John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor again tonight to talk about the issue of illegal narcotics and its impact upon the United States of America. As I begin my remarks tonight, I want to take a moment and pay special tribute to a gentleman who I have had the honor and privilege of knowing from my district in Central Florida. That individual is E. William Crotty, and he is affectionately known to all of us who are friends of Bill Crotty as Bill Crotty. He had the distinction of being appointed the ambassador to seven Caribbean nations by President Clinton last November and has been in that position until his death just a few days ago. To his family, we want to extend our deepest condolences, extend our sympathy to his wife Valerie and his children and his relatives. I have known Bill Crotty for many years. I happen to be a Republican. I am actually in a family dominated by some pretty prominent Democrats. Bill Crotty was a Democrat's Democrat. But although he and I sometimes differed on political parties, we agreed more often on the need to serve our community, to serve our State, and to serve our Nation. The untimely death of Bill Crotty this week has left our community with a great void. It has left the Democrat party with a tremendous loss. He was one of the largest sources of support, financial assistance, and dedication for the Democrat party of any individual I know in the United States. He took on every challenge with a great energy particularly in support of his party and his candidates and also, as I said, in the best interest of his community, State, and Nation. He was appointed United States ambassador to the Caribbean nations of Barbados, Antigua, Barbuda, Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Saint Kitts, Nevis, and St. Vincent, and the Grenadines. Since he assumed that post, I had the honor and privilege of talking with Bill Crotty and working with him. We both had a common interest in that region; and that was to bring stability, to bring economic development and trade to that area of the Caribbean. One of our mutual concerns was the problem of illegal narcotics. Just some weeks ago, Bill had written me and sent me these letters and clips and he said, ``Dear John, enclosed please find an article that appeared in the July 23rd edition of the Grenada Today. The article discusses deportees, but the thrust is drug trafficking.'' He goes on to discuss the possibility of our visiting with a delegation and meeting with leaders in the Caribbean to help them in their efforts to combat illegal narcotics. He closed by saying, ``It will be a real honor for my wife and I to host you and your delegation. I will send you additional materials I think may interest you concerning drug trafficking and Caribbean matters.'' Again, just recently discussing with Bill Crotty, our ambassador, this particular situation we face in the Caribbeans on illegal narcotics, I have an article that was published just before his death that spoke of Bill Crotty's determination to make a difference in the post in which he was appointed to serve. The article from the Daytona Beach News Journal in Central Florida said, for example, ``He delivered a state-of-the-art Fairchild C-26 aircraft from the United States Government to Barbados. Prime Minister Owen Arthur was the recipient and received this as part of an $11 million support package to the regional security system in the Caribbean to help fight drug trafficking.'' We have lost with the death of Bill Crotty, again, an individual who was dedicated to his community, to his party, and also an ally with me in the war against illegal narcotics. His untimely death again leaves us all at a loss. But we do want to extend our very deepest sympathy to his family who now have grief as Bill has left us. Again, Mr. Speaker, we pay tribute tonight to E. William Crotty, United States Ambassador. When I speak on the floor of the House every Tuesday night and get an opportunity, I like to talk about some of the items in the news and I led tonight with the obituary of a good friend and dedicated American. But it appears to me that almost every time anyone picks up a newspaper or turns on the television or hears some media report, that individual in the United States or in any of our communities hears more and more about the effects of illegal narcotics. Leading the news this week was the death in Laramie, Wyoming, of a young, gay man who was beaten to death by several individuals. Some have referred to it as a hate crime. No matter how it is referred to, it was a horrible incident. And I know the State of Wyoming and many people in the community of Laramie, Wyoming, are saddened by that occurrence in their community and that tragic death. What captured my imagination and attention, again dealing with the question of illegal narcotics as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Drug Policy, is the headline that said ``Shepard- Death Defendant to Claim Impairment.'' This is the headline in Tuesday, October 12 Washington Times. The first paragraph says, ``Laramie, Wyoming. The attorney for a man charged with beating college student Matthew Shepard to death said yesterday his client's judgment was clouded by drugs and alcohol.'' Again even as we face the most tragic events of our time that are publicized in the media, we look at some of the root problems beyond hate, beyond theft and robbery, beyond other charges that have been alleged, and we see drugs and alcohol and substance abuse as possibly the root cause of these crimes. Again, this entire area of illegal narcotics and substance abuse has taken its toll across our Nation. Last week, I reported the most recent statistics indicate that over 5,200 Americans died last year from drug-induced deaths. I do not think Matthew Shepard's death will be counted in those statistics as I have cited many others who have died as the result of someone being involved with illegal narcotics. But the toll continues to rise and rise. In addition to the deaths, we have the incarceration of 1.8 million, close to 2 million total Americans in our jails, our prisons. Our judiciary system is clogged at tremendous expense to the taxpayer with people who have committed serious felonies, crimes, robberies, murders and other illegal acts either under the influence of illegal narcotics or in dealing with illegal narcotics. The toll from illegal drugs in our country continues to rise. Also in the news, relating to illegal narcotics, is a debate that has really tied up the other body, the United States Senate, and the House of Representatives with several pieces of legislation. As my colleagues may know, the President has vetoed the D.C. appropriations measure. One of the provisions in that particular bill does restrict needle exchange programs. It is now one of the problem areas that the House of Representatives and Congress, the other body, find ourselves in conflict with the administration. They want to promote these needle exchanges. It has caused the veto in part of this particular bill relating to funding D.C. government. The Congress is also embroiled in a battle to fund several major departments. One of the largest bills that we will face in Congress is the education, labor and human services bill, HHS bill as we refer to it. Recently, the other body struck a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary to create a clean needle exchange program for drug users. In some of the debates on that, one of the quotes that struck me was ``giving an addict a clean needle is like giving an alcoholic a clean glass,'' said one of the sponsors of that legislation in the other body. What was also interesting is a study that was referred to. I have not read all the details of this study and I have used the example of Baltimore which has had a very liberal policy and needle exchange program and which has, I believe, since 1989 increased its addiction level some five or six times. As it was reported and I cited and quoted a member of the Baltimore city council who said one out of eight citizens in the city of Baltimore is now a heroin addict. Part of this, we can trace back to the needle exchange program. But this quote in the Washington Times from last Friday says that ``we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that needle exchange programs increase the rate of HIV infection and the use of drugs.'' Cited in this article is a Vancouver, British Columbia case where the number of drug-related overdoses has increased fivefold since 1988, the year the city began its own free needle exchange program. In Canada, we have an example of when you have a liberalized policy and needle exchange program, the statistics also prove that needle exchange programs actually increase the rate of HIV infection according to this report. Again in Canada and a city like Baltimore, we have seen a dramatic increase in the rise of addicts as we see a more liberalized policy. Also in the news is a report from the Boston Globe that I thought I would mention tonight. This is a story that we all heard a great deal about some years ago and that was the death of the top Boston Celtics draft pick, Len Bias. His death occurred some 13 years ago. It was a cocaine-related overdose death. Federal prosecutors for the first time in Massachusetts said yesterday that the law bearing Len Bias' name will be used to charge an alleged drug dealer with the overdose of a customer. Again, this report is from just last Friday. Alarmed by high levels of heroin purity and an acute statewide overdose problem, United States Attorney Donald K. Stern said Federal and State prosecutors are preparing to bring more cases under the statute. Called the Len Bias Law, it was passed by Congress amid the uproar surrounding the University of Maryland basketball star's death in 1986. It levies stiff Federal penalties on drug dealers whose sales can be directly tied to fatal overdoses. A drug dealer is looking at a maximum of a 20-year prison term on State manslaughter charges. This is the quote by Mr. Stern who is the U.S. Attorney there. He said that those individuals would face a minimum 20-year sentence in Federal court and the possibility of life without parole under the Len Bias Law. ``One such dealer,'' Stern said, ``was 61-year-old Anibal Soler of Holyoke. Solo was charged with selling Edward Thompson of Chicopee a fatal dose of heroin that officials say was 72 percent pure. High purity heroin can be deadly if users are expecting a less potent dose and take too much.'' One of the things that I have tried to point out here and that we have pointed out in our subcommittee hearings and testimony we have had from medical experts is that the heroin and cocaine and some of the other narcotics that we see today are not the same purity level as the cocaine and heroin we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. This particular case had a 72 percent purity. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, they were looking at 5, 6, 7 percent pure heroin. This ends up by saying that high purity heroin can be deadly if users are expecting a less potent dose and take too much. That is exactly what is happening. We have a flood of high purity heroin, high purity cocaine and other designer drugs that are potentially fatal in very small doses. That is why we are seeing in my community, in central Florida, for example, we have had over 60 heroin overdoses. In fact, in central Florida, a headline is blurted out that overdoses from drugs now exceed homicides in central Florida. What is particularly disturbing is our young people in particular are falling victim to these overdoses and fatalities and they do not realize that this high purity illegal narcotic that is available in our streets and in our communities is so deadly and so potent. To deal with some of the problems we have had, I have got a news story from the Washington Times but it is actually a story on what has happened in Florida. I had the opportunity earlier this fall to meet with the governor and also his new drug czar, Jim McDonough, in Orlando on one of the occasions in which a daylong kickoff was celebrated to start a statewide antinarcotics program. It is a multifaceted program which encompasses prevention, education, enforcement, treatment, a whole array and a whole attack on the illegal narcotics problem that we face not only in central Florida but across Florida. Our governor, Jeb Bush, has done an incredible job in bringing together the State, first in a statewide coordinated meeting in the capital, Tallahassee, earlier this year, with the President of the Florida Senate, Toni Jennings, and the Speaker of the Florida House, John Thrasher, in a joint conference and effort to bring together all of the most knowledgeable people on the illegal narcotics problem, a summit that has produced results. Part of the results was this kickoff. The governor said he would adopt a plan of action, institute a drug czar's office, which he has done, and Jim McDonough, who is a former deputy national drug czar, is now heading up that post. They have discussed a plan, they have developed a plan, they have announced a plan and I am pleased that Jeb Bush and other leaders in our State are now executing a plan. The headline here on Friday reads, ``Florida Raids on Raves Result in 1,219 Arrests.'' If you do illegal drugs in Florida, we are going to go after you. The governor has made this commitment. I have made the commitment. We have established through central Florida, from Tampa now through Orlando and up almost to Jacksonville, and we will be including Jacksonville, a HIDTA, that is a high intensity drug traffic area. We also have one in Florida. These are designations by Federal law that take every possible law enforcement resource and other resources, local and State, combined with Federal agencies in an effort to combat illegal narcotics. We are going after individuals who deal in death caused by illegal narcotics. This particular article says that statewide raids on all-night dance parties, known as raves, resulted in 1,219 arrests and the seizure of nearly $9.4 million in drugs, cash, weapons and vehicles. The raids, which were dubbed ``Operation Heat Rave,'' were in response to six rave-related drug deaths around the State, including two this summer, according to State drug czar Jim McDonough. Jim McDonough is quoted as follows: ``Had this been a roller coaster ride and we had had six dead, there would have been a major outcry to close down the theme park until we could do something about that roller coaster ride.'' I think Jim McDonough states here that people would be outraged if, in any other instance, there were that many young people killed. In this raid across the State, State and local law enforcement officers moved against 57 businesses in 21 counties from September 29 through October 4. Officers seized more than 15 kilograms of cocaine, more than 500 pounds of marijuana, and smaller quantities of heroin and methamphetamines. They also seized designer drugs, Ecstacy, GHP, and other drugs such as the rape drugs. So it is nice to see people in public office who set out a plan and then execute a plan and follow through with their commitments, and I am pleased that Governor Jeb Bush and others in our State are following through. Again, part of the news. Also, I wanted to call to the attention of my colleagues and the entire Congress a little game that is being played on the question of certification, drug certification. Having been involved in the passing and actually authorship of the United States drug decertification law, I know a little bit about how it was set up to work and how it should work. This article talks about what I consider sort of a little attempt to undermine the United States drug decertification law. Let me read a little bit about it. It is from the Oppenheimer Report and it was published in the Miami Herald. It said, ``At a September 2nd meeting in Ottawa, the 34 Nation Organization of American States approved a plan supported by the Clinton administration,'' now that concerns me, ``to create a multinational evaluation system which the OAS,'' Organization of American States, ``hopes will eventually replace the controversial U.S. score board.'' I am very disturbed that the Clinton administration would want to do away with our drug decertification law. I am concerned that, first of all, they have misapplied the law. The drug decertification law is a simple law. It says that any Nation who wishes to receive benefits of the United States, foreign aid, foreign assistance, trade assistance, trade benefits, international financial assistance from the United States, any Nation who receives the largesse of the United States is asked to cooperate with the United States in an effort to eliminate either the production or trafficking of illegal narcotics. It is a simple law. Every year, the President must send to the Congress a list of those countries whether or not they are assisting the United States, an evaluation is made whether they are assisting the United States through stopping illegal narcotics, either in their country or the production in their country or trafficking in their country. It is a simple law. We give them our benefits. Now, why in the world would we want to transfer to other nations an evaluation process that allows people to have benefits such as foreign aid, financial assistance, trade assistance? Why would we want to give that evaluation ability to some international body or to others? The Clinton administration has misapplied the decertification. They decertified Colombia, and they should have allowed for a national interest waiver, even though they felt Colombia was not properly cooperating, but they had problems with this administration; had problems with Colombia's human rights operations and attitudes and actions, and instead, they decertified Colombia without what we provided in the law, which was a national interest waiver, a United States national interest waiver to allow us to continue to assist in one specific area, and that would be the fight against illegal narcotics. And because of that misapplication of a very good law, we, in fact, have an incredible production of illegal narcotics from Colombia, and I will try to talk a little bit more about that tonight. But this is sad that this administration still does not understand why that law was instituted or how that law should be applied. By the same token, they took the decertification law and certified Mexico as cooperating in the war on illegal narcotics. Mexico should have been decertified, but also granted a national interest waiver. So what they have done is made a joke of the law and made the law ineffective. And now, to circumvent the intent of Congress and the intent of that law, again, if a country is going to receive benefits from the United States, why in the world would we allow some multinational organization to evaluate whether those countries would be eligible? It is our trade benefits, it is our foreign aid, it is our financial assistance. All we ask for is minimal cooperation efforts to curtail illegal narcotics. So both in the case of Mexico they have distorted the law, and in the case of Colombia they have perverted the law, and now, much to our disadvantage, in Mexico, 50, 60 percent of all illegal narcotics coming into the United States either are transited or are produced in Mexico, and now 60 to 70 percent of the heroin and cocaine is both produced and trafficked from Colombia, a lot of it through Mexico. In 6 years they have managed to make Colombia the largest producer of cocaine and heroin in the world, and the largest supplier to the United States. Talk about a messed up policy. This is an incredible fiasco and could get worse if we pass on to these other countries this certification responsibility. I have cited and spent part of my last talk reflecting on some of the comments that Governor Gary Johnson made in a Cato Institute program in Washington, I believe it was, last week. He is the Republican governor of New Mexico. He has advocated legalization and decriminalization of what are now illegal narcotics. I will not get into all of the comments and debate about some of the things he said while he was here; and he has said as governor in regard to this, but I would like to cite a news story that was out in the Associated Press just in the last couple of days that says, ``Albuquerque: A Federal drug agent, head of the FBI in New Mexico and the Otero County sheriff have resigned from a panel that advises Governor Gary Johnson on drugs saying, they are upset by the governor's escalating push for legalized drugs.'' Let me read more from the story, and again, it will not be my quote, but their quote. They are quoted here as saying, ``We can't be running away from the problems,'' said Sandoval County Sheriff Ray Rivera, the Council's chairman. ``I feel like those folks are running away from the problem instead of standing up.'' And this is someone who expressed concern about those who resigned, creating a great debate; and it went on not only here in Washington, but in his own State. We also have one of the agents who resigned, David Kitchen, agent in charge of the FBI, quoted as saying in his resignation letter, and he noted earlier, he told Johnson he admired his courage in calling for a debate on decriminalization, although Kitchen thought it was sending a false message. Then came Johnson's statement advocating legalized marijuana and heroin. ``Those absolutely stunned me, especially since they came the same day a multiagency task force arrested more than 30 people accused of being part of a drug ring that operated in northern New Mexico for years,'' Kitchen wrote. Hansen, another one who resigned, in his letter of resignation Tuesday objected to what he said was Johnson's apparent theory that, and I will quote him, ``that since we are not winning the drug war, we should just stop fighting. That position makes a mockery of the dedicated men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration,'' Hansen wrote. ``Your radical proposal to legalize drugs will only heighten the legitimate fear and foreboding that drug users and their related crimes inspire. One need only look within New Mexico to find prominent and disheartening examples of families and communities devastated by drug use,'' he went on to say. So there are others that are concerned and also critical of Governor Johnson's position, and I am sure that debate will continue. We have held several hearings in my subcommittee on the question of legalization, decriminalization, and some of the facts we found do not jive exactly with what Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico has advocated; and again, as I said, that debate and discussion will continue here in the Congress and across the Nation. Also in the news is another example of a failed policy by this administration that is quite disturbing, and that is an article a few weeks ago here in the Washington Post, Tuesday, September 28 that says, ``Haiti's police accused of lawlessness.'' What is absolutely stunning is after spending $3 billion to $4 billion of American hard-earned taxpayer dollars in Haiti in the so-called nation-building effort, we have ended up now with a case of Haiti having a police force trained under some of those programs financed by the United States as a center for some illegal narcotics activities and drug smuggling in the Caribbean. This particular report in the Washington Post says, ``Created four years ago to usher in a new era of impartial justice, the United States-trained Haitian National Police is grappling with allegations that its officers have been involved in a waive of murders, disappearances of detainees and drug-related crimes and other illegal activities.'' And this is a quote within the story: ``If you are asking me whether I am more concerned about rot in the police than a year ago, the answer is yes,'' said Collin Granderson, Executive Director of an international civilian mission here run by the Organization of American States in the United Nations. We have both human rights concerns and concerns about broader conduct of officers, specifically with respect to criminal activity and particularly drug trafficking. Allegations of police involvement in the drug trade have continued to surface in a country that has become a major transshipment point for cocaine and heroin, both to the United States and from South America. It is absolutely incredible that we would spend billions of taxpayer dollars in a nation-building effort and in these programs to stabilize the judiciary and the police and create a little center of illegal narcotics drug trafficking in Haiti. Again, a failed policy of the Clinton administration. Tonight I want to talk in addition to some of the news stories and other comments, I want to talk again about what has happened in the United States since 1992, and I have repeatedly said that in 1993 when President Clinton was elected, he basically closed down the war on illegal narcotics, and I have cited very specifically, and we have the programs that deal with illegal narcotics, stopping illegal narcotics coming into the United States, first of all, stopping illegal narcotics at their source. In 1993 we can see, with a Democrat House, Senate, and White House, basically they slashed and cut in half all of the cost-effective source country programs to stop illegal narcotics at their source, just a dramatic change. We get back to where the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995, and we see us back then, if we take 1992 dollars, we are just about back to that position. The war on drugs has been basically closed down internationally by the Clinton administration. Not only did we stop the international programs which are so cost-effective, and I have used this chart also before, but the programs as far as enforcement, particularly interdicting illegal narcotics from their source to our borders, again, a dramatic decrease, 1992-1993. They closed down these programs. They took the military out of the drug war. They took the Coast Guard out. All of the U.S. resources were slashed. Again, back in 1995, with the Republicans taking over, we are beginning to put Humpty-Dumpty together again, and the war on drugs back together again. We are almost back to 1992 level funding. I have also pointed out what is absolutely dramatic is if we look at illegal drug usage among our 12th graders and our teenagers, this starts in 1989, this chart. We see, if this chart continued towards me, we see this continual decrease of use among our 12th graders of different types of drug use, 30-day and recent, with these different lines here, levels of use continuing to go down. This would be the Reagan and Bush administration down here. We see dramatic increases here in use among our young people, in drug abuse and use among our young people. This is about the time Clinton appointed Joycelyn Elders, who sent the ``just say maybe'' message, as our chief health officer. It is the time, if we took these other charts and transposed them on here, that we cut the source country programs, so we had this incredible influx of heroin, cocaine, other illegal narcotics coming in, a tremendous increase in supply, decrease in price and availability, and the wrong message being sent. This is exactly what we got. I had another chart that was done. This is a smaller chart. I do not know if this chart can be seen here. But this is heroin trends in annual percentage. Actually it starts in 1975. We can see how this heroin use, annual use here, starts going down. This is eighth grade through 12th grade. We see it going down here, and then we see it levelling off in the eighties and in the nineties. Then we come to 1992, the election. We see the change in the drug policy. We see it being closed down, the war on drugs; again, the money being slashed in source country programs, the money being slashed in interdiction, stopping drugs coming into our borders. This is one of the most dramatic charts that I have seen produced, but it shows us going off the charts with illegal narcotics. Then arrive the Republicans in 1995, and through the leadership of the current Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), he chaired the subcommittee and had the responsibility for restoring our national drug policy. What was interesting, as I served in the Congress during this time, from 1992 when I was elected and the Clinton administration took over to 1995, when we took over, I believe, and I served on the Committee on Government Operations which had that drug policy responsibility and oversight responsibility, there was one hearing. It lasted for about 1 hour. They brought in the drug czar at the time. Again, this was after they had fired people. There were 120 people working in the drug czar's office. In 1993 they fired about 100 of them and left approximately 20. Again, the results are there in black and white. This is not a partisan issue, these are not partisan statistics. In fact, these charts and statistics, the information is provided by Clinton and U.S. officials under this administration. But it is pretty dramatic, when you close down the war on drugs, when you change the message that is being sent there, when you slash the resources from some of the cost-effective programs. One of the things they did was they shifted their emphasis almost all to treatment. If we take 1992 and 1993 to 1998, we would see almost a doubling in the amount of money for drug treatment. There is nothing wrong with treatment. Of course we need effective treatment programs. That is the subject of additional hearings and investigation which we will be doing, because if we are spending these huge amounts of money on treatment programs and prevention programs, we want to make certain they are effective. But this is very startling, factual information of what has taken place. Now, this policy has had some implications. Fifty-one percent of high school students said the drug problem is getting worse. This is in a survey within the last year. For the fourth straight year, both middle and high school students say drugs are their biggest concern. Also from the most recent survey, for the third straight year, the number of high school teens who report that drugs are used, sold, and kept at their school has risen from 72 percent in 1996 to 78 percent in 1998. Teenage drug use, again, the result of a failed policy. That is pretty evident. Today 50 percent of teens who smoked marijuana cited their friends as most influential, 30 percent cite themselves as most influential in deciding whether or not to use drugs. At age 13, teenagers get to know other students who use and sell pot, acid, cocaine, or heroin, and learn where to buy these drugs and who to buy them from. Forty-seven percent of our 13-year-olds say their parents have never seriously discussed the dangers of illegal drugs with them. We cannot entirely blame this on government, we have to take responsibility as parents. But the interesting statistics are, again, what has taken place with a change of Federal policy since 1992. We have almost doubled each year since 1992 the use of illegal narcotics by 12- to 17-year-olds. I have the exact statistics. In 1992, the increase was 5.3 percent. In 1994 it jumped to 8.2 percent. It was either 9, 10, or 11 percent for every year, an increase. So from 1992, with the change in the Clinton policy, to 1998, there has been a doubling of illegal narcotics use among our teenagers almost every single year. What should be of concern to all the Members of Congress is that illegal narcotics does affect our young people, but it also affects our minorities. A 1998 household survey on drug abuse found the percentage of blacks using drugs rose 8.2 percent in 1998 from 5.8 percent in 1993. So our minorities have been the recipients of a great deal of the problems in increases; particularly among, again, our minorities who are using drugs in almost double the statistics before 1993. Drug use among Hispanics rose to 6.1 percent from 4.4 percent from 1993 to 1998; another legacy of a change in policy brought about by this administration. Drug use since 1989 has increased among young adults 18 to 25 to its highest level, and that was in 1998. Drug use among 18 to 25 year olds increased about 10 percent from 1997 to 1998, again startling figures about increases in the use of illegal narcotics, particularly among our young people. The use of illegal narcotics is not just a problem among our young people. Today about 78 million Americans have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives. Roughly 13.6 million Americans are current users. Right now, marijuana is the most commonly used drug among our Nation's 13.6 million illicit drug users. It has also been recently revealed by another survey that an estimated 4.1 million people met diagnostic criteria for drug dependence on illicit drugs in 1997 and 1998, including 1.1 million use; that is about 25 percent of those who are dependent on illegal drugs are young people between 12 and 17. Additionally tonight, I wanted to spend a few minutes talking not only about the impact of illegal narcotics, some of the problems that I have cited, but also talk about some of the failures of the Clinton policy as it relates to stopping illegal narcotics coming into our country. As I cited just a few minutes ago, we know where most of the heroin, we know where most of the cocaine, we know where most of the methamphetamines are coming from. They are produced now in Colombia. They transit through Mexico. Mexico has also turned into a producer. Colombia produces 70 percent of all of the heroin. Six years ago it produced almost no heroin. There were almost no poppies grown in Colombia. Again, through the failed policy of this administration, Colombia has mushroomed into the drug producing capital of the world; actual producers of heroin, poppy, the core material. Mexico now is producing 14 percent of the heroin coming into the United States, that was in single digits some 6 or 7 years ago, under the Clinton administration. Probably 70, 80 percent of all of the illegal narcotics coming into the United States now come in from these two sources. As I cited, these two countries have not properly been dealt with by the United States. We certified Mexico, and Mexico in the last year has had a dramatic, over 50 percent decrease, in seizures of cocaine and dramatic decreases in seizures of heroin, and they were certified as cooperating. Mexico also promised, and the United States Congress asked Mexico to cooperate with the extradition, according to a 1978 extradition treaty, Mexican nationals who were indicted in the United States and we request their extradition should come back to the United States and fear coming back to the United States for trial on those charges. Not one major Mexican drug lord has been extradited to date. This Congress passed a resolution several years ago asking, in addition to extradition, that Mexico sign a maritime agreement. We know the drugs are coming in across land and around the waters that surround Mexico and the United States. To date, Mexico has not signed a maritime agreement. We further asked that Mexico allow our handful of DEA agents, law enforcement agents that are working in Mexico, to arm themselves and protect themselves since the death and murder of one of our agents, Kiki Camarena. To date, Mexico still has not complied with that simple request. We asked that Mexico also enforce laws that it had passed. They passed laws dealing with money laundering and illegal narcotics, and drug trafficking, but they do not enforce it. Rather than enforce the laws, as our simple request to work with the United States, what Mexico has done has actually become the capital of drug laundering. In fact, the largest drug laundering case in the history of the United States, if not the history of the world, was uncovered in a United States Customs operation which I cited and talked a little bit about in my last talk and this is a bit of the background on Operation Casa Blanca. It was an investigation that was concluded in May of 1998 with the indictment of 109 individuals and three Mexican banks. The undercover operation was the largest sting operation in the United States history. Because there are so many corrupt individuals involved in Mexico law enforcement and government, we did notify the Mexicans of some of what was going on, but not all of what was going on. After it became known that these individuals were involved at these various levels and that we had this sting operation going on, rather than cooperate with the United States what the Mexican officials did was threaten to arrest United States officials and Customs officials who were involved in this sting operation. I must say that I am pleased that the United States Customs agency, the Department of Justice, the FBI and others have moved forward. These individuals have been indicted where they are found in the United States. There are several who have fled and several who we requested extradition on who have not been returned to face justice in the United States, but my point here is that this United States Congress, the House of Representatives, asked Mexico to cooperate in stopping illegal narcotics activities and enforcing laws that were put on the books in extradition, which I cited, and some of these other things that I cited, and rather than assist the United States they blocked the United States. Only because of the visit of the President of the United States and because this had gotten so much publicity have they finally backed off. But this is the type of lack of cooperation. What is astounding is Mexico has been the recipient of one of the finest and most generous trade agreements of any two Nations, the NAFTA agreement, in which the United States gave very specific trade benefits to Mexico and asked very little in cooperation. We asked for their certification as cooperating and, for these trade benefits, a little bit of assistance in the illegal narcotics problem. What we have gotten basically is sand kicked in our face. Forty Mexican and Venezuelan bankers, businessmen, and suspected drug cartel members were arrested, and 70 others have been indicted as fugitives. This, again, is something that we have had to deal with ourselves and enforce ourselves without the cooperation of Mexican officials. It is my hope that we can turn this situation around, that Mexico can become a better partner in fighting illegal narcotics. I might say that, as I close this evening that Mexico is now becoming the recipient of much of the crime and violence. They have lost several of their States, the Baja peninsula is now lost to narco-traffickers. The Yucatan Peninsula, its Governor fled. He was involved up to his eyeballs in illegal narcotics. Other States along the United States border and within the heart of Mexico are now on the verge of collapse and being lost to drug traffickers. Mexico is now the recipient of some of the problems that we have inherited as a neighbor and friend and ally, and we only ask cooperation. Finally, as we close, it is nice to bring up some of the critical elements of what this administration has done. The positive aspects are the Republican-dominated Congress has restored funds for international programs. We have put back the Coast Guard, the military, and other Federal agencies and are now utilizing every possible resource. We have instituted an education program which is funded with over $190 million plus that amount matched by the private sector on which, this Thursday, our Subcommittee of Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources will do its first review. We hope that through education, through interdiction, through source country programs, through prevention and through treatment, through a multifaceted approach, this was started under Ronald Reagan, we can again bring down the problem of illegal narcotics, of drug use among our young people, the death and tragedy that it has caused in so many lives. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude my special order tonight on the continuing problem we face as a Congress and the American people with illegal narcotics.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to come before the House this evening, as I do on most Tuesday evenings when the House is in session, to talk about an area of responsibility that I inherited in this particular session of Congress. That responsibility is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Relations of the House. It is an investigations and oversight panel of Congress. One of its primary responsibilities is to try to develop a coherent and effective national drug policy. It is a very difficult task, but a very important task, because illegal narcotics have taken an incredible toll among our citizens. We have a costs estimated at $250 billion a year affecting our economy, not only the cost of criminal justice, but lost employment, social disruption, costs that just transcends every part of our society. Those are the dollar and cents costs, not talking about human suffering and the effects on families and children across our Nation. Certainly illegal narcotics must be our biggest social problem. Additionally, the statistics are staggering as to the number of people incarcerated. Somewhere between 1.8 million and 2 million Americans are in jails and prisons, Federal facilities, across the Nation. It is estimated that 60 to 70 percent of those individuals incarcerated are there because of a drug-related offense. Now, there are many myths and misconceptions about some of these problems related to illegal narcotics. Tonight, I would like to touch upon a few of them. As Chairman of this subcommittee with this responsibility, I have tried to not ignore the problem, not ignore the various alternatives, but try to have an open, free, and honest debate in our subcommittee and also stimulate it here in the Congress and the House of Representatives and among the American people, because we have a very, very serious problem facing our Nation. In that regard, we have held a number of hearings, on average, three or four a month in this year. Prior to my assuming that responsibility, that responsibility was held by the former chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice on which I served. That individual who chaired that responsibility and that subcommittee was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who is now the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He reawakened some of the interest in this topic and also certainly gave impetus to congressional action for a refocus, reexamination of this issue. I might, as I have done in the past, review a bit of the history of the illegal narcotics problem and the efforts of this Congress and past Congresses to deal with this problem. During the Reagan administration, and having been a staff member in the other body during 1981 to 1985, I witnessed firsthand the beginning of what was actually a war on drugs, a multifaceted approach to attacking illegal narcotics, drug abuse, and misuse by our population. That was continued for the most part through the Bush administration until, again, this House of Representatives and the United States Senate and the White House were all dominated by one party in 1992 with that election. It happened to be the year I was elected, so I saw firsthand the dismantling of any real Federal effort with regard to illegal narcotics. The national drug policy was pretty much taken apart, dismantled. Our interdiction efforts, which is a national responsibility were decimated, halved. The source country and international programs, also a Federal responsibility, were cut dramatically, also halved. Most of the resources were put into treatment programs and to other priorities that, again, changed dramatically. The Drug Czar's office was dramatically reduced in size, probably 70 percent reduction. Appointees of the administration were individuals who had a different philosophy, ``just say maybe to illegal narcotics.'' Some of that has had a very specific result with our population. Attitudes particularly among leaders of Congress and the Nation, and also our chief health officer for the country, certainly those attitudes certainly do impact our population's thinking and particularly the actions of our young people. I have used these charts before to show exactly what happened. Tonight I will use them once again. Even today, we had Governor Gary Johnson, a Republican Governor from New Mexico who participated in a national symposium on a new attitude towards illegal narcotics. He talked about and also has made statements that the war on drugs has been a failure. I submit that the war on drugs has basically, again, closed down in the 1990 to 1993 period. Again, a Federal responsibility was Federal expenditures for international programs. International programs would be stopping illegal narcotics at their source. This is an interesting chart in that it shows, again, a dramatic reduction. My colleagues see back where the Republicans, new majority took over. Right now, in 1999, we are getting back in 1992 dollars to where we were in 1992 and 1999 on these international programs. These international programs do make a difference. For example, let me cite, if I may, one success that we have seen from the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard seized a record 111,689 pounds of cocaine with a street value of $3.9 billion in fiscal 1999, an increase of 35 percent over last year, the agency said on Tuesday. More than two-thirds of the cocaine seized in 1999 was the Miami- based 7th Coast Guard district that included Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and most of the Caribbean. Secretary of Transportation who oversees the Coast Guard, and in this case Secretary Slater, attributed the record seizures in part to a 10- month-old counternarcotics initiative in the Caribbean. And that, of course, was funded by the initiative that was undertaken by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) some 2 years ago in restarting a war on drugs and, again, a Federal responsibility to stop drugs at their source and interdicting them. What I have spoken to here is really the success of the interdiction. This chart shows the failure of interdiction and the cutting in just about half of expenditures for interdiction, that is stopping drugs as they come from their source, before they reach our border, utilizing the Coast Guard, the military and other Federal resources to stop drugs cost effectively as they come from their source to our borders. We can see the dramatic close-down of the war on drugs in 1993 and we can see the restart again under the new leadership of the House of Representatives under Republican control of the House. Again, we are back in 1999 to about where we were in 1992, and we have some very specific results for our efforts for those expenditures. We have seen not only a dramatic increase in the seizures of cocaine but also less cocaine on the streets in the United States. So we know that this interdiction works. What is interesting is we know what does not work, and that is the policy of this past administration. We saw the charts with funds and efforts for our international programs to stop drugs cost effectively at their source and also to interdict drugs before they reach our borders. This is a very interesting chart. It shows from the 1980s, the late 1980s to 1992, this would be part of the Reagan and Bush era, and we can see a declining in 12th grade drug use. This would be lifetime annual in the red here, green is lifetime annual use and 30 day use. So in all of these usages by 12th graders, we see a decline up until this change in the drug policy. Then we see, again, the change in Federal leadership, the attitude, the ``just say maybe,'' cutting the drug czar's office, cutting the programs as far as the supply, the incredible supply of illegal narcotics coming into the country, and then this upsurge. Then again in 1995, the Republicans took control, began instituting this policy and changing it, and now we see a decline and beginning of a reversal. Because we know that a multifaceted approach to illegal narcotics works. First, we have to stop drugs cost effectively at their source, then we must interdict those illegal narcotics before they come in. And I might say, even to those legalizers, to those who have been in town, including Governor Johnson of New Mexico, promoting legalization of what are now illegal narcotics, even under their plan, it would still be a requirement for the United States to stop illegal narcotics at their source. They would be illegal, even if they were legalized in the United States; drugs through interdiction. And, again, education, which I think Governor Johnson and others have been promoting along with legalization, does not work. We find the same thing that is very interesting in this administration's approach to tobacco. They have done everything they can to bring tobacco companies into lawsuits. They have expended incredible historic amounts in anti- narcotics advertising and have forced attention to the problem as far as education of young people. But what is interesting, even the most recent statistics that they show, even with all this effort, shows that we still have an upsurge in the use of tobacco products among our young people. So it does not work by itself. Education is one of a number of elements that must be used. This is very interesting to show; that as the Federal efforts for interdiction and source country program eradication declined, and again a change in policy, we saw our young people using more illegal narcotics. What is really sad is some of the statistics that have evolved from this situation. And I just received today the latest figures, which were released in August, published the last June of 1999, on the number of drug deaths in the United States. These are deaths from drug-induced causes. My colleagues have heard me cite before on the floor of the House of Representatives over 14,000 drug deaths, and that was in 1996. The policy that we have seen promoted by this administration and this Congress now has us up to 15,973 deaths in 1997. These are drug-induced causes in the United States. That is a 7.6 percent increase. I added up the statistics from this report just received today on the number of drug deaths since 1993, the beginning of this administration's policy, and it is 72,232 deaths. I am sure that we will reach 100,000 before the end of this tenure. So we have still a continuing problem. We have more and more deaths caused by illegal narcotics. Part of the problem, as I have explained before in these special orders, is that the cocaine and the heroin that we see on the streets today is not the cocaine or heroin that was on the streets in the 1970s or 1980s. In those years we saw cocaine and heroin of sometimes 4 to 10 percent in purity. Today, we are seeing on a very common basis a purity of 60 and 70 percent. We are seeing heroin and cocaine that is deadly in form. And many of these deaths are attributed to young people who are trying illegal narcotics, and do not recover in many instances from first-time use, or by combining those very potent and high purity illegal narcotics with other substances of abuse. Again, we see record numbers of deaths from drug-induced causes in the latest statistics produced, I believe, by the Department of HHS. Again, these just came out. Of course, we have the deaths that I cited that are very easy to identify, and then we have the deaths that I also report. And whether we legalize or decriminalize what are now illegal narcotics, we would still have situations like this. This was reported in this week's October 2 edition in Carnesville, Georgia, a lady by the name of Shannon Nicole Moss has been in jail since May for allegedly taking cocaine during her pregnancy and causing the death of her daughter. Ms. Moss, 21, gave birth to twins on April 21, but one child, Angel Hope Schneider, died shortly after birth. Franklin County Investigator Chad Bennett said Ms. Moss tested positive for both cocaine and methamphetamine. The child's death was consistent with cocaine use by the mother, said Bennett. I do not know if this young baby's death will be counted in these statistics. I doubt it. But as I have cited, there are thousands of other deaths that are related to illegal narcotics. In this week's Christian Science Monitor we see another example of drug use and abuse among our population. This particular story focuses on Plano, Texas. It says, ``With its gated communities, leafy parks, and Fortune 500 jobs, Plano is not the sort of town to have a big city drug problem. At least that is what most residents thought. Then, in 1997, some of the young people of Plano discovered the latest craze, heroin, and started overdosing at the rate of one a month. The youngest victim was a 7th grader, Victor Garcia. The oldest and most famous was former Dallas Cowboy, Mark Tuinei. The string of deaths, 18 in Plano, along with half a dozen from nearby towns, does not appear to be over.'' We have cited Plano as an example of a very prosperous community, just like the one I come from in Central Florida, north of Orlando, which is my district. We have had over 60 drug-related deaths. Deaths by drugs and drug overdoses now exceed homicides in our central Florida communities. So we see a tremendous impact of illegal narcotics on our communities. I am not sure what difference legalization would make in people overdosing, and particularly young people, on these illegal narcotics. If it was not bad enough that we had cocaine and heroin, we have on the scene and coming from primarily Mexico, also an international import and again a Federal responsibility to control this type of activity, a report of methamphetamines spiraling out of control in some of our communities. This is a report that appeared in this week's news media and it is date lined Tulsa, Oklahoma. ``The number of methamphetamine labs in Oklahoma is exploding. State records show that officials have discovered 60 times the number of clandestine laboratories making methamphetamines than they had found just 5 years ago. State officials call problems with the highly-addictive drug epidemic. And they said the meteoric rise in the drug's popularity has to do in how easy it is to make.'' This is not a harmless illegal narcotic, and it is illegal. ``Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper David `Rocky' Eales,'' the story went on to say, ``was killed in an attempt to serve methamphetamine-related warrants on September 25. Another trooper was wounded.'' It is also interesting to note, and I have some information that we received in one of the hearings that we conducted on legalization of what are now illegal narcotics, and we did try to conduct an open hearing on that subject, but we had a scientist who produced these images. I think I have shown these images one other time about methamphetamine, and this is one of the drugs that some folks would like to legalize. This particular photograph, and these images, demonstrate the long-lasting effects that methamphetamine has on the brain. The brighter colors reflect greater dopamine-binding capacity. Dopamine function is critical to emotional regulation and it is involved in the normal experience of pleasure. It is also involved in controlling an individual's motor functions. The scan on the left is a nondrug user. The second scan is a chronic methamphetamine abuser who was drug free for 3 years prior to this image. The third scan is a chronic meth abuser who was drug free for 3 years prior to the image. The last brain is a scan of an individual newly diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, a disease known to deplete dopamine. So you see what methamphetamine, the so-called harmless, what is now an illegal narcotic that some would like to make legal, does to individuals. Drugs are dangerous. This is very clear scientific evidence produced again by a scientist, not by a congressional committee, about the effects of this particular illegal narcotic. I wanted to also cite tonight again some of the comments that have been made in this national forum that talked about legalization or a new approach to illegal narcotics, and let me say that I am open to any reasonable approach that we can take to deal with this mounting problem. Our subcommittee has been open, we have held hearings on the question of legalization, of decriminalization, on the problems of incarceration, on enforcement, on interdiction, on the source countries, and we will be doing one in just a few weeks on our first anniversary of our national education program to review all of these programs' effectiveness and various approaches. But the meeting that was conducted today and this week in Washington about new approaches featured, I guess, a new rage on the drug, national drug scene, and that is New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. He again has said that the Nation's War on Drugs has been a multibillion- dollar failure and unjustifiably throwing thousands of people in prison and lying to children about the dangers of marijuana. I happened to catch some of that particular presentation of Governor Johnson, a Republican from New Mexico, and I wanted to respond to some of the points that he has raised. Again, one of these is graphically illustrated by one of the substances that some proponents would like to legalize, and we can show similar graphic displays for other substances, and we have one, another one here we will just put up here. But we do have, in fact, scientific evidence that there is danger to the brain from cocaine, from heroin, from methamphetamine, and it is documented, and the Governor has said that the War on Drugs has been a multibillion-dollar failure. In fact, I think he stated that we went from 1 billion in the 1970s to $18 billion. I think if we look at the way the dollars have been spent, again there were dramatic decreases in a multi-faceted approach to combat illegal narcotics both at the source and through interdiction. I have often showed the treatment dollars, and we do not have a chart of that tonight, but in fact the chart would show you that treatment dollars since 1992 have in fact doubled, and we are spending a great deal of that $18 billion on treatment programs. I would as much as anyone would like to see a reduction in those expenditures, but we find that if we take out one element, whether it is a source country, international programs, interdiction, law enforcement, education, treatment or prevention, then the efforts begin to crumble and the effect, as we have seen, is devastating particularly among our young people. He made a rash statement, and I heard him say that soon we will be spending the entire national gross product on enforcement, and that just is not correct. The Governor is incorrect, that of the $18 billion that we will be spending this year, a small percentage of that is on enforcement although that is Federal money and there are substantial dollars spent at the State and local level. The question is: Does a liberal policy work or does a tough enforcement policy work and are they cost effective? Let me take these charts down and again cite one of the best examples that we have of a liberal policy, and I believe in a legalization or liberal policy we would have to look at some model where they have tried this. And again we have to point to Baltimore. I do not have a whole lot of areas, although Washington, D.C., is now trying to emulate this program that they adopted in Baltimore with free needle exchanges and, again, a more liberal attitude. But this is an interesting chart that was given to me by the head of our Drug Enforcement Agency in one of our hearings, and I will recite it. In Baltimore we saw the population in 1950 at nearly a million drop to, it is around 600,000 now, not half, but on its way down. We saw a small number of heroin addicts, and this was the population of the heroin addicts, about 39,000 in 1996. The latest figures or unofficial figures are 60,000, and I cited a council person from Baltimore who said 1 in 8 citizens in Baltimore are now addicted to heroin. Now this is a liberal policy, this needle exchange policy. We have seen that that policy, and again, if we had legalization, I do not know what would stop people from becoming addicted, but in fact we have 1 in 8 in this city as a heroin addict, which is absolutely astounding, a model I do not think any of us would want to copy. I have also pointed out as a counter example New York City with Mayor Giuliani, and I bring this up again, a tough enforcement policy, and Governor Johnson said that we are spending too much money, and I think, if we look and go back and look at per capita expenses, dollar expenses, and we compared New York with Baltimore, we would see that there would probably be similar expenditures. But this particular chart shows the narcotics arrests index and the crime index, and we see that crime is going down as the number of tough enforcement was undertaken in that city. Pretty dramatic figures in New York, and let me cite a few of them, if I may. First of all, the total number of major felony crimes fell from 1993 to 1998 in New York City by 51 percent. Just from 1997 to 1998 with a zero tolerance policy there was 11 percent decrease in major felony crimes. In New York City murder and nonnegligent manslaughter also declined. There was a 67 percent decrease from 1993 to 1998, and in just one year, from 1997 to 1998, an 18 percent decrease in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. And what about some other crimes? Total felony and misdemeanor narcotics arrests in the city actually increased, and we went from less than 70,000 to 120 between 1993 and 1998, but in that period of time you saw the dramatic decrease in murders. In fact, in New York City in 1998 it was the lowest number of murders committed in New York in 36 years. The murders fell from approximately, this chart will show, from over 2,000 in this period, 1991 to somewhere in the 600 to 629 in 1998, dramatic decreases as there were some increase in narcotic offenses. So the cost effectiveness of these programs, and I am sure if we looked at the social implications, the destruction of families, abuse in Baltimore, and we look at what has taken place in New York City, we would see that we have, in fact, a success, and again not a total success. We still have some dramatic problems not only in New York. But what is amazing, if you look at this last chart again, as a result of Mayor Giuliani's zero tolerance policies that he established and based on what the murder rate was before he took office, over 3,500 people just in New York City are alive today who otherwise would be fatality statistics. That is a pretty dramatic figure. The other misconception that Governor Johnson stated in his speech, and again I heard part of it today; he said that, and I think he was citing more in his State; he said there were arresting Mexican citizens coming across the border for $200, and he said if we looked at the profile of people arrested, you would find marijuana users selling a little bit of marijuana and crack users selling a little crack and going to jail for that. Those were some of his comments. I did not take it down in shorthand, but there are many myths about people who are in prison for drug related offenses, and the most recent study that our subcommittee found was one that was conducted in New York State by that New York State Office of Justice, and it was a rather telling example of what is really taking place with those convicted of various offenses related to narcotics, and this was again in spring, very recent. We had testimony to this affect, that there are roughly 22,000 individuals serving time in New York State prison for drug offenses. Again this is very comprehensive study. Eighty-seven percent of them are actually serving time for selling drugs, 87 percent of them are there for selling drugs. Seventy percent of them have had one or more felony convictions on their record. So these are not just these innocent little Mexicans crossing the border for $200 reward or some innocent marijuana users selling enough marijuana to supply his habit or some minor crack dealer. Seventy percent of these 22,000 individuals have one or more felony convictions on their record. Of the people who are serving time for drug possession charges, 76 percent were actually arrested for sale or intent to sell charges that eventually pled down to possession. So there is a great myth about who is behind bars and why they are there and what offenses they have committed. We also found from this study and in our hearing about New York drug offenses that the 1998 arrestee drug abuse monitoring program report issued by the National Institute of Justice documents an estimated 80 percent of persons arrested each year in New York City tested positive for drugs. So we have a situation where these people have, who are arrested also, have illegal narcotics in their system, and that is also part of the problem, and we do need to revisit our treatment programs both at State level and the Federal level. But there is a great myth about who is serving time. This study was quite interesting, because it showed and documented very specifically that, at least in New York State, you really have to try, you have to commit a number of serious felonies and you have to be a dealer in very large quantities of hard illegal narcotics to make your way into prison. You had to work to get into prison in New York. We found that same pattern in other states. So the information that Governor Johnson used is not correct. He also said half the arrests in the United States involved United States Hispanics selling marijuana. I do not know where he got that figure. I have never seen that figure. We do know that the latest statistics that our subcommittee has received from DEA and HHS do indicate that one of the victims of illegal narcotics are teenage Hispanics and young Hispanics; that, in fact, with addiction, they have the highest percentage of increases. What we also know from the most recent report that I have received is that the biggest problem with addiction among our young people, and I would think it would be alcohol, is not alcohol, but in fact is marijuana, another startling fact. Of course, many people do not want to deal with facts or reality on this subject. They want to deal with their own personal viewpoint. The Governor also, I heard him say, Governor Johnson, that the war on drugs was 1,000 miles wide and a half inch thick. The war on drugs in fact is thousands and thousands of miles wide and, as you may have seen by what I illustrated, it was reduced down to an inch thick. But the war on drugs does not work when you have no resources in it, and they were eviscerated by this Congress back in 1993, 1994 and 1995 under this Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, Senate and the presidency. That approach did not work, and we had some very, again, well-documented results. That was not and is not today pleasing. His final comment was ``stop arresting the entire country.'' Again, this is Governor Johnson. I do not think any of us want to arrest anyone. We do know that individuals that have used illegal narcotics, probably marijuana is one of the most frequently. Maybe it does not have all of the effects of some of the other hard drugs that we cited, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines. We have shown here we do know the levels of purity are much, much higher than that marijuana that was used in the seventies and eighties, and it also has an effect on the brain. Again, we do know from facts that today our biggest problem with addiction among young people, again, I was even surprised by this, and these are statistics that are DEA and HHS documented, our biggest problem with addiction now is marijuana with our young people. Whether it gets to be a gateway drug or not is a question for debate, and we certainly had plenty of testimony that did point to the first use of that substance or other substance abuse and then on to harder drugs. Legalization just has not been acceptable as an alternative, and neither has decriminalization, although we are looking very carefully at the programs we have for those incarcerated. We have also looked at the Arizona model, which is not a decriminalization, and had testimony from officials from Arizona who do take first-time drug offenders and give them alternatives before their final sentencing, but the sentencing is withheld pending their performance. The moment that they backslide or get back into the narcotics habit, which is a tremendous problem, recidivism with illegal narcotics use in these programs, those individuals do go on, are sentenced and serve time. So, again, I think everyone wants to see that our prisons are free of so-called casual drug users. But, again, the people that end up there, unfortunately, commit felonies and crimes while under the influence of these illegal narcotics, were selling quantities of illegal narcotics which would be illegal under decriminalization or the legalization scheme that has been mentioned by anyone to date. What is interesting is even with these efforts to liberalize national drug policy, even the latest surveys, and again the surveys can be subject to the way the questions are asked or framed, but the latest surveys that we have, this one is by the Melman Group and it was a survey by telephone of 800 registered voters at the beginning of September, found some of these topics on the public's mind. Voters want education, Social Security and drug trafficking to be top priorities of the Congress and the President. HMO restrictions and illegal drugs are top worries for the largest number of voters. We have heard most of the special orders tonight on the topic of HMOs. I am the soul one on the second subject, illegal drugs. Women and minorities are more likely to think that drug issues should be a top national priority. The poll also found that Americans want cracking down on drug smuggling to be Washington's highest priority. Preventing drugs from entering the United States, reducing the supply, is the most important effective way to deal with the problem. Again, this poll of 800 Americans showed three-fourths of Americans favor increasing funding for interdiction. Even with the $2 billion price tag, the majority still favor increasing funding for interdiction. By more than two to one, voters favor additional dollars on interdiction over anti-drug advertising. As I said, our subcommittee continues to monitor the reinstitution of our national and international efforts on interdiction and source country programs. We will be carefully reviewing our $200 million with private donations, probably half a billion dollar total expenditures for an anti-drug advertising program, the first year of which will have been concluded this past week, and we will do a hearing on that and review an examination of those expenditures and the effectiveness of that program. Congressional Democrats, the poll finally says, enjoy an advantage over Republicans on almost every issue except keeping illegal drugs out of the U.S. I am not sure what that means for Republicans, being a Republican, but at least hopefully I am on the right side of one issue. The rest of the special order that I wanted to do tonight really would get away from the topic of legalization, decriminalization or liberalization, as Governor Johnson of New Mexico has advocated, and talk about again one of our responsibilities, which is stopping illegal narcotics that are coming into the United States. Again, under any of these schemes, no matter how wild they may be for liberalization or decriminalization or legalization, one of the responsibilities of this Congress, of any administration, will be to stop these hard drugs from coming in to the United States. The source of more than 50 percent or probably in the 60 or 70 percent of all illegal antibiotics, we could start with marijuana, go on to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, the source of all the hard narcotics and even, again, the soft narcotic, if you want to call it that, marijuana, coming into the United States is through Mexico. Most of the cocaine and heroin is now produced in Colombia, but they have melded forces with corrupt officials in Mexico and corrupt dealers in Mexico, and these gangs are now filtering and transiting illegal narcotics through Mexico. Mexico is our big problem on an international level, and will continue to be. That is in spite of the fact that our trade with Mexico has been at an all-time high. We have given Mexico, as I have cited, incredible trade advantages, both with NAFTA, and we have underwritten Mexico in its financially difficult times. The United States' exports to Mexico now surpass U.S. exports to Japan, making Mexico our second most important export partner. However, with NAFTA, exports to the United States, from the United States to Mexico, were $71 billion in 1998. Imports to the United States from Mexico were $87 billion. We experienced in 1998 a $15.7 billion trade deficit, so we are good partners, we have given them help. We are good neighbors, good allies. We have given them a trade advantage that is now hurting us economically. The U.S.-Mexican border is 2,000 miles long and 60 miles deep on either side of the border, consisting of four U.S. States, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, all on the borders, of course. They border six Mexican States. We have 45 border crossings with an estimated 278 to 351 million persons legally crossing the border from Mexico to the United States in 1998. The INS, at great expense, apprehended 1.5 million undocumented immigrants on the southwest border in fiscal year 1998. According to DEA, almost all of the estimated six tons of heroin produced in Mexico in 1998 will reach the United States markets. Mexico remains a major source country for marijuana and heroin sold in the United States. The DEA estimates that the majority of methamphetamine available in the United States is either produced and transported to the United States or is manufactured in the United States now by Mexican drug traffickers. According to the United States Department of State, Mexico continues to be the primary haven for money laundering in all of Latin America. This of course has had incredible consequences in Mexico. The Baja Peninsula along this end is completely controlled by drug traffickers. In fact, this chart shows Mexico-based drug trafficking. The Yucatan Peninsula is controlled by drug traffickers, and different states and such regions of Mexico are almost totally controlled by drug traffickers. I cited methamphetamine, a new phenomenon. It is incredible, but 90 percent of the methamphetamine seized in Iowa this year came from Mexico. That is from the U.S. Attorney's office in Iowa's northern district. About 85 percent of the methamphetamine in Minnesota, all the way up, it is not even on this chart, in Minnesota is smuggled from Mexico. The source is the Minneapolis Star Tribune, in an investigation that was conducted there. Most of the methamphetamine available in the upper Midwest is trafficked by Mexican-controlled criminal organizations connected to sources of supply in California and Mexico that were based in smaller midwestern cities with existing Mexican-American populations. The source of that is the Drug Enforcement Administration, in a 1996 report. Unfortunately, even with all this activity, with the trade benefits, financial benefits, pledges of cooperation with Mexico, drug seizures are dramatically down. The amount of heroin seized from 1997 to 1998 dropped 56 percent. The amount of cocaine dropped some 35 percent in the same year. The number of vehicles seized from 1997 at sea went from 135 to 96, a 9 percent decrease. We have asked for maritime cooperation. We have not gotten it. We have asked for seizure cooperation. We have not gotten it. We have also asked for extradition of Mexicans who have been involved in illegal narcotics. Tonight let me display a couple of folks we are looking for and describe them. To date we have not had a single Mexican major drug trafficker extradited. This individual is Lewis Ignacio Amezcua-Contreras, and this individual is one of the chief producers of methamphetamine in really the world. Recently, despite overwhelming evidence, all Mexican drug charges have been dismissed. We are hoping that this individual will be extradited to the United States. Again, our requests, this Congress passed a resolution, the House of Representatives several years ago, asking for cooperation in extradition of major drug traffickers. To date, we have not had one Mexican major drug kingpin extradited. We have another star tonight in our array of requests for extradition. This is another individual that we have asked for. This is Vincent Carrillo Fuentes. He is a major cocaine trafficker. He has not been arrested. We think he is at large in Mexico. He is a United States fugitive. This is another individual. There are 45 of these major drug traffickers we would like extradited to stand trial, it is the thing they fear most, in the United States. I would say for both of these individuals, I believe there are some substantial rewards in the million dollar range, so if anyone would like to turn these individuals in, I am sure they would also like to receive the reward that is available. United States officials testified before my subcommittee that there are 275 extradition requests that are pending with Mexico. Mexico has only approved 45 extradition requests since 1996, and as I said, not one major Mexican drug kingpin. Only 20 of the extradition requests that Mexico has approved have been drug-related, and only one of those has been a Mexican citizen. But again, there have been no major drug kingpins. On November 13, 1997, the United States and Mexico signed a protocol to the current extradition treaty. I think that treaty goes back to 1978. The protocol is basically the way the extradition would operate, and all the details. The protocol has been ratified by United States Senate, the other body, and is currently being delayed in Mexico's Senate. To date they still have not resolved or approved an extradition protocol with the United States. Additionally, this Congress several years ago asked Mexico for cooperation in enforcing the laws on the books. It was not a tough request: extradition, maritime cooperation. The United States customs agency ran an undercover operation called Operation Casablanca. This undercover operation was the largest money laundering sting in the history of the United States, absolutely incredible money laundering. Members will not be able to see this chart too well. Maybe they can focus for a few minutes. Let me talk a little about this. Forty Mexican and Venezuelan bankers, businessmen, and suspected drug cartel members were arrested, and 70 others were indicted as fugitives. The United States informed Mexican counterparts of the operation, but they did not tell them all the details because they feared Mexican corruption would or could endanger the lives of some of our agents. And as we know from history, one of our agents, Kiki Camarena, was brutally murdered in Mexico and even today some of his murderers and those involved in his horrible death have not been brought to justice. Operation Casablanca involved three of Mexico's most prominent banks, Bancomer, Banca Serfin, and Confia, and all of these three major banks were implicated in the investigations. A former senior United States Customs agent who led the Casablanca probe declared that the corruption reached the highest levels of the Zedillo government when he implicated the defense minister in this event. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can have justice prevail in this situation and next week we will continue the rest of the story as it relates to corruption in the Mexican Government and Mexican drug trafficking.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come back to the floor tonight, and as usual on Tuesday nights, I try to address the House and the American people on the subject of the illegal narcotics situation. As I have stated many times on the floor of the House of Representatives, I take this issue very seriously. I chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight charged with the responsibility of trying to coordinate and get back on track our war on drugs. And I do say get back on track our war on drugs because, as I have stated many times in detail, last week in my remarks, the war on drugs basically was closed down in 1993 with the beginning of the Clinton administration. When the Clinton-Gore administration controlled both the White House, they controlled substantial majorities in the House of Representatives, in the United States Senate, and in 2 years of domination completely destroyed, completely dismantled almost all of our international narcotics efforts, took apart the cost-effective source country programs that stopped drugs very cost effectively in their production, in their route, at their source in the countries that produce them. Then, of course, the administration, working with the majority in Congress, gutted nearly half the amount of money for interdiction, in a very short period of time dismantled almost all of the programs that interdicted drugs at the second stages from the source. First, destroyed those programs, interdiction where you caught them cost effectively at the second level of before entry to our borders, cut those programs in half, use of the military almost decimated, use of the Coast Guard in areas like Puerto Rico which saw an incredible influx of illegal narcotics from throughout the Caribbean and then transited it into the United States, even into Central Florida, my home area of central Florida from Orlando to Daytona Beach, one of the victims of that failed policy. Then additionally, Madam Speaker, adopting a very liberal policy as far as our national leadership on the issue, soft on the issues, a national health officer, Jocelyn Elders, said just say maybe, and our kids took that at face value, and we have seen the dramatic results among, particularly among, our young people who were so susceptible, we found, to that soft message sent out of the White House and out of the administration and sent out of the Congress. Again, a short time in which they controlled all these mechanisms, but a lot of damage was done. Now, digging our way out again, we have increased source country programs. We are getting them almost back to the 1992 levels. The interdiction programs' involvement of the military, the Coast Guard, almost back again to the 1992 levels. And education program which we have no match. For which again, I credit the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who is now Speaker of the House who helped secure funding for that program in the last Congress under his leadership as a chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security on which I served with him that had drug policy jurisdiction. Education. And of course, contrary to what is out there, the Geraldo Riveras and the others who give these programs about how the war on drugs is a failure, they do not have a clue. Of course we never mention that the war on drugs, in fact, was closed down by the liberal elements. But, in fact, the war on drugs is successful when it is multi-faceted, as I said, where it deals with stopping drugs at their source, interdicting drugs, a strong education program. And, of course, the Riveras and others will not tell you that in the Clinton agenda most of the money went for solely, treatment. The increases from 1993 to 1995--1996 nearly doubled for treatment, and they continue to double. And, of course, we think treatment, this new majority does, is a very critical part to any multi-faceted and effective anti-narcotics program. But by itself it is sort of like treating only the wounded in a battle, and we cannot just be taking in the casualties, treating them and sending them back out or allowing them just the alternative of a life of addiction as we compared with Baltimore last week. Madam Speaker, Baltimore now has the distinction of probably 60,000 addicts in a liberal Clinton-Gore type policy which has enslaved almost one-tenth. A Council person from Baltimore said it is one in eight who are now victims of addiction. And that is the liberal policy as opposed to the Giuliani zero tolerance, tough enforcement approach and the approach that the majority in this Congress, the new majority in this Congress, has adopted. So we know that stopping illegal narcotics at their source is very cost effective, works. We have seen dramatic decreases in Bolivia, Peru, two countries which were really the major sources of coca and cocaine production. Now that has shifted to Colombia because mostly, as I pointed out and documented very well last week, of the Clinton-Gore policy that stopped all assistance, all aid, closed down the war on drugs basically in Colombia so that Colombia is now the largest producer. And the little programs that were started under this Republican majority in Peru and Bolivia have now dramatically cut, and again with small expenditures, production there. But again it closed down the shoot-down policy; it closed down the assistance programs, a close-down of the cooperation in providing intelligence to Colombia. It destroyed those programs and now has Colombia, which was really not a coca producer, a producer of the raw source, it was a producer as far as transforming of the coca and processing it into cocaine is now the major producer in the world of cocaine, a great achievement that the Clinton-Gore administration has managed to pull off in less than 6 short years. And now, of course, we have the rampage of heroin. Again, 6 years ago, almost no heroin coming from Colombia. Now the largest source of heroin in the United States grown in Colombia, a by-product of the Clinton-Gore failed foreign policy towards Colombia. And the solution as they run to the Congress, whether it is Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, or wherever is more money and funds. And, of course, we will be saddled with an estimated $1 billion request which is coming forth to the Congress to help solve the problem that suddenly sprung up in Colombia that actually they created with a failed policy over the last 4 or 5 years. So that is where we were last week, and tonight I want to talk about where we are with drug policy. Some things happened in the House of Representatives, in fact, just the last few days. Those who watch the House of Representatives may have watched a resolution that was brought up by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) asking for fair and free elections in Haiti. Now this, my colleagues, is the same Haiti that had the same failed policy that was adopted by this administration that sort of got us in this mess and at no small expense to the American taxpayers or the Congress. Now stop and think about this. We went in to save Haiti, and we went in by a Clinton-Gore method of destroying Haiti by imposing an embargo which I spoke out very actively against. I had been to Haiti many times, knew a little bit about Haiti. It is the poorest Nation in the western hemisphere. People there make about a dollar a day, and we imposed an economic embargo. What we did with this Clinton war solution was we closed down 100,000 manufacturing jobs that supported almost 1 million Haitians, and almost all those manufacturing opportunities were owned by U.S. employers who had worked with Haitians to start a little bit of a real economy in a land that had known nothing but poverty. It really is the saddest case. Haitians are some of the most wonderful people I have ever met on the face of the Earth. So we imposed an economic embargo. What that did was it destroyed any business that might have been legitimate in Haiti, and it turned these folks of this island into basically a liberal Clinton-Gore type welfare state, sort of a socialized system where they relied on Federal funding really from Washington, D.C. to supply food stations and foreign aid and assistance. I remember talking to the ambassador and others, like what did you do after we imposed this embargo and we sent our troops in? Recall, we spent over $3 billion on this nation-building experiment that has turned into such a disaster that here we are on the floor of the House of Representatives passing a resolution saying can you participate in free elections and can you stop the corruption with your police and with your government? This is after those billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars were spent for nation-building programs, institution-building programs. If you stop and look, they are spending American taxpayer money on teaching them how to be legislators, and they could not even convene their legislature; teaching them how to be political people; teaching them law enforcement, and here we have one of the highest levels of corruption in the entire hemisphere, some 4 or 5 years later, and billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars down the drain. But I did ask the question to the ambassador and the others involved after we sent our troops in there, and we have got established, what have you done to bring back businesses to help American businesses in partnerships which we had started with Haiti before this embargo? Basically, they had done very little or nothing. Even to this day, they still do not get it. They think that the way to nation-build is to provide just the institutional assistance and not real sound economic development. You can spend all the American taxpayer money you want in the world in Haiti; and until you have some real market activity, tourism, manufacturing, things that create jobs, some agriculture that allows them to provide for themselves, the handout programs do not work. Yet we have done this. How embarrassing it must be for this administration and this Congress to stand here in the last few days and pass a resolution asking them to sort of clean up their act, after spending billions in this nation- building. The reason I cite that as a failed Clinton-Gore policy in relation to narcotics is because we have seen the corruption of the police force there. Allegations have been filed on members of the Haitian National Police Force accusing them of a wave of murders, disappearance of detainees and drug-related crimes and other illegal activities. These are the latest reports that we have had. The United States, in the billions we spent, we spent $75 million to help train and build the police force, and the police department has had to dismiss over 530 officers over the last 4 years for corruption. This little report in the Tuesday, September 28, Washington Post Foreign Service said, and it quotes a Colin Granderson, ``If you are asking me whether I am more concerned about rot in the police than a year ago, the answer is yes,'' said Colin Granderson, Executive Director of an international civilian mission here in Port-au-Prince, run by the Organization of American States and the United Nations. Let me quote him further. He says, ``We have both human rights concerns and concerns about the broader conduct of officers, specifically with respect to criminal activity, in particular drug smuggling.'' Now, if that is not the crown jewel of the accomplishments of the Clinton-Gore administration. We spent billions of dollars, we have an economy that is defunct, we have corruption in the political levels unknown to the Western Hemisphere, and we again have spent a fortune in these training and assistance and aid and handout programs. And what do we have? We have Haiti being named as one of the drug smuggling centers of the Western Hemisphere. It was interesting too in checking into the airport just this past weekend, I noticed, I think it was with, I believe, Nigeria, but I am not certain about that, but there was one other nation mentioned, as you enter the security, it says ``Please note that these airports in these countries are not in compliance with international security.'' There was one other country, and, again I do not recall if it was Nigeria, but I do know very well that the second country named in the list was Haiti and Port-au-Prince Airport. What a great distinction, again, Clinton-Gore policy, on spending these billions on destroying the economy and real market activity and instituting a social handout program, the institutional training by all these ``experts,'' and we have drug smuggling; and we have one of the worst security risk airports in the world cited as, again, in Haiti. So I am very concerned about what has taken place there. I am even more concerned now that Haiti has become a haven for illegal narcotics activity. Tonight I also want to go sort of around the hemisphere and talk in addition about Colombia, which I mentioned last week. I will review it again tonight, and about Haiti, another third Clinton-Gore failure of policy. I cannot give 100 percent credit to President Clinton and Vice President Gore for this disaster. This took a combination of leadership. It started with President Carter, who negotiated the turnover of the Panama Canal, and maybe it was rightful and just for the United States to eventually cede back the canal to Panama, but it did take an administration that was in place in the past year or two to begin some of the final negotiations for departure of American interests and personnel from Panama. Here again when they write the history books, they will have, of course, Somalia and Haiti and Colombia; but another crown jewel of policy failure has to be Panama. I did not take over the subcommittee until January; but, again, I served with Speaker Hastert who was then Chair of the subcommittee. Everyone has known that the United States' lease was up, that we had to be out of Panama by the end of 1999, December 31. That was a given. The question was the negotiations; the question was the resources that we had there. Most Americans do not know it, but we had over $10 billion in assets, American assets, over 5,500 buildings in Panama. When I assumed chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I went down to Panama early on and met with our folks in charge there. I also stopped in Miami and met with our SOUTHCOM officials who were also responsible for DOD operations in that area. We were told then that the administration was negotiating a withdrawal of United States troops that in particular had been involved in the interdiction effort and the surveillance effort through South America and Central America. We had been doing, I believe, up to 15,000 flights from Howard Air Force Base in an FOL, forward operating location, surveillance for international narcotics trafficking. We knew that our time was limited, but we knew that we must negotiate with the Panamanians. We might not have been able to keep a military presence, but certainly it was in everyone's interest in the region and the hemisphere for the United States to continue these narcotics flights to the south and cover all of South and Central America, where we have the problems. We know all of the cocaine in the world comes from Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. We know that 80 percent of the heroin entering the United States is produced and comes from Colombia, and it all travels up through that region. So that is why the Howard Air Force Base operations were critically important to that forward oversight and surveillance mission. We were told that negotiations were under way when I visited there and met with officials and this would all be done. What happened, in fact, is May 1, Howard Air Force Base was basically closed down as far as further flights. The United States was summarily kicked out. The negotiations failed. Our State Department failed in negotiations to continue the drug flights. So in a mad scurry, the Department of State began, along with the Department of Defense, to find new locations. They did bring us rather late to the gate several alternatives. One was Aruba and Curacao in the Dutch Antilles and the other was in Manta, Ecuador. Of course, the price tag now may reach one-quarter of a billion dollars before we are through relocating these, but we have closed down all operations. There has been a huge gap in surveillance of those drug and illegal narcotic activities in the time that the negotiations failed and alternatives were being explored and pursued. To date, I do not believe that we have in place, either with Aruba, Curacao and the Netherlands, and I have met recently with the Dutch officials on this issue and I do not think there is anything new, but we do not have a long-term agreement on an operation there. So it is very difficult for us to take American taxpayer money and put it into this location for facilities, improvements or operations. Some of those operations are up. We are still at a very low percentage, less than 50 percent, of the flights that we had prior to May 1. So we have lost 5,500 buildings; we lost $10 billion in assets, no opportunity to opt out of Howard, and now the taxpayer is going to pay for moving these operations to the Antilles and to Ecuador. In Ecuador the situation is even more dismal. The country there has had economic and political turmoil. We do not have a permanent agreement in place, and even though Manta, Ecuador, where the facility is to be located, is a good forward operating location, it will take even more dollars than suspected; and we have had additional requests already from the administration to put our forward operating locations in. So both of those are still up in the air. Again, another crown jewel in failure to be prepared, failure to negotiate with the Panamanians. For possibly the payment of a small amount, we might have retained our bases and operations just for the narcotics operation, a great savings to the taxpayers, but yet have an ideal location where we were already operating out of. Now we are operating on sort of a half-baked fashion, half-performance fashion, at great cost to the taxpayers. If we had not lost just Howard Air Force Base and closed down the operations there, the situation, again as it affects the United States, is very serious. I was pleased to read just yesterday, I believe it was, yesterday's National Media, that the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, has asked the Senate Armed Services Committee to conduct hearings on China's growing presence around the Panama Canal, a strategic waterway, which is, of course, being transferred to Panamanian control. I am very pleased that the majority leader of the other body is in fact focusing attention, because what I learned in not only my visit to Panama in anticipation of problems and requesting the administration to take action so we did not get ourselves into this pickle, but what I found out about what had already taken place or was taking place as far as possible future strategic damage to the security interests of the hemisphere and the United States in particular, I believe, again, we have missed our mark, that we have a failed policy, that we have allowed also the ports, both on the Pacific side and on the Caribbean side, I believe it is Cristobal and Balboa, now to fall into the hands of possibly Red Chinese interests. Let me just cite from this report. The Hutchinson-Whampoa, Limited, the Hong Kong based company that won a long-term shipping contract to operate two canal ports, is rumored to have Chinese military and intelligence ties. I have been personally told, and it has been confirmed by the director of our National Office of Narcotics Control, our Drug Czar, that he believes that the tenders that were conducted thereto and contracts for these ports were not above the board and that these contracts and tenders were done in a corrupt fashion. That has been confirmed by many others. But now we have possible links to Chinese military and intelligence as far as controlling interests in both of these ports. It is important to the United States because the United States is the number one user of the canal, which carries 13,000 ships per year. Panama has always served as a major transit area for illegal narcotics. If my colleagues will recall, the reason the United States sent troops, and American troops died on Panamanian soil when Noriega was the President and dictator of that country, George Bush's policy was to go in and route out illegal narcotics trafficking. We knew Noriega was involved. We knew he was corrupt. We knew he was involved in money laundering. George Bush's solution was to tackle the problem and go after Noriega, who is in United States prison. That is some only 10 years ago. American men and others lost their lives in that battle to reclaim the strategic interests. Here we are signing away and giving away that interest. What is interesting is that one of the things that was done with the fall of Noriega was really the dispersal of the Panamanian military. There is almost no military in Panama today, just a national police force. That creates a very difficult situation, because most of the illegal narcotics transiting up through the isthmus of Panama into Central America and Mexico and across the U.S. border must again come through that area and under the control of either military or police. There being no Panamanian military, we have a great problem with a force that is small, inadequate, and, at times, sometimes subject to corruption again with large amounts of money in the drug trade. We also have the terrible problem of the insurgency that is in Colombia, which I spoke about last week, the Marxist insurgency, of which there is no line between the insurgency and Marxist guerilla and narco-trafficking. They are supported. They are intertwined. Our Drug Czar has said one cannot tell the difference between the line. These Marxist forces are now going from Colombia, which borders Panama, into Panama and making incursions further into Panama which is weaker and more corrupt. My prediction is that the United States will end up again some years down the pike, when the corruption becomes so bad, when narcotic trafficking becomes so bad, and, again, will pay the price, hopefully not in American lives, but to take back our interests. We are not interested in running Panama, but securing for the entire hemisphere that strategic location, that strategic transportation link between the two seas. I am pleased that the Majority Leader is taking action, as again reported, and demanding hearings on that issue. In addition to the fiasco in Panama, tonight I wanted to again mention that the statistics, the information that we have on illegal narcotics, the effect of illegal narcotics in our country, particularly among our young people and our population at large, is becoming more and more serious. I come from an area that has had more deaths by heroin overdoses than homicides. If one stops and thinks about that, people think of crime and murder and its ravages and guns destroying lives. But illegal narcotics overdoses, particularly heroin, in Central Florida now exceed homicides. As one parent who lost a son told me at a hearing, drug overdoses are homicides. I am always reminded of his comments. But we have seen that impact in Central Florida; and now, unfortunately, we see it repeated across our Nation, not only with heroin, but with methamphetamines, with cocaine. One thing that I started to mention at the end of my remarks last week and really did not get it in is the difference that we are seeing between the cocaine and the heroin of the 1980s and the 1970s and even the marijuana. We will talk about marijuana tonight too, about the difference in the drugs that are on the streets and in the marketplace and also being used by our young people and why we have so many deaths and destruction of lives. First of all, in the 1970s and 1980s, the heroin and cocaine that was on the street had sometimes a 6 and 7 percent purity, 100 percent being pure. It was 6 or 7. Sometimes strong stuff might have reached 9 percent purity. Today, through the processing, through the chemistry, through the product that is being produced and entering this country of heroin and cocaine, the purity levels are 70, 80 percent. These narcotics are deadly substances. Basically people are dealing in death and destruction. That is why we are having this epidemic of deaths among young people. I do not have this past week's statistics, but I had just several cites from the Orlando area: One 30-year-old woman who died of an overdose of cocaine. That is powerful, deadly cocaine. Heroin, several heroin deaths I cited. One, a 12-year-old boy went in and found his father who had overdosed on heroin. That is deadly heroin. Particularly our young people, sometimes the first time they use it, they mix it with alcohol or some other substance, and they go into convulsions, and they are history. But that is the difference that we see. Even the marijuana today, the levels of purity are much higher. I believe it is the TCH levels that are substantially higher than anything that we have ever seen. Scientific studies have shown that the damage that is done to the brain through these high levels of purity is substantial. I was interested to note, I got a report, again, as chair of this Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Relations, about substance abuse and addiction to substances by our teenagers and young people. I would have thought maybe alcohol might be up there. I was absolutely stunned to see that the vast, vast majority of addiction and treatment is for marijuana, that these young people become, addicted to this high purity level. I have met, we have a Stewart Marchman Center in the Daytona Beach area, and I have sat at a little round table with young people there and also down in Orlando, the Center For Drugfree Living, have met with young people there without and, some instances, with counselors and talked to them confidentially about their involvement. Almost all of them had become victims of this high grade of marijuana that destroys their motivation, that begins to affect their performance, their routine, their ambitions, and, again, leads to addiction and crime in many instances. We have an incredible problem. The national drug crisis, I always try to cite some statistics about the problem. Tonight, let me just mention that, in 1998, more than three-quarters, that is 78 percent, of high school teens report that drugs are sold and kept at their schools, a 6 percent increase over 1996. That is even with some of the education programs that have been instituted. So, indeed, we have a problem. That is part of a CSA teen study in 1998. From 1993, and again remember 1993 was the close-down of the war on drugs, to 1997, a youth aged 12 to 17 using illegal drugs has more than doubled. That is again, we had the time that the Clinton-Gore administration ruled supreme. They controlled the House and Senate. They closed down some of the programs I spoke about. The results are pretty dramatic: 120 percent increase in illegal drug use by our 12 to 17 year olds. There has been a 17 percent increase between 1996 and 1997 alone. That is a 1998 national household survey. The overall number of past month heroin users increased a startling 378 percent from 1993 to 1997. That is part of the inheritance, I believe, also of this liberal policy to just say maybe, the Joselyn Elders approach of, if it feels good, do it. For kids 12 to 17, first-time heroin use, which is proven to kill, that surged a whopping 875 percent from 1992 to 1996, again dramatic figures that are a result of a failed policy. There was no war on drugs, remember, from 1993, the beginning of the Clinton-Gore administration, until just several years ago with a new majority and restarting all of the efforts that are necessary to combat illegal narcotics. The other failed policy I would like to talk about tonight is a very serious failed policy. I talked some about Haiti. I talked about Panama, reiterated the problems that we have had in Colombia, which I detailed last week. Tonight, I must talk about Mexico. I have spoken probably more than anyone in the House of Representatives about the problems with Mexico and illegal narcotics trafficking. But the story is a very important story in our war on drugs, because the majority of illegal narcotics, whether it is marijuana, heroin, cocaine, all come through Mexico. When we went to Panama, we also met with Mexican officials early this year and asked for their cooperation and assistance. We reviewed what Mexico has done. We reviewed what this Congress has done for Mexico and the American people as good friends and neighbors and allies. We have millions of Mexican-Americans who are productive citizens. The picture, unfortunately, about what this Mexican Government and Mexican officials have done, the picture is very sad. Indeed, the problem again is that we have an estimated 70 percent of the cocaine coming from Mexico. We have 50 percent of the marijuana and 20 percent of the heroin in the United States now coming through our southwest border. Last week, on Friday morning, I conducted a hearing on the southwest border. When we came back from Mexico, we stopped at the border and met with our officials, and they basically told us, Members of Congress in charge of national drug control policy, that the situation on our southwest border dealing with illegal narcotics is out of control. It is disorganized. It is in disarray. There is a lack of communication, a lack of coordination. And that is of great concern. Dealing again as chair of this Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, and with billions of dollars involved in some of these efforts in these agencies, we wanted to see specific results. I was pleased that our drug czar Barry McCaffrey came in and testified, and he told me beforehand he was glad that we conducted a hearing on the Hill on the southwest border because it gave him additional clout to deal with these agencies, and also the opportunity to bring them together to see what was working and what was not working. And that was the purpose of our mission, and our exchange last Friday at our meeting. We know that there have been some successes in 1998. The U.S. Customs Service seized 32,000 pounds of cocaine, 150,000 pounds of marijuana, and 407 pounds of heroin. We also heard testimony that reconfirmed what we had heard in our site visit back at the early part of this year, that the Customs agency does not talk to the INS and the INS does not talk to the DEA and the DEA does not talk to the FBI and other agencies, again 23 agencies that deal with border interdiction and four cabinet level posts, are not all operating in sync. And we certainly have seen the results of some of the narcotics trafficking that has occurred along this border. Let me just tell my colleagues a little bit about what we heard at our hearing about border violence. In April 1998, four marijuana smugglers, dealing with that so-called harmless marijuana on the west side of Nogales, Arizona, assassinated a United States border patrol agent. His name was Alex Kurpnick, and committed murder in a so-called harmless trafficking of illegal marijuana. We have heard of increased violence against United States border patrol agents, with more rock throwing, laser beam pointing and actual incoming fire from Nogales, Mexico. All this we heard is on the increase. In Santa Cruz County, Arizona, along the border, the majority of crimes committed there are drug related. In March of 1999, a few months ago, Phoenix police department officer, Mark Atkinson, was killed when he was ambushed by a Mexican illegal alien teen. His name was Felipe Petrona-Cabanas, who was involved specifically in drug dealings. In July 1999, three apparent sniper attacks, possibly by the same gunman, within a 45-minute period, were aimed at United States border patrol agents from El Centro, California. Again, we heard of more situations along our border with Mexican illegal narcotics trafficking raising havoc, and again problems with our agency coordination and efforts to combat this problem. In border violence there have been 151 documented incidents from January 1, 1999, to date involving violence toward Federal law enforcement officers along our southern borders. In 1998, there were 140 instances of border violence. The drug smuggling along the border continues to take on even more sophisticated techniques. I think some of my colleagues may have read about the Santa Cruz Metro Task Force which recently uncovered two secretly dug tunnels that connected to Nogales, Mexico. The tunnel was designed to smuggle drugs across the border. It was also discovered from the Tijuana National Airport to the outskirts of San Diego. So these drug traffickers become even more and more clever in their approach. All this is very interesting, again as far as the violence and the problems and the disorganization of our agencies, and it would be fodder for congressional investigation on its own, if we did not look at the efforts that we have made to increase the number of border patrol agents, the Southwest Strategy as it is called. In the last 6 years, the border patrol agents have increased from 3,928 to 8,027. In the same 6-year period, the INS budget, Immigration and Naturalization Service, who has a large activity along the border, their budget has increased from approximately $1.5 billion to nearly $4 billion. During the same period, the INS staff grew from approximately 17,000 employees to 28,000 full-time employees as of June of this year. So it is not that the Congress has not put an effort into this border problem. The problem is that we have put the funds there and we still do not have the cooperation and the effectiveness to deal with this situation. Now, each of the agencies who came before our subcommittee promised to do better and to work together. That remains to be seen. But, again, we will try to keep the pressure on to see that American taxpayer dollars, which have been heavily loaded in this effort, are more effectively expended. Again, we have received these problems from our good friend and ally Mexico, and I want to talk a little bit about the country that gave us these problems. Mexico has been a good ally. We have many, many Mexican Americans who are loyal citizens and very productive. But the government of Mexico has failed to cooperate on almost every front. This is another one of the crown jewels of the failed Clinton-Gore administration policy. They gave them NAFTA, which was probably the best trade deal ever created by the United States Congress, a trade agreement that is unparalleled in the history of international negotiations. Great trade advantages to Mexico. We put our people out of business, lost jobs across the Nation, and gave them great economic opportunity. We once had a positive trade balance, and now we have a huge trade deficit. They are pouring their goods in, which are produced across the border with lower wages, lower standards, lower environmental requirements across the board. It is not a level playing field, but we gave them those benefits. When they got in financial trouble, what did we do? This administration bailed them out. We bailed them out with an unprecedented number of dollars in financial support. They have gotten as a nation and an ally and friend almost every advantage possible. And what have they given us? We ask and we require, in order to get trade and foreign aid and assistance, we ask the President and the Secretary of State to certify each year to Congress that they are cooperating in stopping illegal narcotics production and trafficking. That is the drug certification law. In other words, if they cooperate, they get this assistance. If they do not, they are supposed to be decertified. Each time, Clinton-Gore has certified Mexico as cooperating. The worst insult was in the last year. And I want my colleagues to look at these figures from 1998. Mexican drug seizures. We asked them to help in seizing illegal narcotics, and this is what we got: from 1997 to 1998, in seizing heroin, a drop of 56 percent; in seizing cocaine, a drop of 35 percent. Is this cooperation? This Congress passed 2 years ago a resolution asking Mexico to help in signing a maritime agreement. To date, they have not signed a maritime agreement. We asked for protection of our agents, because some years ago Enrique Camarena, a United States drug enforcement agent, was tortured and died in a horrible death and slaughtered like an animal by Mexican drug dealers. So we have asked for protection of our small number of agents, and we still do not have those guarantees of protection. We asked for enforcement of laws. They pass laws in Mexico, but they do not enforce them. And what did we get? We got kicked in the teeth like no other nation has been kicked in the teeth after giving them incredible trade benefits. What did they do? We started a sting operation in Mexico, because we knew, and we had reports of incredible amounts of money laundering. In fact, this operation was called Operation Casablanca by our customs agents. Our customs agents discovered the biggest money laundering operation in the history of the world. In fact, in testimony that we had by one former Customs agent, he told us that he was in the process of trying to money launder over $1.1 billion for a Mexican official, who was identified as a cabinet member, possibly a secretary of defense, and possibly with ties to the president of Mexico, the current president of Mexico. Now, we know the former president, Salinas, and his brother and family, were up to their eyeballs in illegal narcotics and money laundering and every sort of crime; but, again, we had testimony before our subcommittee about what was going on there. Instead of cooperation, instead of enforcing the laws, they threatened to expel and even to arrest our United States customs agents. This is a travesty. What was very interesting, and what I think warrants, what I think warrants investigation, and I am going to ask the director of the FBI to look into it, is the latest death of a former Deputy Attorney General who died awaiting trial here. In a suicide note, he died a few weeks ago, he implicated Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and members of the country's ruling party in the slaying of his brother. He also said that the Mexican Government is opposing a push by the United States Congress to level major penalties against business ties to drug traffickers. This is additional information that we have gotten. What is sad is that we have information now that implicates even the highest office. What is sad is that the initial investigation of the money laundering of $1.1 billion was basically closed down by our Department of Justice, closed down by our Customs operation. That is even after comments by individuals like Tom Constantine, who is the former head of DEA, who said, ``In my lifetime, I have never witnessed any group of criminals that has had such a terrible impact on so many individuals and communities in our Nation. Corruption among Mexican antidrug authorities was unparalleled with anything I have seen in 39 years of police work.'' The story gets even more difficult as we look into the evidence that continues to arise about the level of corruption with Mexican officials at every level. We have reports now that the Baja Peninsula, the western state connected to California, is now almost entirely under the control of illegal narcotics traffickers. We have reports that the Yucatan Peninsula is also in a similar state and other States of Mexico. So we have been good friends. We have been good allies. And every report that we get paints an even grimmer picture. Finally, we asked the Mexicans to extradite major drug kingpins. The United States, on November 13, 1997, entered into and signed a protocol to the current extradition treaty with Mexico. This protocol has been ratified by the other body, the United States Senate; and it still has not been ratified by the Mexican parliamentarians. This is a very sad state of affairs, again an example of failed Clinton policy granting them certification and granting them trade, granting them financial assistance, and getting in return none of the requests of this Congress, failure of cooperation in narcotics. Mexico today has the crown and glory of being the major drug transport area from Colombia through Mexico, again the largest source of illegal narcotics entering the United States, a very dismal picture presented and brought to my colleagues, unfortunately, by this administration. Hopefully, working with this new Congress, we can turn this around, we can get the resources to Colombia, we can take a tougher stand with Mexico, we can continue to hold hearings, make the American people and the Congress aware of this situation, and reverse this sad state of affairs with our closest ally, our closest friend, in exporting to the United States terror, death, and destruction in the form of illegal narcotics trade and business. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to conclude at this time and, hopefully, be back next week with another report on the problem of illegal narcotics and how it impacts both this Congress, the American people, and the next generation. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before the House tonight to address my colleagues again on what I consider one of the most important topics facing Congress and the American people, and that is the problem of illegal narcotics in this country, not only the problem of illegal narcotics as it affects us as far as our role as Members of Congress in providing funding for various programs, but the effects of this dreaded plague on our country that have many significant dimensions. Tonight I would like to again talk to the House about this topic and discuss a number of areas, and first of all provide my colleagues and the American people with an update on some of the recent happenings as to how drugs and illegal narcotics destroy lives and affect the lives of people, not only in my district but across this Nation. I will talk a little bit about the situation and the policies that got us to where we are today with the problem of illegal narcotics. Then I would like to talk a little bit about Colombia, which is in the news. The President of Colombia is now in the United States and addressed the United Nations. He has made proposals, along with this administration, about resolving some of the difficulties that relate directly to illegal narcotics trafficking in our neighbor to the south. I would also like to talk a little bit about the history of the policy as it developed relating to Colombia, and some of the proposals that are on the table now to resolve the conflict that has been created again by these failed policies. But tonight I would like to start out by first providing an update to my colleagues on the cost of the problem of illegal narcotics. I always start at home and the news from my district. I come from Central Florida. I represent the area just north of Orlando to Daytona Beach, probably one of the most prosperous areas in the Nation. We do have our problems: problems of growth, problems of expansion, problems of providing education. We are very fortunate that we have a very high education level, high income level, a very low unemployment level, so we are indeed one of the 435 districts of the country that has had fortune shine upon us in many ways. We have also been the victim of the problem of illegal narcotics and hard drugs and the terror that they have rained not only, again, across the Nation, but on our district in Central Florida. Many people equate Orlando in Central Florida to Disney World and entertainment and fun. But unfortunately, we have been the victims, like, again, many other areas across the Nation, of the ravages of illegal narcotics. Let me read from an Orlando Sentinel story just in the last few hours that was released. It says, ``Deaths this past weekend brought the numbers of confirmed and suspected heroin-related deaths in Orange and Osceola Counties to 34.'' Orange and Osceola Counties are around the Orlando metropolitan area. ``At the current rate, Central Florida likely will break last year's record of 52 heroin-related deaths.'' Many of these deaths are among our young people. In fact, the 52 deaths in just Central Florida, in that little small geographic area, I found outnumber the number of deaths in some countries from heroin. It is really an astounding figure. Again, unfortunately, Central Florida is not the only area that is experiencing both the numbers of deaths and the tragedies that we have experienced. The article goes on and puts a human face on what happens in some of these cases. It says, ``Early Friday a 12-year-old boy found his 46- year-old father lifeless at their home on Bayfront Parkway near Little Lake Conway,'' near the south of Orlando. ``A packet of heroin, a syringe, a spoon and matches were found near the body, according to sheriff's records.'' More news from my county, also on Friday. ``A 34-year-old Orange County man collapsed from a suspected overdose of opiates, the Medical Examiner's Office reported. He died on Sunday,'' this past Sunday. On Saturday, ``A 30-year-old woman from Orlando died in a vacant house on Gore street.'' That is in the downtown area. ``She collapsed about 8:30 a.m. after she had smoked crack cocaine, a friend told deputies.'' Again, the misfortunes of Central Florida are felt across this Nation. We have had over 14,000 drug-related deaths last year, and that is just the reported deaths in this country. Unfortunately, many deaths related to narcotics do not even get reported. Let me point out, if I may, just a news article that appeared in the past month that was in the Los Angeles Times. This dealt with the bus crash that killed 22 people on Mothers Day. Twenty-two elderly individuals were killed in New Orleans, and it now is made public, according to this news report, that the driver, who died of a heart attack, used marijuana 2 to 6 hours before his full bus of mostly elderly women veered off a highway and smashed into a concrete abutment. These elderly victims probably will not have it listed in their cause of death as being drug-related, but here we have an instance of supposed casual drug use and the taking of 22 lives. Another instance that does put a human face on the tragedy of illegal narcotics must be the news report that we had in the last week coming out of Tampa. I know several years ago people from around our state and our area and the Nation were all bereaved when they heard the news of a 5-month old baby supposedly taken from its parents, Baby Sabrina the child was known in many media accounts. It now appears that investigators had taped the family after the disappearance, and part of the conversation was released in the media. This is in the Orlando Sentinel, September 10, a few days ago. The conversation, according to a Federal prosecutor, included this quote, ``I wished I hadn't harmed her. It was the cocaine.'' This statement was allegedly made in the recording by the father. We see so many tragedies of child abuse, of child neglect, spouse abuse, deaths. I am not sure how this child, this infant's death will be listed in the final investigation. Again, these are alleged facts, but again surfacing as the problem of illegal narcotics. The problem of illegal narcotics across our country reaches just every segment of activity. It is not just folks in the ghetto areas. It is not folks in the lower income, socioeconomic income. This problem of illegal narcotics use and its impact on our society is reaching all aspects of our American population. There is a report from the Associated Press last week that I want to quote from. Seven in 10 people who used illegal drugs in 1997 had full- time jobs. This is a recent report that stated also, about 6.3 million full-time workers age 18 to 49 or 7.7 percent of the workers admitted in 1997 using illegal drugs in the preceding month. Workers in restaurants, bars, construction, and transportation were more likely than others to use drugs, the report said. Forty-four percent of drug users were working for small businesses, those with fewer than 25 employees down from 57 percent in 1994, but still the largest category. So whether, again, we see social problems such as child abuse, such as murder, such as robbery, theft, we also see in common ordinary working Americans the problem of illegal narcotics use. That does have a dramatic impact. In fact, the statistics are somewhere around a quarter of a trillion dollars. That is over $250 billion in lost productivity, cost to society, cost to our judicial system, incarceration. In fact, today we have nearly 2 million Americans behind bars and there because of some drug-related offenses. I know many people who I come into contact with say that we should release these folks because it is not good to have casual drug users behind bars. But, in fact, every statistic, every report that we have seen, every charge that we have looked behind finds that these aren't casual drug users that are in our Federal prisons and state prisons. These, in fact, are individuals who have committed felonies while either under the influence of narcotics or committed a crime while attempting to secure money or drugs and committing illegal acts. So there is a real myth. In fact, we had before my Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources one of the authors of a recent study in New York, which debunked the theory that we have people who are casual drug users, in fact, behind bars. In fact, the report indicated that one really had to try hard, one had to commit a number of felonies to be incarcerated in New York and behind bars and involved with illegal narcotics. So the facts do not support that casual drug users are behind bars, that in fact serious offenses are committed, whether again it is murder, whether it is a crime to obtain drugs or cash. Again, there is tremendous costs on our society, somewhere around a quarter of a trillion dollars a year. In addition to the problems that I have cited about illegal narcotics and some of the myths that surround illegal narcotics, I wanted to also talk about another myth that I heard repeatedly during the August recess and even during the past weeks. I hear these media accounts that the drug war has failed, that the war on drugs is a failure. I do not think that people really understand what happened when we had a war on drugs and when we closed down the war on drugs. It is absolutely incredible that people do not realize that during the Reagan administration, we began a real war on drugs. That was continued into the Bush administration when we had a real war on illegal narcotics. What happened in 1993 with the election of the Clinton-Gore administration was basically a close down of the war on illegal narcotics, the war on drugs as we have known it. The phrase was coined in the 1980s, and it was indeed a war on drugs. It was a multifaceted war against illegal narcotics. I served as an aide in the U.S. Senate under Senator Paula Hawkins, and she was involved with the development of various laws, legislative strategies, working along with them, at that time the Vice President and members of the Reagan administration, in developing administrative approaches and programs to deal with, at that time, cocaine that was coming into the United States. That program, in fact, those efforts and that war on drugs were, in fact, very successful. There was dramatic decrease in the use of illegal narcotics among our teens. The Vice President, at that time it was George Bush, created a task force on illegal narcotics. The ANDEAN strategy was developed to interdict and to stop drugs at their source, which must really be the most cost effective way of stopping illegal narcotics. If we know where they are grown, if we know where they are produced, and we can stop them at the source, then in fact we can do it very cost effectively. That has been proven, and that has been done. It was done in the war on drugs in the 1980s, and in fact it worked. Then, of course, we had national leadership which we have not had since 1993 on the issue of illegal narcotics. Even the First Lady she took a national lead, developed a program that was really ingrained in our young people. It was a simple message, ``Just Say No.'' The President appointed Drug Czars who helped formulate policy and programs that actually went after illegal narcotics. We had a tough enforcement policy. We had a tough interdiction policy. We began for the first time to utilize the military in the war on drugs. The Coast Guard was also employed and other United States resources committed in a war on drugs. Now, all that stopped, for the most part, in 1993 with the beginning of the Clinton-Gore administration. Let me just put up this chart, if I may. This first chart does not show back before 1989, but as my colleagues can see in this chart, this is 12th grade drug use. It shows lifetime, annual, and also 30-day in these colors, use by 12th graders. What is interesting is we can see from the start of the chart here in 1989 that there is a decline in drug use. This is, again, when we had a war on drugs, when we had a national message against illegal narcotics. Among our teenagers and our young people, if we took this chart out, we would see this dramatic decline to 1992, 1993. Then we had the election of this President. No emphasis on national leadership. The first thing that this President did was in fact fire almost everyone. There were only a few folks left in the Drug Czar's office. In fact, the first thing President Clinton and Vice President Gore did was cut the staffing at the National Office of Drug Control Policy. It was cut 80 percent. The exact figures, which are public record, are from 147 Drug Czar employees and staff to 25. That was the beginning of the end of the war on drugs. There is a line here that delineates a success and the beginning of a failed policy. It could not be more graphic than this chart displays. I will show some even more telling graphic descriptions of what has taken place in just a few minutes. But, again, the leadership was lost. The opportunity was lost. What is interesting if we come back and look at this, the Democrats controlled the House, the United States Senate, and the White House in this period. They very purposely dismantled all of the war on drugs in a number of areas, and I will point each of them out. But my colleagues can see, up until when the Republicans took over the House and the Senate in 1995 here, 1996 my colleagues see the first leveling off. We have seen that, under the leadership provided first by Mr. Zeliff, who lead the House effort to begin to restart the war on drugs, and then Speaker Hastert who was Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Affairs. I served with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) at that time. We see this leveling off on the beginning of a decline with, again, the Republicans taking over the issue and providing the leadership and trying to get a war on drugs restarted. There is no question, again, but this multifaceted effort of eradication, interdiction, tough enforcement, and also education and treatment, and I will talk about the education program, too, that we have started, which is unprecedented, all of these things have made a difference in a restart. This is in a shutdown. So anyone who tells my colleagues that we have had a war on drugs, please tell them that it stopped in 1993 with the Clinton-Gore administration. Now, that chart is interesting to show what has happened among our young people. This chart is labeled International Spending. I brought this chart out tonight because it graphically shows again the end of the war on drugs in 1992, 1993. This is where, again, the Democrats took over the House and the Senate and the White House. Of course they controlled the House before that, but they controlled all three bodies. They did incredible damage in a very short period of time. This chart is labeled Federal Spending: International. Now, this is, this goes back to the source country programs, international programs are source country programs; that is, stopping drugs at their source and in the fields where they are grown and going into the country and working with the country in a very cost effective manner to stop illegal narcotics. The war on drugs stopped in 1992, 1993. And if we look at the drug use, the chart went up this way as spending on international went the other way. So the war on drugs, my point is, stopped. Again there were not the programs that were started in the 1980s under President Reagan. And this would be the Andean strategies, the international strategies. They cut the money and funding going into Colombia, and we will talk about the consequences of not assisting Colombia and the wrong policy adopted, the cost-effective programs of putting a few dollars into them. And these are actually very few dollars. If we look at 1991 and 1992, we are spending about $660 million, $650 million, in that range of dollars. In a $17 billion drug budget, that is a very small amount. Actually, if we look at what Clinton and Gore did, and again with the control of this Congress, they reduced spending greater than 50 percent. It gets down to $290, which is certainly less than half of the $633. So they reduced spending on international programs; cut these international program's spending to cost-effectively stop illegal narcotics at their source. So this is one part of the ending of the war on drugs, and exactly how they did it. The next part would be interdiction. And first of all, we talked about international and source country programs stopping drugs very cost effectively with a few dollars; working with other countries and stopping them at their source. Our next opportunity to stop illegal narcotics is as they leave the source country. And we try to get the illegal drugs before they even get near our border. Here again is a very telling chart. Again we can see in 1992, 1993, with the beginning of the Clinton-Gore administration, the interdiction programs. The war on drugs. If we want to talk about our war on drugs, it ended right in this 1993 period, just as the international programs ended, just as involvement in interdicting drugs at their source ended. Now, they cut the money, and that did a tremendous amount of damage. Because what it did was it allowed drugs to come from the source to our borders. We had previously been using the military, the Coast Guard, other assets that we have out there anyway involved in stopping drugs before they reach our borders in a cost-effective manner. What was even more damaging, not only did the Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House do this damage in stopping the war on drugs, but they did even more damage. They adopted policies which have caused incredible damage. And there is no other way to describe it. One of the policies they adopted, for example, was to stop information-sharing to our South American allies who were working with us, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. And the United States has great capabilities, with U2, with surveillance, with forward-operating locations, to obtain information. We can tell when a plane takes off. We can track trackers on the ground. We can really get incredible amounts of intelligence and information about what is going on with illegal narcotics. Well, one of the first shutdowns as far as policy in this war on drugs, and this is funding, closing down financially the war on drugs, was sharing that information with these countries. So we stopped some of that information sharing. We also stopped information that allowed these countries to identify these aircraft, warn these aircraft as they took off from these clandestine strips; and then these countries, some of them, adopted shootdown policies. They were to identify themselves. If they did not identify themselves, they were given warnings, warning shots were fired, and, finally, they were shot down. Of course, with the Clinton-Gore administration, we destroyed the first part of the policy and then the second part of the policy. And just in Colombia in the last year have we begun to restore that effort. So when someone says that the war on drugs is a failure, the war on drugs was a success, and it started in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan and it went through George Bush. The shutdown on the war on drugs took place in 1992, 1993. The financial reports identify this. The charts, as far as drug use among our children, identify this. This administration also destroyed what was known as the drug czar's office in dramatically cutting 80 percent of the staffing. Not only did they gut the drug czar's office, again closing down the war on drugs, but they appointed an individual by the name of Joycelyn Elders as the chief health officer of the United States. Not much more damage in the policy that I described, closing down on the war on drugs, could be done then to hire as a chief health officer for the country an individual who told our young people ``just say maybe'' to illegal drug use. Eventually, the individual was replaced, but a tremendous amount of damage was done. And the damage, again, is right here. This is not a chart I just pulled out of a hat. We can see Joycelyn Elders, the close-down on the war on drugs, just say maybe, and the skyrocketing of illegal narcotics use among our teenagers. So, again, to people who say that the war on drugs has been a failure, I say there had been a war on drugs until 1993. Not only have we had a liberal approach from this administration on the subject of illegal narcotics, a total lack of national leadership, a close-down of the major problems, taking the military out of the war on drugs, stopping the cost-effective source country programs, if that was not enough damage in all of those ways; but they also had allies in this war on drugs. I hear so many people say, well, let us legalize drugs. It does not matter. Let kids smoke dope; let people use heroin, have needle exchanges. We need to be more liberal, more tolerant. Everybody does it. A third of Americans have used some kind of illegal narcotics at some time. Just go ahead and do it. If it feels good, do it. This liberal policy has caused this situation that we are in now, with my area experiencing 52 heroin deaths this past weekend. I just cited three more drug overdoses, two heroin, one cocaine. We have epidemic methamphetamine use. We had 14,000 Americans who died last year in drug-related deaths, and thousands and thousands more, as I pointed out just from a couple examples tonight, who have met their maker as a result of murder, mayhem, or whatever, committed under the influence of illegal narcotics. That alone is one reason to continue this effort. But let me tell my colleagues the vision of America under this liberal policy of if it feels good, do it, and drugs are no harm, and needle exchange programs, and we have to make everybody happy on drugs. This weekend my wife and I had an opportunity to visit Baltimore. The ranking member, when I chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service, is a fine gentleman, the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Cummings), who represents Baltimore. I have had many discussions with him about his community. I really was impressed by Baltimore and the people that I saw when I was there Saturday. A wonderful community. It seems vibrant on the surface, but that does not tell all of the story. I have heard some of the problems described by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the great empathy he has for his city. But Baltimore is a city, and fortunately the mayor, whose name is Schmoke, is leaving, but he adopted a liberal policy towards illegal narcotics. This particular little chart was provided to me by a former United States drug enforcement administrator, Tom Constantine. He made this in a presentation to our subcommittee, my Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. It is a very telling story about liberalization of illegal narcotics. And, again, it can set the stage for what can happen in countless other cities as they look towards liberalization and our country looks towards liberalization of illegal narcotics. In 1950, the population of Baltimore was 949,000. In 1996, the population dropped to about two-thirds of that, to 675,000. In 1950, there were 300 heroin addicts in Baltimore, and that was one heroin addict per 3,100 individuals in that community. In 1996, there are 38,985 heroin addicts with a population of 675,000, or one out of 17. Now, this is the figure that Mr. Constantine showed and gave us. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has told me that he believes the figure is closer to 60,000 heroin addicts. I have a news report from Time magazine of just last week, the beginning of September here, and let me read from that about the liberal approach, the liberal policy and what it can do, what it has done for Baltimore and what it can do for the rest of America: ``Maryland's largest city seems to have more razor wire and abandoned buildings than Kosovo. Meanwhile, the prevalence of open-air drug dealing has made `no lotering' signs as common as stop signs. Baltimore, which has a population now of 630,000,'' it shrunk again, ``has sunk under the depressing triple crown of urban degradation: middle income residents are fleeing at a rate of 1,000 a month; the murder rate has been more than three times as high as New York City's; and 1 out of every 10 citizens,'' there is the latest we have from 1999, ``is a drug addict.'' This Time article from just a week ago says: ``Government officials dispute the last claim of 1 out of 10 citizens in Baltimore being a drug addict. It is more like,'' and I am quoting, ``it is more like 1 in 8, says veteran city councilman Rikki Spector, and we've probably lost count.'' This is a city that adopted a liberal narcotics policy, needle exchange, do it if it feels good. And if the results are not evident, I do not know what can be. Again, the toll in human tragedy in Baltimore is incredible. In 1950, there were 81 murders in the City of Baltimore with a population of nearly a million people. In 1997, there were 312 murders in Baltimore. And again the estimates of drug users in that city are now one in eight by the estimate of one of their council members. This is again the pattern that people say we should go toward. The liberal policy to allow illegal narcotics and needle exchanges really promotes addiction and treatment. And again the social costs, the economic costs of this has to be dramatic but it could be if we tried hard enough repeated throughout the United States. By contrast, we have the city of New York. In the 1980s, when I was a staffer for Senator Hawkins, I had an opportunity to work with an individual who is the Associate Attorney General of the United States. He was not well-known at that time. He was from New York. It was a fellow by the name of Rudy Giuliani. I remember sitting down many times with Rudy Giuliani, in fact flying to Florida with him. Florida, as my colleagues may recall, in the 1980s had a terrible problem with illegal narcotics, which President Reagan and President Bush dealt with and developed policies toward. And the individual who helped develop some of those policies was the Associate Attorney General of the United States, Rudy Giuliani. He was tough on illegal narcotics and crime in the early 1980s. He helped develop policies that changed the direction of crime and illegal drugs during the Reagan administration. And again you saw the dramatic figures, the decline in drug use and abuse among our young people. Rudy Guiliani, of course we all know, went on to be mayor of New York. As opposed to the Baltimore model, which was liberal, providing again almost accommodation to illegal drug use, the mayor of New York City, who was elected in recent history here, and we have got an entire history of the murder rate of New York City, but with the election of Rudy Guiliani, this graphically shows the decline in the city's murder rate. And we will just take from 1990 to 1992, they were averaging about 2000 murders. Through a zero tolerance policy, through a tough enforcement policy, through again a conservative approach as opposed to the Baltimore liberal approach, we have seen in that period of time dramatic decreases. The murder rate in New York dropped dramatically. The number of murders dropped from an average of 2,000 now down to the 600 level. In a dramatic reversal of crime, drug use, and in this instance murder, I do not think we could have a more graphic display of how a zero tolerance, tough enforcement, and I will also say alternative program, some of which we have looked at that New York has adopted more effective programs in treatment, giving those who are found with an offense the opportunity and access to treatment and other programs that we examined that are very effective. But it all starts from a conservative and tough enforcement policy as opposed to the Baltimore model. So again we find this pattern repeated in the United States in jurisdictions where they have a tough zero tolerance policy, and we find the Baltimore model repeated, in fact, where we have a liberal policy. In addition to talking about what took place with the Clinton-Gore Administration and the ending of the war on drugs and with the election of this President and Vice President, it is important that we not only look at successes and failures as far as our communities but what has taken place in the larger picture. Right now, as I pointed out, visiting the United States is a close ally of the United States, president of Colombia, President Andres Pastrana. He is here asking assistance, and the reason he is here asking for assistance is because of the failed drug policy and foreign policy of this administration. I pointed out the dramatic decreases in source country programs under the Clinton Administration. Let me put that chart back up if I can. Again, the most effective way to stop illegal narcotics, if possible, is to stop them at their source. This administration and again this chart shows that this dramatically cuts spending in international or source country programs. No country suffered more as a result of those cuts and that policy than the country of Colombia. Colombia is an international disaster zone. The statistics on Colombia make Kosovo look like a kindergarten operation. Just in 1 year over 300,000 people were dislocated. Over a million have been dislocated from their homes in Colombia. The tragedy and total in deaths in Colombia is incredible. Over 40,000 individuals have been slaughtered in the civil war there just in the last decade. That includes 4,700 National Police, hundreds and hundreds of members of Congress, judges, Supreme Court members, journalists, prominent individuals who have spoken out have been slaughtered in Colombia. Colombia could be a very remote problem for the United States if it did not have as a result of the conflict some serious consequences to our Nation. First of all, as far as international security and strategic location, Colombia is at the heart and center of the Americas. A disruption in Colombia is a disruption in this hemisphere. Colombia was one of the most thriving economies of South America until the narco- terrorists or guerilla Marxist forces began their insurgency against the legitimately elected Government of Colombia and began the slaughter, which is now spreading even beyond the borders of Colombia. It is disrupted again not only with tens of thousands of deaths in Colombia, but the entire region has the potential for destabilizing Central America. Now some of the Marxist narco-terrorist guerillas are intruding further into Panama. Panama is at risk because the United States, as we know, has been kicked out of the canal zone. And that action will be complete in just a few more months. All of our drug forward operations closed down May 1. All flights ended there. We have lost access to the naval ports and those went out on legitimate tenders and now Chinese interests control both of the ports in Panama. But one of the greatest threats to Panama now is the disruption in Colombia. So we have a disruption in our normal access to the canal and that strategic area of the hemisphere. Additionally, we have the disruption of Colombia, which Colombia and that region supplies about 20 percent of the United States' daily oil supply. So from a strategic mineral and strategic resource to the United States as far as military accesses also in the war on illegal narcotics, Colombia is now a disaster zone. How did we get into the mess in Colombia? That is an interesting history. Again in 1992, 1993, in closing down the war on drugs, one of the first victims of the Clinton-Gore Administration was Colombia. This administration, first of all, decertified Colombia in the war on drugs. Now, Colombia may have deserved decertification, but having been involved in the development of that law, the law is a simple law. It says that the State Department and the President will certify each year to Congress what countries are cooperating with the United States to stop the production and trafficking of illegal narcotics, a simple law. And if a country is decertified it is not eligible for foreign aid for trade and financial benefits, again a simple law linking their cooperation in the war on illegal drugs to our United States benefits, benefits of this government. Having helped draft that law in the 1980s again when Ronald Reagan was president, it was a good law that helped tie our aid and our efforts to these countries and ask them for their assistance in combatting illegal narcotics, again in return for specific benefits. The law was developed with a national interest waiver provision that the President of the United States could have used to make certain that Colombia got the assistance it needed to continue combatting illegal narcotics. Unfortunately, President Clinton, through bad foreign policy and a bad interpretation of the certification law, decertified Colombia without a national interest waiver. And what we saw was the beginning of the end of Colombia as we know it. The disruption in that country went from a horrible situation to the current situation which may not be repairable. The failure to provide a few dollars then in strategic assistance is now bringing the United States on the verge of tremendous financial commitment requested by this administration to help bring stability to Colombia and that region. We are now talking the latest figure we had when General McCaffrey appeared before my subcommittee probably talking close to $1 billion in foreign assistance being requested. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Again, I have described tonight how we have not had a war on drugs, how we closed down the war on drugs. And no place has had a more direct impact as far as a failed policy or a closing down on the war on drugs than Colombia. Again, aid was cut off through a policy. Also, as I mentioned, the strategic information that was provided to Colombia under the prior administrations in combatting illegal narcotics and even in combatting narco-terrorism and terrorist acts was withheld from Colombia. Colombia, in 1992-1993, produced almost zero cocaine. It actually was a transit country. It was a country that processed from the coca from Peru and Bolivia, and that cocaine came into Florida and the United States in the 1980's. In fact, let me put that little chart that shows the trafficking pattern from Colombia in the early 1990s. Again cocaine was not grown, coca was not grown in Colombia before the 1990's in any quantities. It all came from Peru and Bolivia. The policy of the Clinton-Gore administration managed to change that since 1993, and we have reports now in the last year. Colombia is now the largest producer of cocaine in the world. That, again, is a direct link to a policy of stopping assistance, resources, equipment getting to Colombia during this period. In 1992 to 1993, Colombia produced almost zero poppies or the base product for heroin. The Clinton-Gore administration in, again, closing down the war on drugs and stopping the aid and assistance to Colombia has turned, in 6 or 7 years, Colombia into the largest source of heroin now in the United States. Remember, in 1992 to 1993 there are almost no poppies or heroin produced in that country. Clinton-Gore administration stopped the aid, the assistance. That is why President Pastrana is here asking for that to be restarted. The source of heroin, we know from this 1997 signature program; heroin can be traced just like DNA can trace a source through blood. We can trace through this heroin signature program the source almost to the fields where the heroin is grown. In 1997, 75 percent of the heroin entering the United States came from South America, almost all of that from Colombia. There is some Mexican, another 14 percent; and Mexico was also off the charts in 1992 to 1993. Almost all of the heroin was coming in through southeast Asia. So in 6 or 7 years through a failed policy of this administration, we have managed to turn Colombia into the biggest producer of cocaine, the biggest producer of heroin, into an international disaster zone, 30 to 40,000 people killed, 5,000 police, complete disruption of the region, a million refugees in our own backyard; and this was done again through very direct policy decisions of the United States. The cost, as we will see this week as President Pastrana meets with myself, with President Clinton, with other leaders in Washington, the initial price tag that we have been given is a billion dollars. In addition, we have been given a price tag; we will probably spend another fifth of a billion on replacing Panama, our forward-operating locations which we got kicked out of after our negotiators failed to come up with allowing our forward-surveillance drug flights to continue from that Howard Air Force base in Panama. So we are up to 1.2 billion to move, again 200 million probably, to move from Panama to Manta, Ecuador, and to the Curacao and Aruba stations in the Antilles region. The cost of these failed policies continues to mount. We are left as a Congress with no other alternative but to probably pick up the pieces, try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But the point of my special order tonight has been that indeed there are direct consequences when you close down a war on drugs. Since 1993 with the Clinton-Gore administration there has not been a war on drugs. The source country programs have been cut. The interdiction programs using the military, the Coast Guard, other assets have been cut. The aid that was promised to Colombia repeatedly, not only after Congress begged the administration and approved funding for equipment and resources to go down to Colombia to fight the war on illegal narcotics and the narco-terrorists' disruption of that region, the equipment, the resources did not get there. All of these actions, all of these failed policies have consequences. The price tag is now, as I said, 1.2 billion and mounting. We hope to hear from President Pastrana this week on his initiatives. He has taken some very strong initiatives to develop an anti-narcotics force. 50 U.S. personnel have been training that force; but he does need the equipment. The equipment sat on tarmacs here until just recently. Six Huey helicopters were finally delivered. Then to add insult to injury, when they were delivered, they were not delivered with all the equipment that made them usable in this effort. We have heard repeatedly in the media that Colombia is now our third largest recipient of aid. The Congress, in fact, appropriated $287 million under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is now the Speaker of the House, who was chairman of the drug policy subcommittee that was then titled National Security and International Affairs. I inherited that responsibility. It is now Criminal Justice and Drug Policy. He started really the restart of the war on drugs with those funds. What is absolutely amazing, in checking, most of that $287 million still has not gotten to Colombia, and they are knocking at our door for more funds. We do have a responsibility as a Congress to carefully review why the administration has not gotten the resources, why the policies of this administration have blocked equipment, resources, assistance to Colombia, how we have gotten ourselves into this international pickle. It would almost seem humorous if it did not have such incredibly damaging effects, and as I started out tonight speaking, the deaths in my hometown where a 12-year-old found his father dead from a heroin overdose, where another woman was found, a young woman in Orlando, dead of an overdose of cocaine. Most people do not even realize the problem that we face with the heroin and the cocaine coming into the United States today. Ten to 15 years ago that heroin, that cocaine had a very low purity. Today it is deadly, 80 to 90 percent. It provides death and destruction. We must turn this situation around.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, my favorite book is entitled the Miracle at Philadelphia. It is a story of the development of this book called the Constitution of the United States. I highly recommend it to my colleagues. It outlines the development of the structure of our government that gives us the ability to debate, to act, this wonderful framework under which this Congress operates. This week, 212 years ago, our Founding Fathers finished this document. When they finished the structure, the next thing that they did was they immediately passed 10 rights, fundamental rights for the people of this country. The first right, not the second, third, fourth or tenth, is the freedom of speech. There is only one thing wrong with Shays-Meehan. It shreds the Constitution and that first precious amendment. That is the basic flaw with Shays-Meehan. So our committee brought together reforms recommended by everyone, by the FEC, and others, things that are doable, things that are within the law, within the Constitution, and within the framework of our government. That is what we presented. Let me read what the ACLU says about this Thomas substitute: This substitute is far superior to Shays-Meehan in many respects because of the absence of provisions that offend the constitutional rights and that H.R. 417, Shays-Meehan, contains the harshest and most unconstitutional controls on issue advocacy groups.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to pay tribute to a neighbor, friend and young man who gave his life in service to his country. Brad Earnest, as he was affectionately called, died on August 2, 1999 in Florida. Brad was critically injured in a helicopter crash as he served in the 10th Special Forces of the United States Army. In the nine years since that accident Brad remained in a coma. He is survived by his mother, Minna H. Earnest, who deserves the gratitude, great respect and deepest sympathy of every member of Congress and all Americans. Not only did Minna Earnest lose her son she also sacrificed her husband to our nation when he was killed in Vietnam. What greater heartbreak could one family, one wife and mother endure for the sake of her country? My last memories of Brad recall him proudly telling me of his Army assignment and his work in service to our country. Most of all we will miss his smile but always remember and celebrate his life. Brad was a graduate of Winter Park High School in Winter Park, Florida. He attended Auburn University in Alabama where he was a member of Theta Chi Fraternity. Brad was born in Portsmouth, Virginia on October 16, 1962 and will be laid to rest in Opelika, Alabama. I know the United States House of Representatives and every Member of Congress extend our deepest sympathy to Brad's mother, Minna H. Earnest, and to his brother, Bryan H. Earnest of Maitland, Florida, and to his paternal grandmother, Margaret Earnest of Opelika, Alabama.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Utah is well intended, but the gentleman knows not what he does here with his amendment. I probably have one of the highest conservative cut-and-slash ratings in Congress and try to look at every program as any taxpayer would who is out there working hard to pay the bill for government, but taking $12 million from the United States Foreign Commercial Service Office could be a disaster. Right now, in fact if you pick up the newspapers of the past few weeks, you will look at a staggering trade deficit in this country. It should be of concern to everyone who is worred about job growth and economic opportunity for the future. That Trade Deficit means that we are importing many goods and selling less goods in the international market. Now, who helps our small business people compete in this international arena? It is the Foreign Commercial Service. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we should be increasing the expenditure in this program more than probably any other program in this budget because it helps medium and small businesses compete in the international arena. If we ever needed to create good paying jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which is going down and down being replaced with more service and low-paying and part-time jobs. We should be supporting increases, rather than decreases, in this area. This is not any type of corporate wefare. The big corporations do well on their own. I have been involved in international trade. The IBMs and the big corporations around the world, they do fairly well. This program is not for them. This service is for the medium and small businesses across our country that have a tough time getting in to the international markets. This proposed cut would force us to close offices, and in emerging markets where there is great economic opportunity. In the former Eastern Block, we do not even have full-time people. In Slovakia, one area of particular interest to me, we have one part-time person to help our U.S. business interests in the entire country of Slovakia coming from Vienna on a part-time basis in a new potential great market. Here we can create jobs and economic opportunity, not only for our citizens, but for the people who want the same things for the people in their country. My colleagues, I have been there, I have talked to these folks, I have seen what we are doing. It is not enough. These countries do not want our foreign aid, they do not want our assistance in doing business--not a handout. They would like to conduct honest, open business. And when we provide this little bit of assistance with our foreign commercial officers who have meager resources, probably with the personal a third of even our AID and giveaway programs, something is indeed wrong. We have a chance to correct it. So we would be making a terrible mistake to accept this particular amendment. I could bore the House detailing the many hardships that this cut would force. Most distructively we would have to close 31 posts overseas. We should be providing more assistance to small U.S. business in these emerging markets and giving our small and medium businesses an opportunity to compete in these potential markets. While I know this amendment sounds well-intended, but it would be the worst disaster that we could impose upon the small- and medium-sized business people in this country that are struggling to enter into these markets and who are the greatest creators of jobs and opportunity for this Nation. Point of Order

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor again tonight to talk about the problem of illegal narcotics. Tonight I would like to help set the record straight. After years and months of nearly deadly silence by the President of the United States on one of the most pressing issues facing our Nation, that is the problem of illegal narcotics use and abuse, the President spoke out yesterday. I have a transcript of his speech, and I was really stunned to hear his remarks. These are his exact comments. He said, ``When we were out there running for office in 1992, the Vice President had this hilarious rap about everything that should be up was down and everything that should be down was up, and everything was all mixed up. And it is true.'' And then the President said, and again let me quote him, ``And one of the sad things that was up was drug use.'' Now, this is what the President of the United States said yesterday. Mr. Speaker, this does not gibe with the facts. In fact, we did a little bit of research and we found, and this chart states quite clearly, that long-term trends in lifetime prevalence of drug use, from 1980 when President Reagan took office, and this is the Reagan administration, through 1988, with President Bush during that period, we found that the trend in prevalence of drug use actually went down. These are the facts. Now, again the President said, ``And one of the sad things that was up was drug use.'' That is what the President said. These in fact, Mr. Speaker, are the statistics. These are not tainted or misconstrued in any way or partisanly presented. Those are the facts. Then if we looked at individual narcotics, the trends in cocaine use, the President said, ``And one of the sad things that was up was drug use.'' So we can look at drugs individually. We see that during President Reagan and Bush's era, that the point at which President Clinton took office that there was a downward spiral in cocaine use. In fact, when President Clinton took office, we see the resurgence of that in fact returning and going up. This does not show the dramatic increase in drug use. Because of the Clinton policy, we in fact had a shift of more people going not only to cocaine but also to heroin in unprecedented amounts and also to methamphetamine which did not appear on any of these charts. So what the President said, ``And one of the sad things that was up was drug use'' is not in any way correct or does it relate to facts. Then if we look at heroin, in the Reagan administration and Bush administration, we see downward trends. He said, ``And one of the sad things was that drug use was up.'' We see in fact during President Clinton's term, it dramatically shot up, and heroin, deadly heroin, in incredible quantities. I do not have a chart on methamphetamine, but meth was not even on this chart and now is staggering up. The only reason we see any change here in a downward spiral in the last several years is because of the Republicans taking over the Congress and restarting the war on drugs. Finally, the President also said, ``We tried to do more to keep drugs from coming into the United States.'' This is the quote of the President. I do not have all the charts with me, but under complete control by the Democrat-controlled Congress, the White House and the Senate, the administration and this other controlled legislative body, 1992 to 1993 dramatically decreased the source country programs, they cut them by over 50 percent, dramatically cut the military. He said, ``We tried to do more to keep drugs from coming into the United States.'' Dramatically cut the military and interdiction programs. Nearly cut in half the Coast Guard drug programs, stopped antidrug resources from getting to Colombia which is now the major source of heroin and cocaine coming into the United States. And certified Mexico, which is the greatest source of illegal narcotics and now methamphetamines of anywhere coming into the United States. And our President said yesterday, ``We tried to do more to keep drugs from coming into the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, the President says one thing. The facts prove something totally different. It is sad that after years and years of deadly silence, we finally have the President come out in one of the rare occasions he ever mentions illegal narcotics and says two things that do not gibe in any fashion with the facts as to what actually took place. It is very sad that I report this to the House, but I think that the facts relating to this important problem that is facing our Nation that has condemned so many families tragically to losing loved ones, 14,000 people died last year alone because of direct results of illegal narcotics. It is very sad, indeed, that the President of the United States paints a picture that does not gibe with the facts.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, from time to time the comments from this administration and the President of the United States lead me to the floor to comment. I think my colleagues and the American people saw the President of the United States calling the Republicans reckless. And I guess I am included in that, I am a Republican. We were called reckless for proposing a significant tax cut for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I almost had to chuckle to hear the President of the United States call me reckless and the Republicans for offering a tax cut. It is almost hysterical when we think about it when the other side of the aisle for some 40 years had control of this body and under the Constitution of the United States we all know bills, financial bills start in the House of Representatives on the basis of a judgment made by our founding fathers. For 40 years, the recklessness of the other side nearly bankrupt this Nation. When I came into the House of Representatives in 1992, we were facing financial disaster. This was carried through with the reckless policy of this President who instituted one of the largest tax increases in American history a few months after his election. And again when he had complete majorities in the House, the Senate, and controlled the White House. What was reckless is 40 years of taking money out of Social Security. It is like robbing our senior citizens's pension accounts, their funds, and using it for outlandish spending. Spending really to buy votes and win elections in a giveaway program that backfired and nearly ran us into financial oblivion. That is reckless. Reckless when they robbed every trust fund, including the Federal employee's trust funds, when they robbed the highway trust funds, which this responsible new majority has restored. Is it reckless in fact when we guarantee 63 percent and we create a lock-box to secure revenues for the future stability and security of Social Security? That is responsible. Mr. Speaker, some people I guess just do not know the meaning of recklessness. Then to provide health insurance, there are 43 million Americans in this Nation that do not have health insurance. What is interesting is two-thirds to three-quarters of them are employed. Our plan for financial assistance and tax cuts and tax credits will allow millions and millions of Americans who work at minimum or low wage or small employers who are the largest employers, and most of those people who do not have health insurance are not covered but they do work, we are providing in this tax relief package a responsible package. It is reckless in my opinion not to provide those working men and women with at least a minimal chance of getting some health coverage. So somehow we have a difficulty between determining what is reckless and what is responsible. I think what the Republicans, the majority and myself, have done is a responsible action. I think we have a history of a President and a party who has dealt in recklessness. I think the examples are clear and the financial statements speak for themselves.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), for his great work on this distinguished piece of legislation, which I plan to support with minor modifications that can be made, I hope, through the amendment I offer tonight. The amendment that I have tonight asks for $37.5 million, and those funds would go towards providing anti-narcotics equipment to the Colombian National Police. I chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, and I can tell my colleagues that we have no greater threat facing our Nation right now in terms of our anti-narcotics effort and, really, national security than we have facing us with the situation with Colombia. Some of my colleagues may know that we lost five servicemen, including a servicewoman this week, and in the last few days we have lost three civilians. This situation is getting incredibly worse in Colombia, our neighbor to the south. That is what makes this action tonight so important. I will ask to withdraw this at some point and ask for consideration in conference, but we cannot make the same mistake that we have been making year after year in not providing equipment. This Congress has provided Black Hawk helicopters to the Colombians, but we are not providing the equipment for them to do the job. This amendment asks for 19 protection systems for Black Hawk helicopters and also for Huey helicopters that they have. How can they fight a war against insurgence Marxist guerillas or an activity against those trafficking in illegal narcotics without this equipment? We have made the mistake of not providing the equipment. This is a hearing from July of 1997. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is now Speaker of the House, myself, others on the committee asked for equipment to get to Colombia. And that equipment has not gotten to Colombia. The results are incredible. 800,000 people have been displaced since 1995. 35,000 Colombians have been killed in less than 10 years. In 1998, more than 300,000 Colombians were displaced internally. That is more than we had that same year in Kosovo. My colleagues, we are going to have a situation that makes Kosovo look like a kindergarten playground if we do not get the equipment. Just in the last 2 or 3 weeks, this administration has reversed its course and is now asking for intelligence to be shared. At this moment, I believe our drug czar is down in Colombia; and he has asked in the last 2 weeks for a billion dollars, which may require a supplemental. So if we are providing the equipment to allow Colombians to stop this drug influx into their nation and trafficking and production in their nation and this insurgency, then I say we should help them with this little bit of assistance that we are asking for in this. I might say that we had a visit from the national chief of police there who has been leading the drug war, and this is specifically in his request to the Speaker of the House and to our subcommittee. I might also say that these items are also requested by General McCaffrey, who is our Nation's drug czar. So I plead and I ask the subcommittee, and I know they have done great work in putting together this legislation, to not make the same mistake that has been made year after year in not getting equipment to this country that is facing not only an internal crisis but we are facing a regional and hemispheric crisis with this situation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman. But this is the testimony from 2 years ago, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert): ``But you are holding up their ammunition.'' We provided almost $300 million last year. And we have checked to see if the money is there in resources. Only a few million dollars have gotten to where it should go. The problem we have is in getting money. That is why this is an earmark. I know the earmark is not acceptable under the regular order here. But I hope you can imagine the frustration we see. We appropriate money. The President is saying this is now the third biggest aid recipient in the world. And it is not getting there. This request is part of our drug czar's request, and it is the head of the national police's request to do the job in Colombia that needs to be done to bring peace there and stop drug trafficking where we have 60, 70 percent of the heroin and cocaine now coming into the United States.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for being so understanding and also considering this in conference. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, on rollcall no. 322, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Gibbons

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I heard recently one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say that the new majority tried to turn the Department of Education into a pile of rubble, and that brought me to the floor to respond. We have before us today a very fair rule and a very powerful piece of education legislation which would return power to the teacher. Now let me tell my colleagues that the last thing for 40 years on the education feeding chain has been the teacher and the student. I chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service. In the Department of Education there are 5,000 employees of which 3,000 are located in the City of Washington, and those employees in the Department of Education are earning between 50 and $110,000 on average. Show me a teacher in my district that has that money. The balance of the 2,000 Department of Education employees are located in regional offices. We are saying, put the money, put the power, put the emphasis. We only spend 5 percent of Federal money; the total amount in education comes from the Federal level. We are saying, put that money in the classroom with the students, not in Washington, not with bureaucrats, and empower the teacher, empower the student, and empower the classroom. That is why we are offering this legislation today. That is why I ask for support for this rule and for this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor again to talk about the subject that is very important to me and to millions of Americans, unfortunately a subject that does not get a lot of headlines except in local papers; and I will refer to those, some of those headlines across the country tonight, and that is the subject of illegal narcotics and the problem of drug abuse and illegal narcotics trafficking across our great land. I come to the floor to report to the House and to the American people again on this epidemic, this silent epidemic, but deadly epidemic, that is facing our Nation and a challenge that is facing this Congress I inherited from Speaker Hastert who chaired the National Security International Affairs Oversight Subcommittee during the last Congress in which I served with him, responsibility for national drug policy in the House of Representatives, working with the Speaker and several other colleagues in committees of jurisdiction, but my particular subcommittee assignment is chairing Criminal Justice and Drug Policy and Human Resources, trying to piece together our national drug policy and whatever efforts this Congress may take to stem this horrible problem, and each week I come to the floor in a 1-hour report to provide sort of an update on what is happening and try to get the message across to the Congress that drugs do destroy lives, illegal narcotics kill and maim, just absolutely devastate family after family in our land. In fact, last year over 14,000 Americans lost their lives to illegal narcotics in our country. In the last 6 or 7 years of this administration over 100,000 Americans and particularly our young people have been victims and lost their lives, more than the losses in many of our recent international conflicts and some of our wars. We have suffered these tragic losses and those are losses in lives, not to mention the destroyed families, the cost to this Congress, the hundreds of billions of dollars to support our criminal justice system to take care of the social problems, the lost employment and other opportunities that are lost with people who fall victim to the plague of illegal narcotics. I would be remiss if I did not come to the floor and reflect upon what has been on the minds of the Nation since last Friday evening when we first learned the news of JFK Junior's missing airplane and the whole Nation has focused its attention on this great and tragic loss; and it is a shame that we have lost this young man. I had an opportunity to meet him twice, and he provided a beautiful role model, handsome, young, energetic with so much potential and so much life, and his life lost; and it is sad that a role model coming from a family that has given so much to this Nation should be lost in such a tragedy. But again across our land every day 50 people die due to illegal narcotics. The toll, as I said last year, is over 14,000. Some die silent deaths, some more tragic deaths from drug overdoses from direct illegal narcotics use and abuse and tragedies. I had the opportunity this morning to see another great role model. My son who is 20 and was in Washington with me today, he and I attended the Langley medal award for the Apollo 11 astronauts, and we had a chance to talk to Neil Armstrong and to the commander of the module, Mr. Collins, and also Buzz Aldrin, second man on the Moon. Again, great role models for our Nation, tremendous heroes whose names will go down in history. I did have a few minutes to chat with Neal Armstrong, the first man on the moon. Again, a great, great role model for our young people. He and I, in our brief chat, did discuss our dismay at trying to find a solution, and I salute his efforts now as a private citizen trying to assist us in this war on illegal narcotics in what he has done, not only directly, but indirectly as serving as a role model of what opportunity this great Nation holds for us, that those of us who can live a drug-free life without a life of abuse for illegal narcotics or addiction to illegal narcotics. But 2 beautiful people, 2 beautiful examples of what life can be and hold so much promise and opportunity for each of us. I mention both of those tonight. As I flew away from Washington last week, I went through the Baltimore airport and picked up the Baltimore Sun. I like to reflect on what is going on around the Nation with the problem of illegal narcotics. I was struck by last Friday's newspaper, the Baltimore Sun, on the front page. The headline, this tragic headline, They Killed Him Over $15. Sure enough, I read on into the paper, and let me read from this article a little bit about this preacher who was slain for $15 in a neighborhood in Baltimore that has been plagued by so many problems emanating from illegal narcotics. Let me just read a little bit of this article. It says, ``For generations, this thin band of forest has embraced the residents of Quantico and Oswego and Clausen Avenues in cool, green shade. But in recent years, it became a Sherwood of thieves and dope addicts landscaped with syringes, liquor bottles, and discarded stolen goods.'' Further on in the story, it relates again how this preacher, this good human being, a citizen of Baltimore, was slain for $15 last week. It says, ``Even the presence of a police athletic league center has not discouraged the interlopers who lounge by the wading pool at night snorting heroin and littering the soccer field with empty drug vials.'' This is Baltimore, just a few miles from our Nation's Capital. What a tragedy of a lost life. My message has been that drugs destroy lives; and in Baltimore indeed, drugs have destroyed lives, a great example. Again, from the newspaper, to bring my colleagues up to date, Mr. Speaker, this is an article, an Associated Press article from July 18, just a few days ago. In New Orleans, it says, ``Two Jefferson Parish residents who drove to New Orleans to buy heroin were shot and killed early Sunday morning in a hail of bullets, a companion who survived the attack told New Orleans police.'' A wonderful city; probably one of the most beautiful cities in America. Another city ravaged by illegal narcotics and the crime, the death that it brings, just a few days ago. Another article, another city, other lives snuffed out by illegal narcotics. This is an article that appeared again within the last 3 days, July 17. It says, ``Discovering drug labs is part of the job for probation and parole officers.'' This is not Baltimore, New Orleans or New York or Detroit areas where we might expect it. It is Boise, Idaho. And the AP story reads, ``Finding people making the illegal drug methamphetamine is becoming a potentially dangerous fact of life for Idaho probation and parole officers.'' The story goes on, ``They increasingly are uncovering make-shift meth-looking operations in the course of monitoring and trying to help redirect the lives of ex- convicts and offenders getting another chance to avoid prison.'' The story goes on. It says, ``The State's 170 probation and parole officers have been involved in discovering 51 of the 85 meth labs busted throughout Idaho recently this year. That is up sharply from 98 found Statewide in the entire year of 1998, 23 of them found by probation and parole officers. People have already been busted once,'' the article goes on to say, ``for using meth, and are 2 to 3 times more likely than other offenders to be arrested again.'' Mr. Speaker, ``80 percent of the offenders,'' the article goes on to state, ``are battling addiction to meth or other substances. Right now it is an incredible problem. Every time we write a violation report the word 'meth' is somewhere in it.'' Now, this is an article from the heartland of America from Idaho. We held hearings in our subcommittee; and we found evidence of meth production, meth epidemics in Minnesota, Iowa, Idaho, Atlanta, Georgia, the West Coast of the United States. Places where we would not expect this. What was interesting is, the source of most of the methamphetamine has been traced to Mexico, and I would like to just state for the Record and show for the Record some bad news. Last week, I had some good news that the Mexicans were extraditing a murderer from the State of Florida, and unfortunately, this is the news on the people who are producing this meth, again, across our land. Jose de Jesus Amezcua Contreras, he is actually known as one of the world's largest producers and traffickers in methamphetamines and is the head of this organization. And unfortunately, the Mexicans, who fail to cooperate with us except on very limited occasions, took some action that is most regrettable this past week. A judge issued an injunction Monday against a United States request to extradite Amezcua and gave Federal prosecutors 10 days to appeal the decision before setting Amezcua free. Despite overwhelming evidence, all Mexican drug charges have been dismissed against this individual who is helping to import death and destruction, whether it is Idaho, whether it is Minnesota, Iowa, or West Coast, or our southern States. Again, besides the fact that there was overwhelming evidence, all the Mexican charges have been dropped against him. He is still being held in custody, fortunately. Now, we have had success again with one individual, a U.S. citizen, who committed a horrible murder in southwest Florida being judged as eligible for extradition. But in fact, we have 270 some other requests for extradition, including this individual who is the ``meth king,'' who again is getting off on these charges. His brother was released from prison in May. The whole family, there are a series of these brothers, and I have shown their posters here on the House floor, before are all involved up to their eye balls in illegal narcotics, particularly the deadly meth trade. A Mexican appellate judge threw out trafficking charges against his brother, and now we see the same thing happening here with this individual, again with the meth and the story from Boise, Idaho. This dateline is Birmingham, Alabama, and again it illustrates that illegal narcotics, drugs, do destroy lives. This article is an Associated Press article within the last few days, July 16. It says, Birmingham, Alabama: Pacifiers, temporary tattoos and toothpicks seem like harmless enough items but they are also tools of the teenage drug trade, according to doctors and drug experts. The article goes on, and let me just cite part of it. Drug abuse doubles and even triples in the summer among children graduating from one school to another, he said. Children also report their first drug experience often comes in the summer, leading up to the move from elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school, because they feel more grown up. What is becoming a greater problem is also cited in this Birmingham article. It says, Ecstacy is a growing danger. It is a relatively new form of amphetamine that can give a euphoric rush in low doses and it often causes strokes, heart attacks and breathing problems at higher levels, according to this report. Here, again, in the heartland of America and our south Birmingham, Alabama, Ecstacy complements another amphetamine, compliments of some of our Mexican neighbors to the south, coming in in huge quantities. Here is a story from Albuquerque, New Mexico. It says, in less than 18 months, a drug considered a safe way to help addicts kick heroin habits has been found in the bodies of more than three dozen people who died of drug intoxication in New Mexico. Again, this year we will probably set a record in excess of 14,000 deaths by illegal narcotics or narcotics taken in this fashion. This is a New Mexico, southwest area, Albuquerque a beautiful community. There were about 200 drug- related deaths from January 1998 through mid-May of this year and 41 of the victims had methadone in their systems, according to the Department of Public Safety statistics. Again, illegal narcotics and their effect in one community, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Illegal drugs do destroy lives and have an incredible impact. More bad news from Mexico this week, Mr. Speaker. A Mexican appeals judge on Friday, according to this report, cut the 50-year prison sentence of Raul Salinas, the brother of Mexico's former President, by almost half. The Swiss Supreme Court overturned the confiscation of about $115 million. Now, how does the former President's brother get $115 million? We know it was drug-related money. We know the family was involved in illegal narcotics up to their eyeballs, too, like some others we have cited tonight. The money that has been held by Swiss prosecutors, this article says, was derived from drug trafficking. Mr. Salinas must still serve 27 years for the 1994 assassination of his former brother-in-law, a top ranking official of Mexico's ruling institutional revolutionary party. Here, again, bad news from Mexico; one of the families involved in laundering hundred of millions of dollars. I have told a story that we had testimony before our subcommittee. Now this is the former President's brother, Raul Salinas, but we had testimony by a Customs agent, and I think a fairly reputable source and other sources, that confirmed this, of one Mexican general most recently attempting to place $1.1 billion, that is $1.1 billion, I did not make a mistake, it is not million, it is $1.1 billion, in illegal drug money into legitimate investments and financial depositories in the United States. We know that those meetings took place. We know that the general, in fact, had skimmed that kind of money. That is an incredible story of money. We see the President's brother with hundreds of millions and we have Mexican generals with billions of dollars to place. It should raise many questions about our policy and the lack of action by Mexico who wants trade benefits; who wants financial assistance of the United States in international monetary markets; who wants support to be more than a developing nation, to be an equal, again, trading and financial partner. This is the type of cooperation that we get, first of all, the largest methamphetamine dealer in Mexico, with the charges dropped. Next we see the President's brother, the former President's brother, getting his charges reduced, and here we also have a case of a Mexican general trying to place an incredible amount of money and most of the investigation squashed. So it is a pretty sad state of affairs as it relates to Mexico. Now, tonight I brought a story of destruction and death from different cities and parts of our country, and that is just in the last few days. This entire problem of illegal narcotics has an impact on every community. In my community, in central Florida, as I have stated before, the recent headlines have said illegal narcotics, overdoses and deaths now exceed homicides. I try to substantiate what we say about illegal narcotics, because illegal narcotics are so glorified by Hollywood and by movies and videos and commentary among our young people. During our recent hearings in our subcommittee, we had in experts who testified about what drugs do to the human brain. I have a couple of illustrations here. The first one, and I hope this shows up, we talked about Ecstacy and how it is making its presence across the Nation and also among our young people. This is an interesting image. It is actually of two different brains. This is a brain scan. This is a normal brain. All of this up here is normal brain action. This information again was provided to us by a scientist. The top illustration here, and brain, belongs to an individual who has never used Ecstacy, and we can see how bright these images are. The scans are different scans of the brain from different directions. The bottom scans here belong to an individual who has used Ecstacy heavily for an extended period but was abstinent from drugs for at least 3 weeks prior to the photographs. Now, one can see the effect that the drug Ecstacy has had. This is a prolonged effect, again, of what Ecstacy does. Ecstacy is very popular among our young people and we heard a couple of citations here of areas where it is showing up across our country, where we would least expect it. It says the specific parameter being measured is the brain's ability to bind the chemical neuro transmitter serotonin, and that is what this illustration shows. Serotonin is a substance that is very critical to normal experiences of mood, emotion, pain and a wide variety of other behaviors, but again this shows what damage is done to the brain and to the mind with this illegal narcotic. I have another scientific chart here. Let me just pull off this information card. This chart shows what methamphetamine does to the brain. This was presented to our subcommittee in a hearing last month. It should be very clear evidence not only that drugs destroy lives but also damage the body and the mind. This was presented by scientists who completed this study, and the photograph demonstrates the long lasting effects that drugs have on the brain. The brighter colors in here, this shows a normal brain, and it shows the substance of dopamine, which has a binding capacity. Dopamine function is critical to emotional regulation, and it is involved in the normal experience of pleasure and involved in controlling an individual's motor function. The scan on this side, the left here, is a nondrug user. The second scan going down here is a chronic methamphetamine abuser who was drug free for 3 years prior to the taking of the image. The third scan, this scan right here, is a chronic meth abuser who was drug free for 3 years prior to the image. Now, the last brain scan, the very last brain scan here is of an individual newly diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is a disease known to deplete dopamine. My colleagues can see exactly what is happening to the brain of an individual who uses meth. Meth is one of the biggest problems, and I cited city after city, in the heartland of America and now almost in every community. This is what methamphetamine does to one's brain. This is scientific evidence. This is not something we made up in our political deliberations. This is scientific evidence, both of these presented to our subcommittee and what these illegal narcotics do to the brains of individuals. We can talk about treatment, and we can talk about trying to help these people, but once one has destroyed these brain functions through habitual misuse of methamphetamine or ecstacies or other illegal narcotics, this is what we end up. It is a very serious situation. Unfortunately, drugs have been glorified. Ecstacy is now glorified. Meth is a popular drug. Both of these drugs are primarily used by our young people. We see more and more tragic deaths by our young people and abuse, and not only abuse, but, again, the deadly effects and the long-term effects of these illegal narcotics. That brings me to the subject of the other drug of plague of the United States, and there is no question about that; that is heroin. Heroin deaths, as I said, in my community are epidemic. We have had the police chief of Plano, Texas, we have had law enforcement, individuals from Police Chiefs Association, the National Narcotics Association all testify about the incredible supply of heroin coming into this country. Now, the heroin that is coming into the country, too, our testimony has indicated and proven is not of the purity levels of the heroin of the 1970s or the 1980s. This stuff is 60, 70 percent pure. We know exactly where the heroin is coming from, and it is a very deadly heroin. It is coming from South America. As I have said before, if we put this chart up, in 1993, there would be almost no heroin coming from South America. I am going to talk a little bit about the source of heroin and this heroin. We know, in fact, that the heroin is coming from South America, because it can be traced scientifically. Just like the shots I showed my colleagues of the brain scans, scientifically, we can tell how brains are affected by the chemicals and show exactly what takes place, we can test, and our DEA agents can test, heroin and trace it almost to the field that it came from. So we know that heroin taken and seized in the United States, we know 75 percent comes from South America. Again, in 1993, the beginning of this administration, almost no heroin came from there. Most of it came from the Southwest Asia and Southeast Asia. And Mexico is now a double- digit heroin producer. It produced a little bit of black tar heroin. Now it is producing much more. This is where heroin is coming from. Now, again, I tell my colleagues who are listening about what illegal narcotics do from a scientific standpoint. From a personal standpoint, again, I bring out these charts. I have only showed these photographs one other time on the House floor. But, Mr. Speaker, I bring these photographs here again to the floor because there is so much glorification of ecstacy, methamphetamine that is so popular, and heroin, which is on the rampage. Heroin is now, among our teenagers, and actually since 1993, listen to these statistics, there has been an 875 percent increase in teenage use of heroin. That is this incredible supply that is coming in from South America. I am holding this up. I am holding this up. This is one of my constituents from Central Florida, a young man in his twenties, and this is how he ended up. This is the shot that was taken by the police that the mother allowed for me to bring here and show to the House of Representatives. The next photograph that I have of him is just a horrible photograph. I really hate to show this, but I want my colleagues and others to see what illegal narcotics do. Now, this heroin that is coming in, this is what it did to the young person. If anyone thinks that illegal narcotics are glamorous and that the experience of illegal narcotics is something that should be praised and glorified, they should look at the body of this young man. I do not like to hold this up for too long. But I want my colleagues to know what heroin does to the individual. Heroin is ingested in the body. There is a time, usually within 30 seconds, where the drug hits the nervous system. A warm sensation overcomes the user, and there is euphoria and relaxation as a result. The user begins to feel the effects on the respiratory system breaking down, and the user's breathing becomes labored. What my colleagues saw in this photograph of this young man from Central Florida is what took place. The respiratory system breaks down, and the breathing becomes very slow. The corresponding drop in body temperature begins, and the heart beat becomes irregular. If the user is, at this point, conscience, this is the stage where fear grips the individual. Soon the body is demanding more oxygen, and the user's respiratory system cannot accommodate the growing need. Fluid begins to enter the lungs, and this is the beginning of the drowning stage. Sometimes during this phase, blood vessels and capillaries begin to rupture. My colleagues saw the face of a young man who died a horrible death. This is how thousands and thousands of our young people are dying, some of them silently, some of them we just read in an obituary page. This is how this young man died. And the photograph, as I said, was released to me by the mother, the photograph taken by the sheriff's department. She wanted the House of Representatives and the American people to see the inglorious effects of heroin and illegal narcotics on her precious son, who she loved so much. As evidenced by the photograph that I showed here, the blood on the face of the heroin user is the result of blood vessels rupturing. Entering into the final stage, the user is now in great distress and experiences severe pain throughout the thoracic region, much like a heart attack. The user's head is splitting with pain. The amount of fluid in the lungs has increased and the user is now in excruciating pain and begins to drown as his or her lungs fill with fluid. At this time the user becomes unconscious, begins seizures and death is slow but inevitable. Unfortunately, the picture that I showed here tonight is a picture that is repeated dozens and dozens and dozens of times in central Florida. We have had more than four dozen heroin deaths, and most of them by young people in central Florida. Each of these individuals died a death similar to what I described here, and they ended up in a human tragedy displayed as I showed in this photograph; a horrible end. And again leaving behind a loved one; this young person that was a son or a daughter, loved by parents, brothers or other family members. I only showed that photograph of this young man with the permission of the mother and the sheriff's department. This mother is so courageous. And other mothers have banded together in central Florida and they have produced a film with our local sheriff in Orange County, Sheriff Barry, who has done a tremendous job working with the victims' families in producing a tape, and it shows these photographs and others that are much more graphic than I could show on the floor of the House today, about how their young people met their demise through illegal narcotics, and particularly heroin. So tonight I bring a very clear scientific message about Ecstacy, about methamphetamines, what it does to an individual's brains, and about the effect of heroin and the tragedy. The heroin again that is out there is not the heroin that was of the low purity levels of a decade ago. This is deadly, deadly heroin. Again, we know where that heroin is coming from. The sad part about all this is that we, in fact, did not have heroin coming in in this quantity some 6 or 7 years ago. Almost all of this is a new phenomena, and some of it can be very directly related to the policies of the Clinton administration, unfortunately. It is my hope that we can turn that around. Today, I would like to cite a story about where this heroin is coming from. Most of it is grown in Colombia, but I would like to cite a story by Robert Novak, a very talented columnist who writes for The Washington Post, and he wrote this in yesterday's column. He says, ``As critics feared, the peacetime initiative crafted by President Pastrana, and encouraged by the Clinton administration, is a disaster.'' Now, we have to go even further back than this article cites, and we will talk about the Clinton policy of 1993, when this President took over and how we got to all this heroin being produced in Colombia, but Robert Novak cites quite correctly that the current policy, backed by the Clinton administration, is a disaster. He goes on to cite, and let me quote his story, ``Colombia is the first western hemispheric state falling under the control of guerrillas financed by international drug trade, but it remains a State Department back water. While the United States is committed to the Balkan ethnic wars, Colombia's priority has always been low.'' That is unfortunately true. And I would like to cite some of the history of what has taken place with this administration, and it has been one poor policy compounded by another. I was elected to the Congress and took office in January of 1993. This administration took office and this President in January of 1993 also. From the very beginning bad decisions were made by this President and this administration relating to Colombia, and I would like to cite some of them. The very first one, and I bring to the floor evidence, and this is the committee on which I serve, The Committee on Government Reform, the ranking minority member at the time, the Republicans were in the minority in 1994, and I also wrote to the then drug czar Lee Brown, who was President Clinton's first drug czar. We wrote to him saying that the policy was wrong, and this is an August 25 letter in response to our request to have a change in United States policy adopted by the Clinton administration relating to sharing information with Colombia, with Peru, and with Bolivia and other countries that involved going after and shooting down, in some cases, illegal narcotics traffickers. A liberal attorney, who I understand went from the Justice Department over into the Clinton administration's DOD, came up with a ruling that we could not share information. This was the beginning of a bad policy that led to the production of both heroin and cocaine in Colombia in the quantity that we see coming out of there today. In 1994, we knew this was the wrong policy. We asked the other side to change this. In fact, at the Conference of the Americas we met with President Clinton, and I remember that meeting very well, many Members challenging his policy that Mr. Lake, his adviser, I believe, was aware of. The President said he was not. But we ended up changing our law to change the Clinton policy that did not allow us to provide this information to go after drug traffickers. And here are the letters dating from 1994 on that policy. What happened with that policy, in fact, was that during the Bush administration the United States shared real-time intelligence with Peru and other countries in an effort to allow them to force down drug- carrying aircraft so that illegal cargoes could be seized. This was primarily done through ground-based radars and surveillance systems. On May 1, 1994, again to cite the history of this, the Clinton administration stopped this program due to a legal interpretation and, again, lacking this real-time intelligence, the highly effective program was essentially blinded. It was the beginning of a bad policy in South America that led to this tremendous change in the production of illegal narcotics and the incredible volume of heroin and cocaine coming from Colombia. Additionally, this mistake by the Clinton administration was compounded and we researched this just to show again the fact that one mistake was compounded by another. In 1996, and the Republicans had taken over the House of Representatives. I might add, from 1993 in January through 1995 when Lee Brown was the director of drug policy, our national drug policy, there was only one real hearing held, and it was less than an hour, on our national drug policy and that was only after a request which I circulated and signed by over 130 colleagues for a review of the administration's policy, but one hearing on this subject during an entire 2-year period as the Clinton administration dismantled the war on drugs. The further dismantling of the efforts to stop illegal narcotics in South America and in particular in Colombia came repeatedly in 1994 and 1995. In 1995, Republicans took over the House with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) from the Committee on International Relations who has chaired the committee since. I have communications requesting back to early 1996 that this administration provide assistance, arms, helicopters, equipment, resources to Colombia because of what we were seeing in the increase in production of heroin and cocaine in that country. Every request, and I have page after page, every letter that we submitted requesting that attention be given to this problem was ignored, in fact blocked by the other side of the aisle and this administration. I brought with me tonight additional evidence of how we got ourselves into this situation. Having taken over the Congress, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who chaired the National Security International Affairs subcommittee, held dozens and dozens of hearings on this subject trying to get the administration to move on what was going to take place and what was taking place in Colombia. Hearing before the National Security Subcommittee, July 9, 1997, International Drug Control Policy, Colombia, the title. Oversight of United States Counternarcotics Assistance to Colombia. Ignored. This one held July 9, 1997, ignored. February 14, 1997, ignored. Colombian Heroin Crisis, June 24, 1998, ignored. Hearing on United States Narcotics Policy Towards Colombia, ignored. Regional Conflict, Colombia's Insurgency and Prospects for a Peaceful Resolution, hearing ignored, August 5, 1998. Here is a markup dealing with the same subjects, March 26, 1998. Antidrug Effort in the Americas, a Mid-Term Report, hearing conducted again. United States Counternarcotics Policy Towards Colombia March 31st, 1998, another hearing ignored. Hearing before the International Relations Committee, the U.S. Annual Drug Certification where contrary to recommendations of the House of Representatives, the President decertified Colombia and then almost jokingly certified Mexico as cooperating in the drug war, keeping away from Colombia the resources. Now, there could not be more evidence of a failed policy and again the source of illegal narcotics than what I have cited here tonight. The response now and the problem is that Colombia is completely out of control. I brought to the floor tonight a GAO report, General Accounting Office report, Narcotics Threat From Colombia Continues to Grow. How many reports, how many more hearings do we need? And I hear again this comment about the drug war has been a failure. Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has happened with the drug war is that this administration has destroyed the war on drugs. This is the evidence. In 1993, we see this huge dent in international, this is the source country funding, it went in fact from $660 million down to less than half as a result of the Clinton and Democratic-controlled Congress. Interdiction funding decreased 37 percent. International funding, the part that stops drugs at their source most effectively, decreased 53 percent. You might say, well, what happened to treatment during this period of time? That increased 30 percent. And that was during the time that they had a full majority in the House, the other side, and controlled also the White House. Actually if you look at this chart, it goes up quite a bit in 1998 and 1999. Most folks are now reporting that Colombia is our third largest aid recipient. Well, that is as a result of this Republican administration of Congress and particularly the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who last year tried to get us back to the 1991 levels in funding. The interesting thing is that news accounts say that Colombia is the third largest recipient of aid after Israel and after Egypt. The fact is only a few million dollars have even gotten into the pipeline after repeated requests. It is my understanding that they only have two operating Huey helicopters in all of Colombia. Some are on the way that this new Republican majority provided, but still ammunition supplies and most of the $300 million that we funded last year still to this day has not gotten to Colombia. It is interesting that this week, this past week with the situation deteriorating and the situation getting worse, more drugs coming in, more guerilla Marxist activity, more loss of lives, there is more loss of lives in Colombia than there ever was in Kosovo or in that area where we have sent our troops and resources. Some 35,000 people killed, thousands and thousands of police, Supreme Court justices, Members of Congress, elected officials throughout Colombia have been killed. Almost 1 million refugees in Colombia as a result of the narcotics trafficking. In this report that came out that I cited, this report from the GAO says that last year we reported that Colombia was restricted from receiving some narcotics, counternarcotics assistance as a result of the President's decision to decertify Colombia in 1996 and 1997. And it says, ``This restriction was lifted in 1998,'' but the fact is that money, those supplies, still have not gotten there. It is interesting that this past week, the administration has said that they were going to reinstitute an information-sharing policy with Colombia. Now that the country has nearly been taken over by guerillas and rebels, now that thousands have been killed, we are going to information-share. That is the latest news this week. Then just within the last few days, the administration has come forward with a new policy towards Colombia. They advocated through the National Drug Czar, Barry McCaffrey, that we appropriate $1 billion in the next 2 years to aid Colombia. It is incredible that after years of very direct failed policies, years after very direct stopping of assistance, resources, helicopters, any type of aid to combat illegal narcotics, it is incredible that even after this Republican majority in Congress has provided the resources through appropriations and through specific legislative initiatives that this administration still does not have those funds there, that now that we have a full-blown crisis, there are reports now that the crisis in Colombia is so critical that it may destabilize the whole South American region. Colombia now has insurgents going across the border in many of its neighboring countries and should be of concern in Panama where the United States is getting kicked out and has also been blocked from conducting any further forward operating locations for surveillance in that, from that country or in that area which begin in our former base at Howard Air Force Base. All that was closed down May 1. So here we have Colombia exploding with guerrilla activity, here we have our bases closed, the United States kicked out of Panama and trying to put the pieces to the puzzle back together. But tonight my major point is that we have an eruption of illegal narcotics across this country with methamphetamine coming through Mexico again because of the failed policy of this Congress and this administration. We have illegal narcotics now in unbelievable quantities coming from Colombia, we have a disastrous situation in Colombia confirmed by the most recent studies and reports that we have received, and by almost every news account, again an incredible disruption of that society and, in fact, that whole part of the western hemisphere. And all this can be directly linked to United States policy in ignoring hearing after hearing by the new majority in Congress, request after request by the new majority in Congress, legislative initiatives being blocked, money and funds that we sent to this region to deal with this problem diverted, as this report also cites by GAO to Kosovo and to other regions, and now we have again the source, and stop and think of this: Fourteen thousand deaths, thousands and thousands of heroin deaths. We can trace that heroin, that death, back to the fields in Colombia. Three quarters of the heroin comes from Colombia, three quarters now according again to this report, according to the DEA signature reports. A failed policy of this administration has resulted in that death and destruction; there is no question about it. I mention the deaths. We have now incarcerated in our prisons across our land more than 1.8 million Americans; 60-70 percent of them I am told in our State prisons and jails are there because of illegal narcotics. Stop and think now, 60-70 percent of those folks that are in our prisons, those drugs came from Colombia. Six-7 years ago there was almost no heroin produced in Colombia. Six-7 years ago there was almost no production of coca in Colombia. We have been able to get aid to Peru and to Bolivia re-started again by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who is now Speaker of the House in the past 2 years, and those are very successful programs, 50 and 60 percent reduction. We see less cocaine than we see heroin because we can stop it at its source. So tonight we have got to learn by the mistakes of the past, we have got to pay attention to the facts and the evidence. We hopefully will not repeat those mistakes, and we will do a better job in stopping drugs at their source.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the ranking member, and others, staff that have been so courteous to me in the past in trying to meet some of the concerns relating to protection of lands, endangered lands in Florida and other projects. Mr. Chairman, I rise with this amendment not to ask for any more money, we have $114 million for Everglades restoration, but asking for consideration as we move forward in this process to take a small amount, approximately $9 million, about 8 percent of this total, for use in preservation of the land along the St. John's River. We cannot just put all of our dollars and all of our money into restoration projects in Florida. It is critical that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I was raised in south Florida, and now we are spending somewhere, in the Chairman's estimate, and the Corps of Engineers brought first on July 4 a proposal to spend somewhere between $7.8 and the chairman has estimated this may cost us $10 billion, between $8 and $10 billion to restore the Everglades. What I am asking for here is consideration not to make the same mistake in central and north Florida, that we must preserve that land along John's River. We have been successful today in acquiring 16,000 of 18,000 acres, which will connect the Ocala National Forest with the State Park just north of Orlando. That area is being inundated by growth that we saw years and years ago in south Florida, and we cannot make the same mistake now. My plea this evening, Mr. Chairman, is that we take a few dollars and wisely set them aside for preservation of that precious St. John's River area that needs to be preserved, so we will not be coming back in 10 or 20 years and asking for billions and billions in restoration when we can spend a few million now for preservation. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment so we can proceed with the business. I know the chairman will acquiesce to my request in conference.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor again tonight to discuss the issue of illegal narcotics and the tremendous cost to our Nation. Over and over again it is important that I think we repeat the message that I have with me here today, and that is a simple one, that drugs destroy lives. And I believe if every Member of Congress takes a few minutes to look at the impact of illegal narcotics they will be absolutely startled as to the damage that it does to our society, the cost to countless families across this Nation and also the tremendous responsibility cast upon the Congress to finance the social, the judicial and other costs that illegal narcotics impose upon our society. Tonight I want to talk for a few minutes about some of those costs and tell the Congress and the American people that there are some very specific and direct costs to illegal narcotics and what they have done to this Nation and to, again, families and young people. In fact, during the past year over 14,000 Americans lost their lives as a direct result of the misuse or abuse of illegal narcotics in this Nation. I come from a beautiful area in central Florida. My district is between Orlando and Daytona Beach, a very peaceful, affluent, high employment, high income area. Even my area has been plagued with countless deaths. In fact, a recent headline in Orlando Sentinel newspaper blasted out that in fact the number of drug-related deaths had now exceeded the number of homicides. Drug overdose deaths now exceed homicides in central Florida. So the statistics are not only bad in my area but across the Nation, with more than 14,000, and again we do not count in all of those that are in traffic accidents or in suicides or other unreported deaths that may have some other report of the demise of the individual which is not included in this 14,000 figure. In 1995, we had almost 532,000 drug-related emergencies which occurred across this Nation, and that figure has been on the upswing particularly among our young people, which should be of concern again to every Member of Congress. In 1995 we also have a figure that is reported of a retail value of the illicit drug business being over $49 billion. The cost goes on and on again to our society. Across the land tonight there are over 1.8 million, nearly 2 million, Americans incarcerated in our jails and prisons across the land. This is at incredible cost, the cost of the judicial system, the cost of the lost wages, the cost of social support for the families who have their loved ones incarcerated. So the cost is not just 1.8 million people behind bars but in fact much greater cost. It is estimated out of the nearly 2 million in our jails, prisons and State facilities that 60 to 70 percent are there directly because of a drug-related offense, and these are not small offenses like possession of minor drugs, and these are not one time or misdemeanor occurrences or offenses. These are, in fact, we find from the hearings that we have conducted with our criminal justice drug policy subcommittee, these are, in fact, very serious felonies. And most of those people behind bars, again in studies, confirm this as recently as the hearings that we held today in our subcommittee, that these folks in most instances are violent offenders, that in fact those that are there because of drug-related crimes are there because they trafficked in drugs, they committed a murder, they committed a rape and an assault, a robbery while under the influence of illegal narcotics or in the pursuit of acquiring money or drugs. So again, 2 million people behind bars is only the tip of the iceberg. Drug-related illnesses in the United States and death and crime are estimated to cost Americans some $67 billion plus a year in the United States. This translates into very specific costs to every American who has to pay $1,000 a year to carry the costs of health care, extra law enforcement, car and automobile accidents, and crime and lost productivity due to drug abuse and use. Eighteen percent of the 2,000 fatally injured drivers from seven States had drugs rather than alcohol in their systems when they died. Again, drugs do in fact destroy lives, and have a very specific cost impact to the American taxpayer, to every American citizen, in addition to just the incarceration cost and judicial cost. Drug use and misuse and illegal narcotics also dramatically impact the productivity of America's workers. Seventy-one percent of all illicit drug users are 18 years of age or older, and they are also, interestingly enough, employed. In a study by the U.S. Postal Service, the data collected showed that among drug users, absenteeism is 66 percent higher and health benefit utilization is 84 percent greater in dollar terms when compared against other workers. So in fact, the billions that we are talking about are only the tip of the iceberg when we translate this into lost productivity and absenteeism, and then the overutilization of our health benefit programs. Again, all of that does translate into extra costs for every citizen. Again, drugs destroy lives, they cost us lives, and they cost every American in this Congress dearly. Disciplinary actions are, interestingly, 90 percent higher for employees who are drug users as opposed to nonusers of drugs, another high price tag to pay for those who are involved in illegal narcotics or in drug use. Let me talk tonight about how some specific drugs impact our society and young people in this Nation, and what the effects of some of these drugs are. First of all, let me talk about crack and cocaine. The use and abuse of crack and cocaine, which also destroys lives, has somewhat evened out among the adult population. That is only because now we have an incredible supply of heroin, we have an unbelievable supply of methamphetamine. So, for example, my area has a very substantial increase in heroin use and abuse and deaths, and the Midwest and some other areas have been impacted by methamphetamine, so crack and cocaine has leveled out. The supply availability and price of other drugs such as methamphetamines and heroin is available. Even first-time crack or cocaine users can be subject to heart attacks which can be fatal. We heard testimony today from a wonderful lady, Mrs. Bennett, who testified before our subcommittee. She lost her young son, a first-time cocaine user who suffered a fatal reaction and died at a very young age. She brought his picture to our subcommittee, which conducted a hearing on the question of decriminalization and legalization of illegal narcotics. She will tell the Members that drugs in fact destroy lives. They destroyed the life of her son, and this report that I have tonight about the use of crack or cocaine adding to your incidence of seizures or heart attacks is in fact very real. Even one hit of crack or cocaine can in fact kill one, because it can cause heart attacks, strokes, or breathing problems. This has medically been proven. Crack and cocaine use are also connected, and abuse, are connected to car crashes, to falls, burns, drowning, and suicide, and sometimes, again, these go unreported. But my point again is that illegal narcotics, hard drugs like crack and cocaine do destroy lives. The addiction we have not talked about, but that can ruin the physical and mental health of so many individuals, and often is not counted into the statistics that we report here. So again, we have an instance of one drug which has a devastating impact on so many lives, and does in fact destroy lives. The other drug I will talk about for a few minutes is heroin. Heroin users are getting younger and younger. Since 1993, the use of heroin among our teenage population has risen some 875 percent in the United States. We have a tremendous supply of heroin coming into the United States. We have a reduction in price. I will talk in a few minutes about how we are getting that tremendous supply coming in. But in fact, the people who are most subjected to heroin's deadly effects are our young people. Heroin users are getting younger. A recent survey indicates that kids are trying heroin at younger and younger ages. For example, in 1995, this report that I have says that 141,000 people in America tried heroin for the first time. About a quarter of these first-time users were somewhere between the ages of 12 and 17. Even worse, more than half the people who were admitted to hospital emergency rooms for heroin-related problems were under age 18. Again, the theme that we bring to the floor tonight is that drugs destroy lives, and drugs destroy young lives in an incredible number of instances. These statistics do indicate that we have a tremendous heroin abuse problem among our young people. Heroin is dangerous, and you have to be just totally irresponsible to put yourself using it. We have also found in our studies and hearings that the heroin that is coming into the United States in 1998, 1999, today, is not the heroin that came in 10 or 15 years ago. The purity levels that were down in single digits are now 60, 70 percent pure. Young people and adults who try heroin have very deadly results, as I cited. Just in my local central Florida district and area, we now have heroin overdose deaths exceeding homicides. That picture is being repeated over and over across the land. In fact, we are now up to over 4,000 heroin deaths in the Nation, and the number is growing every year. Most disturbingly, again, we see young people as the victims of heroin overdoses and heroin deaths. Drugs destroy lives. Again, let me cite some of the information that we found in our hearings on our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Over half the crime in this country is committed by individuals under the influence of drugs. In the hearing that we held today we had Tom Constantine, who is the immediate former director of our Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States, just retired in the last few days. He told us that over half of the individuals who had been arrested for Federal offenses are now testing positive for illegal narcotics. We heard the sheriff of Plano County, the city of Plano and that area, testify before our subcommittee today. He also indicated that a very high number of those arrested for any offense in his jurisdiction also have some drug in their system. The National Institute of Justice's ADAM, the drug testing program, it is referred to also as the Adam testing program, found that more than 60 percent of adult male arrestees tested positive for drugs. It was interesting, in some of the information we obtained today, and this figure is very high for adult males, but I believe the figure was 71 percent of the women who were arrested tested positive for drugs, a startling statistic that, although we have fewer female arrestees, that a greater percentage of them are involved with illegal narcotics and have them in their system when they are tested upon arrest. In most cities, over half the young male arrestees are under the influence of marijuana. Importantly, the majority of these crimes result from the effects of the drug and did not result from the fact that the drugs are illegal. According to a study of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 80 percent of the men and women behind bars, about 1.4 million inmates, are seriously involved with alcohol and other drug abuse. I am going to try to refer a little bit later, if we have time, to the results of that report from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. This is an absolutely fascinating report just released this morning, and it talks about marijuana. It is the most comprehensive study ever conducted, that highlights the critical distinction between non-medical marijuana, medical uses of marijuana, and what is going on with those who abuse this substance, and some incredible statistics about, again, the effect on those individuals and how many of them are now in some type of a treatment program, and the problems that are related to this. We will talk more about that. The former Secretary, I believe, of one of the administrations, Joe Califano, was involved, he was a former HEW Secretary, with this study. He is now president of that organization. We hope to have him testify at a future hearing on the results of their study. Again, it is a dramatic study that does show that we have an incredible number of young people who are the victims of marijuana, which many try to tout as a soft drug or a non-harmful narcotic. But again, all the studies, the reports, the information lead us to one simple conclusion; again, that drugs destroy lives. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year, non-drug users who lived in households where drugs, including marijuana, are used are 11 times as likely to be killed as those living in drug-free households. So if a young person or an individual comes from a house where drugs are being used, this study by the American Medical Association said they increase their chances of being killed by 11 times. So again, these are more statistics that confirm that drugs destroy lives. Drug abuse in a home increased a woman's risk of being killed, according to this study, by a close relative, some 28 times. So those that are concerned, and we heard testimony today about spousal abuse, an incredible statistic, some 80 percent of the spousal abuse cases involved methamphetamines in one jurisdiction that was studied, and that would be abuse, battery, assault of a woman, a wife, a spouse. But in a home that has drug use, a woman's risk of being killed is increased by 28 times, according to this AMA study. Additionally, to confirm again the message we bring tonight that drugs destroy lives, I have a study by the Parent Resources and Drug Information Center. This is also referred to as PRIDE, the organization, and this PRIDE organization reported some of these facts. Of high school students who reported having carried guns to school, and certainly there has been a great deal of talk about guns in this Congress on the floor of the House of Representatives, this said students who were reported having carried guns to school, 31 percent used cocaine, compared to 2 percent of the students who never carried guns to school. The same relationship was found among junior high school. So more than likely, the school violence and those involved with carrying lethal weapons such as guns to school are much more likely to be drug abusers, drug users. Nineteen percent of gang members reported cocaine use compared to 2 percent among youths who were not in gangs. So whether it is someone carrying a gun to school or someone involved in a gang, drugs destroy their lives. And, in fact, drugs contribute to the crime disruption of our public school system and education. Again, drugs destroy lives. Today, the subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, as I mentioned earlier, began another hearing to look into the question of drug legalization, drug decriminalization. We heard from a number of witnesses, some on different sides of the issue. I try to always bring in a balanced approach. We heard one witness in particular in favor of legalization of marijuana, a representative from the NORMAL organization, it is called. We heard another individual report from a study who gave some of the comparisons that had been reviewed on marijuana use. And we heard from, again, a parent involved with a national organization. She had lost her son, as I mentioned, and was there testifying against decriminalization, against legalization. We also heard from the police chief of Plano, Texas, also who spoke against legalization. We found also that we had some interesting testimony from our lead witness who was Tom Constantine, and as I mentioned he is the former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Mr. Constantine used several examples in his testimony to show how drugs drive demand. A few years back, the Colombian drug cartels decided to enter the heroin market. Now 75 percent of the heroin sold in the United States is of Colombian origin. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about some of these narcotics and what Mr. Constantine brought up and what we heard today. If I can, I would like to take this down and have the chart on the drug Signature program. All these illegal narcotics come from some place. And, in fact, we know today through scientific studies and through programs such as the heroin Signature program exactly where illegal narcotics originate. This is not a guessing game. This is today a science just like DNA. They can trace DNA to individuals; they can trace illegal narcotics back to their source. Mr. Constantine, again, former DEA director, talked a little bit today about the heroin problem that we have. This 1997 study that he also presented to our subcommittee in a previous hearing shows exactly where heroin, one of the most deadly drugs, is coming from. And we know that 75 percent of the heroin is coming today from South America. We know that 14 percent is coming from Mexico. And then we have about 5 and 6 percent from Southwest and Southeast Asia. So we know very specifically that 89 percent of the heroin is coming from either Colombia or Mexico. Some 6 years ago, this chart would be quite different. Most of the illegal narcotics were coming in from, in this case, heroin, was coming in from Southeast Asia and from other sources. In fact, 6 years ago, there was almost no heroin produced in Colombia. How did we get to 75 percent, as Mr. Constantine testified and this chart documents? It is a simple thing. It is the policy of this administration. Let me review for a moment, if I may, what took place and how we got into this situation. I have heard repeatedly, and I hear it over and over again, the war on drugs is a failure. I have heard it in the media, and I have heard it recast that the war on drugs is a failure. They would have the public and the Congress believe that the war on drugs is a failure. In fact, since 1993, there has not been a war on drugs. In 1993, the Clinton administration basically closed down the war on drugs. What they did was they began very systematically. The first thing they cut was almost 90 percent of the drug czar's office and operations. So the drug czar's office was cut first, demoted, really. They brought in a drug czar who really ignored the problem, ignored promotion of any antinarcotics programs either before the Congress or with this administration. What else did this administration do? The first thing they did was hire so many recent drug abusers in the White House that the Secret Service insisted on a program to do drug testing of White House employees. And I sat on the Committee on Government Operations and heard testimony to that effect. But again, first they closed down the drug czar's office very nearly, then began hiring people who had very recent illegal narcotics use, forcing the Secret Service to force the White House to institute a drug testing program. Next thing they did was hire probably the worst Surgeon General, the highest health officer, that this Nation had ever had and that was Joycelyn Elders. She sent a message to our young people that said just say maybe. And the statistics I cited tonight about heroin, about marijuana, about cocaine and about the increase in incidence among our young people I think can be traced from the beginning point of that policy of that closedown, of that shutdown, that ending of the war on drugs with a chief health officer of the United States of America saying to our young people just say maybe. Then, if I can get the smallest charts here, again this is repeated over and over that the war on drugs is a failure. Let me have these charts here. These charts do not lie. They tell the truth. And I do not know if my colleagues can see them, but this shows drug spending on international programs. Now, international would be stopping drugs at their source, probably the most effective utilization of taxpayer dollars. We know that in 1993 and prior to that time that nearly 100 percent of the cocaine was coming from Peru and from Bolivia, a little tiny bit from Colombia. We knew where cocaine was coming from then and coca could only be grown at certain altitudes in a certain terrain. There are not many places. It cannot be grown in Florida or North Carolina, to my knowledge. It can be grown only in that area. In 1993, the next thing the Clinton administration did, and we have to remember they controlled the White House, they controlled the other body, the United States Senate, and they controlled a big majority of the House of Representatives. The first thing they did was cut these international programs, the source country programs. The slashes here are incredible. Again, back under President Bush we had 660, and this is millions of dollars. We are not talking billions. But they slashed them to less than half by 1995-1996. This is where the Republicans took over the Congress. In the last 2, 3 years we have really begun to restart the war on drugs. I sat on the Committee on Government Operations during that period when Mr. Brown was the drug czar, the drug czar in name. Even though I had requests from 130-plus Members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle, only one hearing was held during the Democrat domination of the Congress and the White House. Only one hearing as I was a member of that committee, and that was for less than an hour. It was almost farcical. So the war on drugs was closed down and specifically the most cost-effective part of the war on drugs was closed down. The other chart that I had here showed Colombia now producing 75 percent of the heroin. Colombia was not even on the charts as producing heroin in 1992, 1993. This administration stopped funding, cut this in less than half the international program. So there was not funding to stop drugs at their source. If we look at 1998 and 1999, and take that in 1991-1992 dollars, we are not even up to the levels of the end of the Bush administration. And again this is so cost effective because we know where the heroin is produced. We have the Signature programs that show us exactly where the heroin is produced. Now in addition to cutting these programs, what this administration did through a very direct policy was to stop money going to Colombia. The results in Colombia are incredible. I read a Washington Post piece, which the reporter really did not research well, but if we go back and look at what this administration did with the cuts here, they totally cut off Colombia as far as receiving any resources, helicopters, assistance, because they were afraid that some of that money might be used to fight the Marxist guerrillas who were in the jungles there. So what this administration's direct policy was, and it was in direct conflict with the requests for the last 4 years since we have taken over the House of Representatives with a new majority, we begged, we pleaded, we sent letters, get aid, get assistance, get resources to Colombia. What has happened? Colombia now produces 75 percent of the heroin coming into the United States since we closed down that program effectively. Seventy-five percent of the heroin coming in. No heroin produced in 1992, 1993, not even on the charts. Additionally, we could talk about Mexico, which is up to 14 percent. We get 89 percent of the heroin from the two of them, and that is part of another failed Clinton policy in certifying Mexico as cooperating. But think about Colombia and what this policy has done. Not only do we have the heroin which was not there in 1992-1993, coming in in unbelievable quantities at a quality that is as deadly as can be, that is what is killing the kids in Plano. That is what is killing the kids in Orlando, Florida. That is what is destroying the lives again by the thousands, deadly high-purity heroin coming in through this policy. But what is interesting is in 1992, 1993, Colombia produced almost no cocaine. It did process coca and it was a big producer. The coca which was partially processed was brought into Colombia and processed there and shipped out either directly to the United States or with their buddies and network through Mexico. What has happened since that time, 1992, 1993, the last administration, is that in fact Colombia again is deprived of any assistance. We cut this program on source country in half, plus we completely decimated Colombia. Colombia is now the biggest producer of cocaine in the world. Tom Constantine testified today it is somewhere up in the 60 percent. Fortunately, this new majority, under the leadership of first Mr. Zeliff, who began restarting the war on drugs, a former Member, and the former chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice was the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), who is now Speaker of the House was chair and was responsible for restarting the war on drugs. So that is why we see those figures going up here. But even the funds that were put in last year, and I checked this, because, again, a recent story in the Washington Post and repeated across the land is that so much of our foreign assistance is going to Colombia. Well, that is bull, and that is nutso. That is not the truth. This past year, we appropriated somewhere in the neighborhood of $280 million for Colombia. My colleagues have got to remember, up to this date, almost no money went to Colombia in fighting illegal narcotics. In fact, this administration kept the resources, the helicopters, the ammunition from this country. So I checked to see where the money is that we appropriated last year and that the press is talking about, saying the war on drugs is a failure, and that the third biggest foreign aid recipient after Israel and Egypt is Colombia. Well, that is true for this fiscal year that that money is appropriated. But so far, according to our staff investigation, somewhere between $2 million and $3 million has gotten to Colombia. So we have not had a war on drugs. This other side of the aisle has killed the war on drugs. They completely decimated the war on drugs. This just international programs and, again, the dollars that were slashed, they were kept from Colombia. If my colleagues think that it is bad enough we have cocaine and heroin coming in in these incredible quantities through a direct failed policy of this administration and the other side of the aisle, what they did, stop and think about what is happening in Colombia. Everybody gets upset about Kosovo. Over a million people have been displaced in Colombia by the Civil War, by the Marxist guerillas who are funded almost totally by illegal narcotics profits and illegal narcotics trafficking. Thirty-five thousand people have died in Colombia. Thousands of judges, thousands and thousands of policemen, elected officials have been murdered and slaughtered in Colombia. It has disseminated a great nation. The reason was we did not want any arms to get there. Now, an area the size of Switzerland is in control, and the new president, and I have to admire him, is trying to bring peace about, trying to negotiate with the guerillas. Some oppose that. Some of are in favor of it. But one cannot have a resolution to the problems with illegal narcotics which are funding the Marxist activities or a resolution of illegal narcotics transiting or being produced there, coming into the United States until we have peace plans. So I have been supportive. I have met with President Pastrana. He has begged for our assistance. He has begged for our patience. He has begged for our understanding. He is trying to do anything. He brought down the head of the New York Stock Exchange to talk to the guerillas to try to tell them that a free enterprise system is better than dogging it in the jungle and conducting war and slaughter of the Colombian people. I say give peace a chance. I also say give a chance to restarting the war on drugs. These are the facts. What the newspapers have printed is bologna. It is not the truth about these international programs. We have been able, through Speaker Hastert, again, who chaired the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, who had responsibility before my new Subcommittee of Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Relations inherited it, but the Speaker was successful. I went down with him. We met with President Fujimori of Peru. We met with President Hugo Banzer of Bolivia. Those two presidents have cut drug production of cocaine with a little bit of help from their friend. We are only talking $20 million, $30 million out of billions and billions that we are spending on law enforcement, incarceration, and treatment. Those two presidents have acted with a little bit of help and the few dollars in the international programs which we have restarted and cut 50 percent of the cocaine production. That is why we see cocaine down and more difficult to get. The latest figures I have is President Fujimori in Peru, through his hard line, through his assistance, through the small amount of dollars we have gotten there, has reduced 60 percent. Both of them have plans to eliminate that. So a little bit of help in these international programs can be so cost effective. Do not tell me any different. I have been there. I have seen it. These are the facts. Again, we hear the comments that interdiction and the war on drugs does not work and that we are spending too much money on interdiction. Look at what the Clinton administration did. Again, during the last years of the Bush administration, we were in the $2 billion on interdiction, in that range. The war on drugs was killed as far as interdicting drugs. The second most cost effective way to get drugs is to stop them as they are coming in. Once they get passed the borders, forget it, folks. It is harder and harder. Ask any policeman. Ask anyone who has dealt with law enforcement. It is tough. But here is what they did. They killed the war on drugs. The Clinton administration, which does not like the military to begin with, took the military out of the war on drugs. Look. From 1991 to 1992, $2 billion level down to about $1 billion, cut in half. This just shows the military. I have not brought up the Coast Guard which protects Puerto Rico, which protects our coast line. They slashed the budgets there. So that is why we have Colombia as the major producer of heroin, we know where it is coming from, the major producer of cocaine. This is why we have a stream, a supply. That is simple economics. It is economics 101, my friends, that, in fact, as one has a tremendous supply, the price goes down, and it is available. It is available to who at a low price? Our young people. That is why the statistics I quoted here tonight and the theme that I had here tonight that drugs destroy lives is so true. This is the policy. The war on drugs died in January of 1993 with this President, with this administration. My colleagues can see that, in 1998, 1999, we are barely getting back to the level we were with the Bush administration. So we have not even been able to restart the war on drugs. The next myth is that we have not spent enough money on treatment. I believe in treatment. I think anyone who has a problem, we should get treatment to them. We should spend whatever. If we could spend $3 billion in Kosovo in a few months, we can certainly spend money on those who are addicted to illegal narcotics in the United States of America. But, Mr. Speaker, here is the next point that I want to make. If we look back in 1991, 1992, we were spending $1.8 billion, $2.2 billion on treatment. 1999, it is not quite double. But in fact they have been putting their eggs in the treatment basket, and some of it has helped. But this also should destroy a myth that we have not increased money for treatment. What is interesting is, since the Republicans took over the Congress, we can see some pretty dramatic increases in money for treatment. So, again, the myth that all the money is going into planes and to source country programs and interdiction equipment is just that, it is a myth. It is not the truth. So that is a little bit of an update on how we got into this situation, where we are on the war on drugs. It is nice to come up here and talk about this. But I must say that, rather than just talk about it, we have tried to act. We have tried to act by putting our dollars into these programs. We have tried to look at those that are most cost effective. Treatment. Again, we have no problem with treatment. Education basically was not on the charts. If we look back here at the beginning of this administration, almost no money for education. Under Speaker Gingrich and under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is now the Speaker, we put in $195 million into an education program. It is relatively new. It has not completed its first year. But that money is matched by donations and by equal contributions. So we should have almost a half billion dollars in resources towards an education program. It takes education. It takes treatment. It takes, as I said, most effectively, source country programs to eradicate drugs where they are grown and where they come from. Then it takes interdiction and also takes enforcement. So it takes all of these activities. That is why, if we go back and look at the Bush administration and back to the Reagan administration when we had the beginning of the crack and the cocaine problem in the early 1980s, we saw an actual decrease in the number of individuals involved with illegal narcotics, or we saw some of the activity coming down where we saw the seizures going up and again some dramatic changes. The most dramatic change that we have experienced, though, is the end of the war in drugs in January of 1993. It is so difficult to start that back up again. In addition to providing an update on the war on drugs and where we are in the war on drugs, I also wanted to talk tonight, as I conclude, a little bit about some of the things that our subcommittee has been doing, our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. Several weeks ago, we conducted a hearing at the request of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). As my colleagues may know, I have been highly critical, and our subcommittee has held extensive hearings on the question of assistance in Mexico. Because if we look at Colombia and we have seen the results of what happens in our failed policy with Colombia, we see where illegal narcotics, the tough stuff like heroin, cocaine are coming from. If we looked at the rest of the picture to see where the rest of the drugs are coming from, probably the balance of the drugs and 60 to 70 percent of all the hard narcotics and marijuana and everything coming into the United States comes in through Mexico. Mexico has not cooperated. This Congress asked over a year ago, 2 years ago now, for Mexico to extradite individuals, Mexican nationals, drug lords, those who have been indicted in the United States and for whom we are seeking extradition. They have not complied. I will talk a little bit more about that in just a second. In addition, we asked Mexico to sign a maritime agreement. To date, they still have not signed a maritime agreement to cooperate in going after people who are transiting and dealing in drugs in the high seas. In addition, we asked Mexico to arm our DEA agents. They still have not allowed our DEA agents to protect themselves. My colleagues may say, why? Why? Because Enrique Camarena, one of our agents was tortured, an incredibly horrible death. We have a cap actually imposed by Mexico on the number of agents. We have a very small number. It is almost incredible for the size of the problem. But even so, those who are there are still put at risk, and Mexico still refused to help us. Radar in the south. And I am getting some word that Mexico is beginning to cooperate in getting radar to the south so before the drugs come into Mexico, and we know they are coming from Colombia and Panama and other locations, that we could stop those illegal narcotics. But that is still not in place. And then enforcing the laws that are passed. Now, we have gotten Mexico to pass some laws, and the laws are on the books, but there is not the enforcement. They have a corrupt judicial system; they have a corrupt law enforcement system from the guy on the beat or the gal on the beat all the way to the President's office. And that has been documented with the former President Salinas and his family, with those in incredible positions of power, with incredible amounts of money that they have skimmed off of the drug trade, including one Mexican general who tried to place $1.1 billion that he had gotten. We know he had gotten it through illegal narcotics proceeds, and he tried to place it in legitimate financial institutions. But we have not had cooperation. I started with extradition. And let me say that several weeks ago, as I began to mention, our subcommittee, at the request of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), conducted a hearing on one of the 275 extradition requests that we have. This was a case relating to the murder of Mrs. Bellush, a young mother of about five or six young children in Florida in Sarasota who was murdered several years ago. She was shot and then stabbed to death and left to die, with her young baby children left in the pool of her blood until the family members came home and found her. We held a hearing to protest and to look into and investigate why Mexico had refused to extradite Mr. Del Toro. Mr. Del Toro was not a Hispanic citizen. He was a citizen of the United States, born in the United States to parents who are United States citizens; and he helped commit this incredibly horrible crime and then fled to Mexico and has for the past several years used the Mexican judicial system to avoid coming back and facing justice in the United States. Thank goodness last night the Attorney General called me and said that the Mexican Supreme Court had ruled in favor of extradition and Mr. Del Toro is on his way back to face justice. It is small compensation, small condolence to the Bellush family, but it is one extradition. Unfortunately, there are 274 other extradition requests on some 40 major drug dealers, Mexican nationals, who have been involved in illegal narcotics. Now, I believe we have had one Mexican national who has been extradited, but I have brought to the floor again some of the mugshots of these individuals. Agustin Vasquez-Mendoza. He is wanted on conspiracy to commit armed robbery and highly involved in illegal narcotics trafficking and kidnapping and aggravated assault. He is a fugitive, has not been arrested and one of the individuals who we are trying to get back to the United States. Again I bring up the Amezcua brothers, who we also would like extradited to face justice in the United States. So we have succeeded in one small case. We have some 200-plus requests for extradition of these individuals. I do not believe that Mexico, who has always been a close ally, and we have millions of Mexican-Americans in the United States, I do not believe these friends that we have had or Mexican-Americans agree with Mexico's current stance to thumb their nose at the United States and refuse to extradite these individuals who have been involved in murder, illegal narcotics, and trafficking. So we will continue to put pressure on Mexico, which is now a major producer of heroin, but also the source of 60 to 70 percent of the illegal narcotics transiting into the United States. We will do everything possible. We did introduce, just before we went into recess, a resolution which we hope to bring up on the floor which does praise Mexico for some of the small steps that they have taken, but also holds Mexico's feet to the fire to produce on extradition, to produce on a maritime agreement, to produce on assisting our DEA agents, to produce on enforcing the laws that they have passed rather than thumbing their nose at the United States. So until we start working with the programs that do work, that are cost effective and at the source, in cooperation with these countries and as a cooperative partner, getting them the resources through these programs, we will not be successful. Mr. Speaker, with that, I am pleased to sum up tonight with the message that I started out with and that is that drugs destroy lives. Over 14,000 Americans lost their lives last year, almost 100,000 since the beginning of the end of the drug war, which was January 1993. And again the statistics show and the facts show and prove that the war on drugs ended with the beginning of this administration, and it is so difficult to start it up and that there has been so much damage to our Nation, to our young people, and so many families across this land. Mr. Speaker, since I have some time left, I would like to provide a little update as to what is going on as far as narcotics around the world. If my colleagues think the United States is tough, the headlines in one of the recent newspapers is, ``Three Beheaded in Saudi Arabia For Drug Trafficking.'' This is a report of Friday, May 8. ``Three convicted drug traffickers were beheaded in Saudi Arabia on Friday. Saudi Arabia's Islamic courts imposed death sentences for murder, rape and drug trafficking. So far this year, 21 people have been executed, 29 put to death.'' ``China executes 58 to mark world anti-narcotics day.'' In China, they have a different approach to illegal narcotics. ``China marked world anti-narcotics day by executing 58 drug traffickers.'' So just a little update on the news in China and how they treat drug traffickers. Then this report from today's Financial Times. ``Caribbean court will speed hangings.'' And this deals with drug trafficking which has prompted crimes. Let me read from this: ``Many islands have witnessed rapid increases in murders and other violent crime over the past decade. Murders in Jamaica last year averaged 2.6 a day, twice the level of 10 years ago. Murders have doubled in Trinidad and Tobago over the past 5 years, with many of those linked to narcotics smuggling, say officials.'' So they have a treatment, and the treatment really cuts down on recidivism, and that is hanging, which is being demanded by these nations that have also felt this scourge of illegal narcotics. Mr. Speaker, I like to provide Members of Congress and the American people with little updates on what is going on in the war on drugs and how others from time to time approach this serious problem. Not that I recommend any of these procedures or remedies that I have reported here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I will return again next week.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Thank you for recognizing me for just a few minutes to talk about the subject that you are involved in here tonight, and that is adequate funding for research. I think it is very fitting that I be here tonight representing the State of Florida, and the State of Florida today is in mourning. We are in mourning for the wife of our Lieutenant Governor who passed away at 2:20 on Sunday afternoon, Mary Brogan. Anyone who knew Mary Brogan knew she was a fighter, knew she was always at her husband's side even when he was the Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida and through his election as Lieutenant Governor with our current Governor Jeb Bush. Today they held a memorial service in our State capital for Mary Brogan. Mary Brogan fought breast cancer. How important it is that we continue our fight for research, for adequate funding, for the National Institute of Health, for cancer research, so that we do not have to have another memorial service for another beautiful lady like Mary Brogan. She was only 44 years old, but she left behind many great memories. She even, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer and even before, became a strong advocate for research, for work such as you are dedicated here tonight. We miss Mary Brogan. We salute her fine work, her courage right to the end, and I think it is a fitting memorial to Mary Brogan and others who have been victims of cancer that we pick up the responsibility of seeing that there is adequate funding, that there is adequate research, and that these agencies go forward to find a cure for a horrible disease. So I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his work, for his efforts tonight, and for allowing me to spend just a moment memorializing a wonderful lady with a wonderful smile who I will always remember. I am grateful for the work of the gentleman.