use fell from 2.9 
million users in 1988 to 1.3 million in 1992. So if anyone tells you 
that the war on drugs, and this is when we had a real war on drugs, was 
a failure, these are the hard statistics, hard facts, something that I 
have not made up, something that has been part of a national survey, a 
very legitimate national survey. This is the record of the Clinton 
administration.
  Now, the difference with the Clinton administration is when President 
Clinton took office in 1993, he began dismantling the war on drugs, and 
they dismantled piece by piece. The very first steps were in fiscal 
year 1994-1995, the Coast Guard was cut, their budget, and they have an 
important role in this effort and to conduct a real war on drugs. Their 
drug operations were cut from $310 million to $301 million. The 
customs, also an important part of this effort, their drug funds were 
cut by the Clinton administration, and the Clinton administration, 
remember, in 1994 and 1995 controlled the House of Representatives by a 
wide, wide margin, the other body by a wide margin and the White House, 
the executive branch. They cut the customs budget from $16.2 million to 
$12.8 million. DEA, our drug enforcement agency, our Federal agency 
dealing with the antinarcotics problems and enforcement was slashed 
from $16.2 million to $12.8 million. And DOD, our first line of 
defense. Now, the Department of Defense does not arrest anyone in a war 
on drugs. The Department of Defense is prohibited even by the 
Constitution and provisions of our laws from being an enforcer in 
domestic law enforcement. What the Defense Department has done as 
enlisted in the Reagan and Bush administration was to provide 
intelligence and information. Our planes and our ships and our 
satellites, our AWACs, other equipment is already in the air for 
national security purposes. Now, if I told you that an enemy was to 
kill 15,972 Americans last year or 2 years ago and result in the deaths 
of over 50,000 Americans each year, Americans and Members of Congress 
should and would rise up and say, let's stop that, let's go after that. 
Using our military, we in fact in this period, in the Reagan-Bush 
period in interdiction and also in intelligence information gathering 
were able to stem the flow of illegal narcotics coming into the United 
States, also go after traffickers most successfully. You have heard the 
results of a successful war on drugs, a 50 percent reduction from 1985 
to 1992 in illicit drug use. You heard that casual cocaine use fell by 
some 79 percent while monthly use fell from 2.9 million users in 1988 
to 1.3 million in 1992. Now, the Bush and Reagan administration did not 
erase the problem of illegal narcotics or substance abuse but they made 
a dramatic decrease in them.
  This is the Clinton record. Some 50 percent cut in interdiction 
programs and dramatic cuts in international programs, cost effectively 
stopping narcotics at their source.
  This chart shows again the picture of the dismantling of the war on 
drugs and the reason we see this incredible flood of illegal narcotics 
coming into the United States and problems throughout every 
jurisdiction across our land. You see the levels in 1991, 1992, this 
shows the end of the Bush administration. The red shows interdiction, 
the blue shows international. Again, international would be stopping

[[Page 15236]]

drugs at their source. You see the dramatic cuts in half of 
international programs. You see the dramatic decline in interdiction. 
This is the use of the military. You see this begin to pick up again 
with the advent of the Republican-controlled Congress. And we are 
getting back, and if we use 1991-1992 dollars, we are getting back just 
about to the level we were with the successful efforts at the end of 
the Bush administration. But this has been quite an uphill battle.
  Now, we know where the illegal narcotics are coming from. This chart 
provided by the National Drug Intelligence Center to me shows us that 
the drugs are coming from South America and primarily today from 
Colombia, both cocaine and heroin. Now, I know it is hard for people to 
believe this, but 7 years ago at the beginning of the Clinton 
administration there was almost zero heroin being produced in Colombia. 
That is heroin actually being produced with poppy growth in that 
country. In 1992-1993 there was almost no coca, the base for cocaine, 
produced in Colombia. In 7 years and through very direct policy of this 
administration, the production of coca and cocaine is now reaching some 
70 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States and is 
seized, we know 70 percent comes from Colombia. We know that cocaine 
that is produced in Colombia now accounts for about 80 percent of all 
the production coming in.
  We know what works. We know that a successful international program, 
a program where we have tough enforcement, we have surveillance, and we 
also have crop alternatives, these peasants and others who were 
producing these crops need some alternative to make a living, and the 
reason they are doing it now is they are being paid for it. The reason 
they are doing it now in Colombia is they are financing narcoterrorist 
activity and receiving payment and protection.

                              {time}  2230

  We have not been going after those individuals, and, again, that is 
the direct result of this administration and its lack of will to really 
conduct a full scale war on drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of conducting a war on drugs, they have been 
dismantling the war on drugs. As we saw from the chart that I 
previously put up, the Clinton administration dramatically cut both the 
international and interdiction budgets. Federal spending under a 
Republican-controlled Congress has increased some 84 percent, again, 
for interdiction, and back to about the 1991-1992 levels.
  On international programs, we have increased the funding some 170 
percent over the last Democrat-controlled Congress. That number will 
probably even surge more with Plan Colombia, which, again, we know 
where the problem is, we know where our resources need to go.
  During the past several years, under the Republican-controlled House 
and Senate, we have put together a strategic plan in Bolivia and Peru. 
We have cut coca production by some 63 percent in Peru, by over 55 
percent in Bolivia. Part of Plan Colombia has funds for both Peru and 
Bolivia and also some of the neighboring countries, because we know 
when we apply pressure on Colombia that there will be an inclination to 
move some of that production to other neighboring areas.
  The plan does entail bringing resources into this entire region. This 
is where the drugs are coming from; most of it is Colombia and a little 
bit in the peripheral area. That is where we need to concentrate some 
other resources.
  Mr. Speaker, of course, interdiction and source country programs 
alone will not stop illegal narcotics. It takes a full effort.
  It is interesting to note that one of the next steps that the Clinton 
administration took in 1993 after taking office was to dismantle the 
drug czar's office. They talked about cuts in Federal bureaucracy, and 
their idea was to cut the staffing of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. It was cut 80 percent from 147 positions to 25 
positions.
  Imagine conducting a war on drugs by dismantling the effective and 
very low dollar expenditure source country programs, stop drugs at 
their source. Imagine taking the military out of the war on narcotics, 
which they did. Their next step in cutting the budget for any type of 
antinarcotic, again, very few dollars, because we already have our 
military engaged in some of these activities, the next step was to gut 
the drug czar's office.
  Mr. Speaker, probably the most disastrous two things that this 
administration did next was to appoint Lee Brown, I believe his name 
is, as the drug czar. He single-handedly did more damage in dismantling 
our war on drugs that had been started and so successfully executed by 
President Reagan and President Bush and their administration.
  In fact, I remember as a Member of the minority in 1993 attending 
hearings of the predecessor of the Committee on Government Reform, it 
was called Government Operations, they held, I believe, one full 
hearing. Mr. Brown came up to testify.
  The hearing was a farce, and over 130 Members, bipartisan Members, 
asked for hearings to be conducted on our national drug policy and the 
dismantling basically of the war on drugs, which they very directly 
were dismantling during that time frame.
  One hearing in 2 years while they dismantled the program; it was 
sinful. One hearing while the drug czar, Mr. Brown, appointed by 
President Clinton destroyed 2 President's work, 2 administration's work 
and effort, which was reducing, and we heard there was a 50 percent 
reduction in drug use from 1985 to 1990 to a successful war on drugs 
shut down.
  During the Bush administration, the United States shared real-time 
intelligence with some of the drug-producing countries, including Peru, 
in an effort to allow them to force down and, in some cases, provided 
information to allow them to shoot down drug trafficking aircraft so 
their illegal cargos could be seized or destroyed.
  This was primarily done through again the interdiction program, 
through radar and through surveillance flights.
  On May 1, 1994, the Clinton administration stopped this program. And 
it was not until there was an absolute uproar in the House of 
Representatives and the other body, we really had to pass a 
clarification in law to convince the administration to reinstitute 
these drug surveillance missions and provide that information for shoot 
down.
  The Clinton administration did an incredible amount of damage in 
stopping that information sharing and repeatedly, as recently as 1998, 
the Clinton appointed ambassador to Peru wrote again, and I have a copy 
of it as reported to me by the General Accounting Office in a report. I 
had them independently conduct a study of the problem of declining DOD 
assets and participation.
  In spite of even Congress now funding additional money, the assets 
have been diverted by the Clinton administration from this region and 
from conducting a real war on drugs. Again, in 1994, they made the 
first error. In 1998, they made the same error in not sharing with our 
allies in this effort information so that they can take action against 
drug traffickers, drug producers in their country.
  I hate to drag up old problems, but we have to look at in the entire 
picture. And at the beginning of the Clinton administration, it is 
important to remind the Congress that White House staffers actually 
were forced with delays in obtaining security clearance process in the 
issuance of permanent White House passes.
  As we may recall, in 1995 up to 21 White House staffers were on a 
special random drug testing program, because of concerns about recent 
drug use. Hearings were conducted on this. And I believe the problem 
became so serious that the Secret Service instituted a requirement that 
there be a special random drug testing program in the White House.
  We might say, well, why would policy come out of the administration 
to destroy a war on drugs? And I submit, my colleagues, when we have 21 
White House staffers on a special random

[[Page 15237]]

drug testing program, which is instituted at the insistence of the 
Secret Service, because these individuals could not even pass a basic 
test and background check because of their recent illicit narcotics 
involvement, I think we see a little bit of the problem that we have 
been facing in this whole effort to really conduct a real antinarcotic 
effort.
  In testimony before Congress, the Secret Service and FBI agents 
testified that the White House employees may have used illicit drugs at 
the Presidential inaugural in January of 1993.
  One Secret Service Agent testified that he had reviewed more than 30 
background investigations for White House employees that contained 
references to recent drug uses. In fact, we had testimony that said, 
and let me repeat it, I have seen cocaine usage. I have seen 
hallucinistic uses, crack uses. This is not something I said. This is 
from their direct testimony.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, also, that in a sworn 
statement, one FBI agent said aides' drug use went well beyond the 
experimental use of marijuana in college, including cocaine, designer 
drugs and hallucinistic mushrooms.
  We might all recall, some of the problems of a famous White House 
aide, we still do not know who hired him, that is a great mystery, we 
may never know. I believe the independent counsel has dropped the case, 
but the infamous who hired Craig Livingston.
  I remember so well sitting in those hearings as he took the 5th 
amendment. He and others who suddenly lost their memory or ability to 
testify before our investigative panel.
  Craig Livingston, as my colleagues will recall, was the chief of 
White House Personnel Security and reigned over his offices improper 
acquisition of FBI files. Those files were primarily of Reagan and Bush 
administration officials and staffers, even some of our congressional 
staffers.
  He acknowledged in his own history illicit drug use and other 
problems which caused him to be fired from several jobs before he 
joined the White House staff in 1993. Now, Craig Livingston was the 
head of the personnel security office for the White House.
  Again, we have to look at the whole picture of who we have been 
involved with in trying to conduct and put together a coherent national 
drug policy and a strategy that is effective.
  Mr. Speaker, we have known from the very beginning that as we put 
pressure on Peru and Bolivia to stop production of coca and cocaine 
that we would have to deal at some point with Colombia. Everyone on our 
side of the aisle and many on the Democrat side of the aisle have urged 
that we get resources to Colombia. Again, this is not rocket science.
  We know that most of the narcotics coming into the United States are 
produced in that area, in Colombia. We have known that it is very 
difficult to get to the crop, to destroy the crop, and also to the 
narcoterrorists who are involved in the narcotics trafficking. It takes 
helicopters. In this instance, we know it takes Blackhawk helicopters 
that are capable of high altitude flights and going after drug 
traffickers.
  Mr. Speaker, time and time and time again, this administration has 
blocked resources to Colombia. Time and time again, this administration 
has blocked helicopters coming into Colombia.
  According to the Defense Department, it took the Clinton 
administration 45 days to move 24 helicopters to Albania for an 
undeclared war in Kosovo.
  According to the Defense Department also, it has taken the Clinton 
administration approximately 4 years to get 6 Blackhawk helicopters to 
Colombia in a so-called declared war on drugs.
  Now, imagine fighting a war on the drugs, we do not go after the 
source of the production of the destructive device, which are the 
narcotics; we do not go after that. We do not try to get the narcotics 
or the destructive devices that leaves the source and uses our 
military, we take the military out of the battle. And here, where we 
need resources to go in and get that death and destruction, which is 
reigning in our cities and counties, and the Congress funds and 
appropriates and passes resolutions urging action, in fact, it took 4 
years to get 6 helicopters to Colombia.

                              {time}  2245

  Now, if that was not bad enough, and this is not something I am 
making up, it is the absolute truth, when we finally got several of the 
helicopters delivered at the beginning of the year 2000, they were 
delivered without armor, adequate armor, to be used in conflict, 
without adequate ammunition.
  Now again, I swear I am not making this up, but we needed to get 
ammunition if we are going to conduct a war on drugs. The Congress has 
appropriated funds year after year, at least since we took control of 
the Congress, to get these resources to Colombia. The administration, 
the President, the vice president, divert funds to other international 
deployments. The resources never got to Colombia.
  Only the year before last we appropriated $300 million and, again, as 
of the end of last year almost nothing had gotten to Colombia, and the 
little bit that did get there of the $300 million most of it was in the 
helicopters that we had ordered some time ago which were delivered in 
an inoperable, noncombat condition; almost unbelievable.
  Again I am not making this up, but there is more to this story. The 
ammunition that we needed to give the Colombians to fight the 
narcotraffickers ended up being delivered to the loading dock of the 
State Department in Washington instead of Colombia. Then I swear I am 
not making this up, but again the gang that could not shoot straight, 
the helicopters that cannot fly or are not armored, the story gets 
worse. The ammunition that is sent to the loading dock of the State 
Department, I swear this is the truth, they sent them 1952 ammunition, 
some of which they recommend is not usable in the other equipment that 
has been sent. So it really boggles the imagination.
  Now we have provided very significant resources, $1.3 billion. That 
is not all for Colombia. It is in a larger package. Actually, the 
amount to be spent for equipment is a small portion of that, a small 
fraction of that. To appease the liberals and some of the others who 
are concerned about human rights violations, we have put in probably as 
much money for building institutions, nation building, we are going 
through another exercise of that in Colombia and other funds. There is 
some money in there that is for crop alternative, and I think that will 
be very wise to expend. We have known through our efforts in other 
countries that you have to have a successful crop alternative or 
alternative development program, but you also have to have tough 
enforcement. But there is a lot more to the story than meets the eye. 
These Black Hawk helicopters, in fact, were promised to the Colombian 
national police back in 1996. Repeatedly you can get headlines. Here is 
one from February of 1998, Delay of Copters hobbles Colombia in 
Stopping Drugs. This little note says check the date. It is the end of 
1997, 1998.
  So year after year, the administration has blocked this. It is only 
after the administration, I am told, conducted a poll, and I cannot 
confirm this but they found that there was some criticism for their 
approach and that they needed to get their act together. Now, it took 
the President 4 or 5 years to come forward and change his policy, this 
administration, and declare an emergency. Only when the whole region is 
disrupted, only when we almost lost Colombia, only when part of the oil 
supply from that region, I think accounts for 20 percent of U.S. 
imports is endangered, only after 30,000 people have been killed in one 
of the bloodiest conflicts of the hemisphere and again only after the 
situation has reached disastrous proportions, has the administration 
come forward with a plan.
  The end of last year they said that this was getting out of control; 
they had to do something. I am also told that they polled and saw that 
even the public was being concerned, and they usually act when they see 
a poll.
  That forced the President to propose Plan Colombia and recommend to 
the Congress that we move forward with an emergency appropriation. 
Unfortunately, that emergency appropriation

[[Page 15238]]

request did not get to the Congress until February of this year. So it 
took the President 5 years to get a plan and action where we know 
narcotics are being produced, where he allowed narcotics to be produced 
and become the center of narcotics activity, and I am pleased that the 
Congress has acted within 5 months. It started out as an emergency 
supplemental and was signed by the President, I believe, last week.
  Now I keep my fingers crossed that we have given the gang that cannot 
shoot straight this responsibility now to get these resources to where 
we know the illegal narcotics are coming from.
  If I may, I am going to try to conclude in a reasonable amount of 
time here tonight so staff can get home a little bit early, but this is 
another chart that I think the Congress, Mr. Speaker, and the American 
people should pay particular attention to. I always hear the war on 
drugs is a failure, and the other side always says we just have to 
spend money on treatment; treatment is the answer. I compare it a 
little bit to just treating the wounded in battle.
  Imagine conducting a fight, not going after the enemy, not stopping 
the weapons of mass destruction where they are produced, not stopping 
the missiles and other things that are being lobbed at us, the illegal 
narcotics, and just treating the wounded in a battle. How long do you 
think you could last if we had just treated the wounded in battle in 
World War II or any of the major conflicts? And certainly a conflict 
that takes 15,900-plus lives in one year as a direct result of the 
conflict, the problem, or 50,000 a year, is a major threat to our 
Nation and our national security.
  This chart shows that consistently, well we will go back to the 
beginning of the Clinton administration, we have increased funding for 
treatment. In fact, it is almost double for treatment. So we cut, under 
the Clinton administration, the war on drugs, the interdiction, the 
source country programs, the military, the Coast Guard, other budgets. 
They cut them by some 50 percent.
  We are now restoring them, as you can see in these lines getting back 
to our equivalent of 1991/1992 dollars, but treatment has always been 
on the increase. It is just like here, but other than that we have 
basically doubled the amount of money that we have spent on treatment; 
and treatment alone does not work. I think the prime example of that is 
Baltimore, and I bring this chart up again.
  Again, people just have to understand that a policy of toleration, of 
liberalization of the narcotics law, of nonenforcement of our laws 
relating to narcotics, attracts death and destruction.
  This was provided to me in 1996 by our drug enforcement office. It 
shows the deaths in Baltimore: 1997, 312; 1998, 312; 1999, 308, and I 
believe 2000 is probably heading close to record. It shows the 
population decreasing. It shows about 39,000 drug addicts in 1996, and 
the estimates are now 60,000 to 80,000 drug addicts. These are people 
in need of treatment. This is a liberal policy, a policy of 
nonenforcement.
  The police chief here in Baltimore, former police chief, fortunately 
he was fired, said in testimony before our subcommittee on a Monday 
several months ago that he had not participated in a high intensity 
drug trafficking program. The Feds had made dollars and cooperative 
efforts available. He had said he was only going to go after a limited 
number of open drug markets in Baltimore. Fortunately, the mayor heard 
him and on Thursday he was fired, and they are bringing in a zero 
tolerance law enforcement officer; but this shows the death and 
destruction.
  This is just about half the number of New York City. New York City 
had about 350 murders in New York City last year. It went from 2,000 
murders, a 58 percent reduction, down to about 650, a dramatic 
decrease, a zero tolerance policy with New York City versus a 
nonenforcement policy of Baltimore; incredible growth in addict 
population. If the entire country went to this policy, we saw this many 
deaths, this much destruction, we could never keep up with what we 
would face.
  The New York statistics compared to Baltimore are startling. In red, 
Baltimore, 1993, you see the murder rate staying constant in red and 
Baltimore dropping dramatically from 2,000 down to the mid-650s. It is 
very dramatic.
  Remember New York City has a population probably of 10 million and 
you are looking at probably 500,000, 600,000, continuing declining 
population in Baltimore. In fact, I picked up the Baltimore Sun and it 
says as population drops city must look to D.C. This is a July 15 
article I read the other day. This is what the policy will do for your 
community if you are thinking of adopting a nonenforcement policy. With 
4,890 residential properties appearing this week on the multiple 
listings and dozens of additional houses being advertised directly by 
the owners, the city has a glut of unsold homes.
  Anyone doubting this should drive around various row house 
neighborhoods and count signs, and that is before the estimated 40,000 
vacant houses are considered. In other words, the city is still losing 
population. Hopefully it is not too late. Hopefully the new mayor 
O'Malley and the new police chief can bring this situation under 
control.
  I will say what has not worked is the policy they have had in place, 
and I will say what has worked is New York's zero tolerance policy.
  This is, again, a dramatic representation of the way crime has been 
reduced in New York City from 1993 to 1998, and it continues. If you 
see the tough enforcement of drug-related offenses, and the arrests as 
they go up the crime goes down in New York City.
  I also show that chart, and people would have you believe that this 
is not a success, but it is a success. Murder and nonnegligent 
manslaughter declined some 67 percent from 1993 to 1998. The total of 
all major felony crimes fell from 51 percent in 1993 to 1998, a 51 
percent decrease in those categories.
  As a result of Mayor Giuliani's tough enforcement policies, based on 
what the murder rate was before he took office, more than 3,500 people 
are alive in New York City; again, just dramatic results.
  Now, the other side would probably say that this zero tolerance is a 
brutal regime. Let me say that we had Mayor Giuliani and we have had 
his police commissioner testify and provide our subcommittee the facts. 
For example, one thing is that the fatal shootings by police officers 
in 1999 was 11.

                              {time}  2300

  It was the lowest of any year since 1973, the first year for which 
records were kept. That is far less than the 41 police shootings that 
took place in 1990.
  Now, where was Reverend Sharpton or whatever his name is in 1990 
screaming when there were 41 shootings that took place. Moreover, the 
number of rounds intentionally fired by police in New York declined by 
50.6 percent since 1993, and the number of intentional shooting 
incidents by police dropped by 66.5 percent, while the number of actual 
police officers that were employed in New York City increased by 37.9 
percent.
  Now, do not deal with the facts, and these happen to be the facts. 
They will tell us that this tough enforcement does not work. It does 
work. Look at the crimes. Look at the people's lives who have not been 
ravaged. Look at the thousands who are living as a result of this 
policy, and there are less incidents of shootings, with a 37.9 percent 
increase in police officers.
  Mr. Speaker, there were 62 percent more shootings by police officers 
per capita in the last year of David Dinkins' administration last year 
than under Mayor Giuliani. The press will not tell us that. 
Specifically, in 1993, there were 212 incidents involving police 
officers in intentional shootings. In 1994, there were 167. In 1998, 
under Mayor Giuliani, there were 111. Mr. Speaker, 111 compared to 212, 
a dramatic decrease under Mayor Giuliani. In 1993, under David Dinkins' 
last year in office, there were 7.4 shooting incidents per officer. 
That ratio is now down to 2.8 shooting incidents per 1,000 officers.

[[Page 15239]]

  By contrast, the misguided approach of others will tell us that this 
does not work. They will tell us that the war on drugs is a failure, 
when we can show tonight that there was, in fact, a 50 percent plus 
reduction under Presidents Reagan and Bush, from 1985 to 1992, and 
since there has been a dramatic increase.
  So the war on drugs is not a failure. The tough enforcement policy is 
not a failure. It does not brutalize anyone. In fact, these projects 
and programs of tough enforcement do work.
  Finally, during the mid 1990s, I will cite as another example, 
Richmond, the capital of the Commonwealth of Virginia, had one of the 
worst per capita murder rates in history, peaking in 1997 with 140 
murders. What they did in Richmond, the capital of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, was institute a tough gun enforcement law entitled Project 
Exile, tough prosecution. Homicides in 1998 were approximately 33 
percent below 1997, the lowest number since 1987, since the program was 
instituted. Tough enforcement works in Richmond, it works in New York 
City. The policies where we turn our back and let drug dealers rule the 
streets in our neighborhoods, those programs do not work. Just drive 
through Baltimore, move your business to Baltimore, or move to 
Baltimore and you will see. It is my hope we can turn Baltimore around. 
Baltimore is a great American city with a great history, a beautiful 
area and with wonderful people who have endured the wrong policy. The 
American people have also endured the wrong policy as it relates to not 
having a real war on drugs, and we can change that.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will learn by these costly lessons of the 
past. I hope that we will give a serious effort to conducting a real 
war on drugs, and that the funds that this Congress has appropriated 
from the American people, hard-working American taxpayers' monies they 
are sending here are appropriately expended to bring this situation 
under control so that we have a balanced program of interdiction, of 
source-country programs, of treatment, of education, of prevention; a 
well-balanced program that we know from the Reagan-Bush era did work, 
that reduced drug usage in this country by some 50 percent.
  So that is my hope, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the House and in the other body in an effort to again to 
find sensible, cost-effective and real solutions to the real problem we 
are facing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the staff for staying late again 
any hearing my Tuesday night presentation. I am tired too; I would like 
to have turned in early, but I think this is most important, that we 
keep repeating this message, and that people understand the problem and 
challenge that we are faced with, with illegal narcotics.

                          ____________________