John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment, I have delayed my departure back to my district, to congratulate each of our pages this afternoon. I just wanted to say briefly that the pages have had a great experience and a rare opportunity, and it is very similar to what we have as Members of Congress, a tremendous experience being elected to represent our individual districts. It is a rare opportunity that very few individuals ever get to experience. So you, too, have had that privilege, that honor, and you have served us very well. Sometimes the pages are taken for granted. They get here, and they hit the ground running, and they are called on immediately to perform. Right up to their last hour of service this afternoon, they have been called on and performed so well. Again, it is, though, an incredible and rare experience, and we are so proud of the way that this class has conducted itself. I am a little bit of a history nut, as some of you know, and my interest in the Capitol and the history of this Chamber. Today, as you leave on June 4, you will be part of the history of an incredible body. I think you have had the opportunity to see, too, what very few individuals ever get to see up close; and that is that, in fact, this government does work and, in fact, it is truly representative of this Nation. Just like each of you have come from different families and different districts and different backgrounds and different party affiliations, but you have come together and been a part of the history and this process. So it is a tremendous and unique opportunity. As Daniel Webster said up there, if you look, he said that you perform when you come here. If you perform a service, it is something worthy to be remembered. Certainly your service has been in the same light as asked by one of our great Americans who served in Congress with such distinguished history. You have been, again, a tremendous credit to us. I thank you personally, and I now extend the thanks of all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We wish you Godspeed and the very best in your future careers. Thank you.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House again this afternoon to talk about the subject of the problem of illegal narcotics, and in particular this afternoon, to address the problem relating to our relations with Mexico and Mexico's effort in our war on drugs. As Members may recall, the Clinton administration certified Mexico recently as cooperating in our war on drugs. I really want to call to the House's attention the current situation with Mexico, which is reaching disastrous proportions. Just today there is information that our United States agents are warned of Mexican retaliation as a result of their participation in a sting operation in Mexico. I have followed this effort of the United States to take action in Mexico in a money laundering and illegal narcotics operation within the confines of Mexico. I pulled up some of the headlines, which are quite revealing. This one is the week of May 20. It says, ``Reno Lauds Mexico for Help with Probe. Customs Targeting Drug Money Bankers.'' In this sting operation the Attorney General said, ``Law enforcement officials in Mexico have promised to cooperate in a massive U.S. Customs Service money laundering investigation aimed at Mexico banks.'' Then we see another headline a few days later, ``Mexico Promises Probe of Bankers Indicted for Laundering.'' This is the headline on May 20; again, cooperation. Then we find a sudden turn of events, that in fact Mexico is not cooperating. The headlines from the Washington Post on May 23 say ``Zedillo,'' the Mexican President, ``Blasts U.S. Undercover Drug Sting.'' He condemned the use of U.S. agents in that operation. Then we saw an apology in another headline, ``Clinton Regrets Keeping Sting Secret.'' Then we find out that the sting was not secret, that in fact the Mexicans knew about it and were told about it in advance. The Wall Street Journal reports, ``Bank Bust Stings U.S.-Mexico Relations.'' The latest in today's newspaper, as I said when I began, is ``U.S. Agents Warned of Mexican Retaliation.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the country we certified as cooperating. This is the country that the Attorney General praised for cooperating in this sting. This is what is reported in today's paper: ``The United States Drug Enforcement Administration has pulled its agents out of Tijuana, and the Justice Department is warning American lawmen on both sides of the 2,000-mile long Mexican border to protect themselves more than ever. The new threat they face is not violence from narcotics traffickers, but hostility from their law enforcement counterparts in the Mexican Federal judicial police.'' This is an incredible state of affairs. Here we have incredible amounts of drugs coming in from Mexico. Nearly 50 percent of all the hard drugs in the United States reaching our cities and our streets, our communities and our schools and our children, is coming in from Mexico, and a policy totally in disarray. This is a matter that requires the investigation and oversight of this Congress, the attention of this administration, and should be investigated to its fullest, to find out what is really going on between the United States and Mexico in the war on drugs. Are our agents now under attack? Are our agents going to be expelled? What is this administration doing about the country that we have helped, we have loaned money to, we have made a trading partner, and then now they are condemning us and not cooperating in this effort to bring corruption, to bring drug trafficking, to a halt on both sides of the border?

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 1998, for morning hour debates.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, June 10, 1998, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting his excellency Kim Dae-Jung, President of the Republic of Korea.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Tuesday, June 9, 1998, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 10.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the special order time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, due to official business, I was unable to vote on June 3, 1998. On approving the Journal Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays, Roll No. 193, I would have voted yes. On designating the Carl D. Pursell Post Office, Roll No. 194, I would have voted yes. On designating the Steven Schiff Post Office, Roll No. 195, I would have voted yes.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of our Committee on House Oversight for yielding me this time and also for his distinguished leadership on this issue. My colleagues, we have ourselves in a real pickle here. I have served on the Committee on House Oversight, and we have had to tangle with this dilemma in committee. The chairman has tried to act and Members have tried to act in a very responsible and responsive manner to the will of the House. We sat for days and days in meeting after meeting. We heard at least 40 Members of the House with their various proposals as to how to revise our campaign laws. I sat through much of that testimony. And that is part of the problem. No one is trying to deep six campaign reform, as we have heard some accounts in the media or some of my colleagues on the other side or this side say. I think people want meaningful campaign reform. And our committee tangled with this, and we brought out measures, and we gave the House an opportunity to vote on it. But now this House is going to suffer the same fate that our committee suffered. I am not here to speak for or against one measure or the other, but I tell my colleagues that the reason we have 500 amendments and dozens of bills and proposals and differences of opinion is, in fact, we have 435 Members. My colleague from California (Mr. Horn) summed it up so well when he said, we have 435 experts on this issue. And that is our problem. But let me tell my colleagues what the American people want, and my colleagues have heard at this podium here all the condemnations. Actually, that is the side that controlled the White House, this House and the other body for several years and had complete power to change all the laws that they, in fact, passed and eliminate these abuses, but they did not. So here we are in an open discussion, and we are going to have to sort through this, and we have a great difference of opinion on it because we are all experts. We have all been abused by the system. I hate soft money. I was abused by it. I would love to ban it. The only problem is this little thing that gets in the way, the Constitution, which I carry around. And if my colleagues can find a way around the Constitution, then go at it. But I want to tell my colleagues what the American people are upset about, and I am offended by some of the debate here today. The American people are disgusted because the laws on the books have been abused and misused. We have heard that we are going to investigate to the end, but we do not investigate to the end. I sit also on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, where we have heard a parade of witnesses that go on and on about campaign abuses of existing laws. It is illegal for foreign governments to contribute. It is illegal for foreign citizens to contribute. It is illegal under the laws. And I stacked one day in the hearing all the laws that had been violated, the statutes of the United States of America. Illegal conduit payments. That is illegal. And I heard it is illegal for conduit payments. And then I heard the testimony and the tape of the President of the United States saying, we found a way to take amounts of money in 20s, 50s and hundred thousands, go get it, play it, to subvert the presidential election process that we put in place with some public money to avoid these abuses. So, yes, the laws are on the books; but, yes, they have been violated. And people want, 74 percent of the American people, when polled, said their number one priority is enforcing the laws that are on the books. So we face today this dilemma: Those who say we want to clean up and enact new laws; those who want to affront the Constitution. We will have to make the choice.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil Service, I have worked with the amendment sponsors to make our military retirees eligible for our Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. While this amendment does not cover dependents and active military and retirees under age 65, which I have advocated, I strongly support this amendment. This is a reasonable start with a 3-year demonstration project limited to 70,000 individuals. With base closures and military downsizing, our health care system for our military and our retirees has broken down. TriCare has been described to me as try-to-get-care. As we approach Memorial Day, as we have heard said on the other side, we must remember those who have died in service to our country. How sad it would be if we abandon those who survived and those who have served us on this occasion. This amendment, my colleagues, only allows military retirees over 65 and surviving dependents and those who died in active duty to be eligible for the same benefits as Members of Congress.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this afternoon after the proceedings that took place today. I am really concerned about the process of the House of Representatives and its investigative ability. Today we saw an attempt to besmirch the reputation and interfere with the congressional investigation of campaign financing abuses in the 1996 election. Personally, I am quite disturbed by what we saw take place. I think it backfired on the other side of the aisle, and I think that they were surprised that some of their colleagues from the other side of the aisle joined with this side in voting down this unprecedented interference in the congressional investigative process. The issue is not the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the issue is, in fact, the delay, the diversion, the distraction, and the very obstruction of the congressional investigation process. I am really concerned about what again has taken place. We saw action on the floor today. This is a situation that is very serious. For the first time in the history of our Federal elections process, we have seen an attempt to influence congressional and presidential elections by foreign money, foreign resources in our campaign process. Now we see an attempt to close down that investigation. I have served on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and its predecessor since I came to Congress in 1993. That is one of the most important committees and responsibilities in this Congress. It was founded and established by our Founding Fathers for a purpose, because they did not trust the appropriators, they did not trust the legislators, the authorizers; they wanted a third check and balance on the conduct and operation of our governmental system. That is where the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight got its very roots and bearing. That is the difference between our system of governments and other democratic system of governments is that check and balance. To close down that investigation, to divert the attention on the chairman is a misuse of power and responsibility in this House of Representatives, and I take great offense to it. We have seen, again, unprecedented amounts of money, and our committee has been investigating. It may be too bad that it comes to the door of the White House, but it should be disclosed. It should be investigated. It cannot be shut down. When the other side says that they will close down the proceedings of the House as far as investigation, when the Department of Justice says we agree that we will grant immunity and allow you to grant immunity for cooperation of these witnesses, and they try to divert attention from that and block us from investigating, they have shut down this process. It is an affront to every Member of Congress. It should be an affront to every citizen. It should be affront to the media that they are trying to divert, to stall, and obstruct this process. The process will go forward. I happen to be the only Member of the House that serves on both the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and also on the Committee on House Oversight. It will come to one of those committees, or it will come to the floor. This matter will be thoroughly investigated as the Founding Fathers intended and as our congressional process and constitutional process require. We have seen, now, the influx of Indonesian money, Chinese money, Thai money, Venezuelan money, Russian money, and convicted drug dealers' money into this process. In this process, the American people want to know the answers. Is this affecting our policy if our ports are given away? If we have imported Chinese weapons into this country, killing Americans, who is responsible? If we have a major Chinese cigarette manufacturer influencing our policy and contributing to our campaigns and influencing our elections? Let it all hang out. I am personally offended by what they have tried to do here today to our Chairman who has on every occasion acted in an honorable fashion. I think a disruption of this process is a shame on this House of Representatives.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on May 7, I had the distinct honor and privilege of attending the annual dinner to recognize the members of the Senior Executive Service who have earned the distinction of Presidential Rank. This year, the dinner, sponsored by the Senior Executive Association's Professional Development League, honored the achievements of 68 leaders of the federal government's career service who have played important roles in improving the performance of federal agencies. They reflect achievements within 11 Cabinet Departments and six independent agencies, and they have contributed to saving American taxpayers billions of dollars. I would like to enter into the Record capsule summaries of the achievements of these dedicated public servants and to express my appreciation as Chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee for the distinguished leadership that they have provided to the federal workforce. Nation's Top Civil Servants Receive Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive Recipients of the nation's highest civil service award have saved the federal government $67.2 billion over the course of their careers. These 68 executives, who received the Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive, were honored for their accomplishments at a black tie dinner on May 7 at the State Department, sponsored by the Senior Executives Association Professional Development League (SEA PDL). Of the 11 departments and six agencies represented by this year's winners, the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the Defense Department led the way in savings, with the three winners from that agency posting a cumulative savings of $16 billion. NASA was second with $12.7 billion in savings, and the Office of Management and Budget third with $12.6 billion. However, savings alone do not tell the full story of these winners. The accomplishments of only one-third of the winners cited by SEA President Carol Bonosaro at the May 7 event include: Serving as key author of START II, which will eliminate multiple-warhead, land-based missiles and cut U.S. and Russian strategic weapons by 50 percent below START I levels (Franklin Carroll Miller, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense). Leading a joint effort by government and industry using NASA technology to develop smart airbags for cars to improve children's safety (Dr. Daniel Mulville, Chief Engineer,

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come once again before the House this afternoon to talk about the issue of illegal drugs and narcotics, its impact on our Nation and on our community and on our children. I have probably spoken more than any other Member in the last 5 years on this issue and I intend to speak every opportunity I can get about what drugs are doing to the lives of our young people. I always like to review what took place when I came into Congress and the other party controlled the House, other body and the White House. In fact, their first steps under the Clinton administration were to cut the positions in the drug czar's office from almost 150 down to about 25. The next thing that the new President did, and I was a freshman and protested it here on the floor, was to cut the interdiction, to end the military involvement in the war on drugs, to stop and really cut the drug interdiction and eradication programs, to cut the Coast Guard, to dismantle all kinds of enforcement programs, and then the ultimate insult to the American people was to appoint a Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, who adopted the policy that I entitled ``just say maybe to our young people,'' not to mention that the leader of the free world, the highest office in our land, said to our children, ``If I had it all to do over again, I would inhale.'' That set a tremendous pattern. It changed the whole dynamics where drug use and abuse by our children had gone down, down, down from 1981 under Reagan and Bush, it began a steady climb. We have seen the dramatic results. Let me tell you what the results are. 1.5 million Americans were arrested in 1996 for violating drug laws. We have over 2 million Americans behind bars and our law enforcement officials tell us more than 70 percent of those individuals are there because of a drug- related or drug involvement offense. Since 1992, overall drug use among 12 to 17-year-olds has jumped 78 percent. A study by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America shows the number of fourth to sixth graders experimenting with marijuana increased a staggering 71 percent between 1992 and 1997. What is the cost to this Congress? The cost to this Congress and the Federal Government is $16 billion out of your taxpayer money. The total cost to the American economy is approaching $67 billion a year in lost jobs and opportunities and again cost to our economy. During this President's tenure in office, if we continue at the pace we have been at, 114,000 will die under President Clinton's tenure from drug-related problems. We are now killing our Americans at the rate of 20,000 a year. That is the toll. The story goes on and on. But I must say that the Republican Congress has tried to turn that around in the last 36 months. We in fact have restored money to bring our military back into the war on drugs. We have restored money and funding for interdiction programs because we know it is most cost effective to stop drugs at their source and when they get to our streets and schools and our communities it is very difficult. And then we passed tough enforcement, and we know tough enforcement works. Look at New York City, look at what Rudy Giuliani has done with tough enforcement. Tough enforcement works. New York City has seen a 30 percent decrease in crime. This week the Republicans, and we have tried in a bipartisan effort to bring our colleagues from the other side of the aisle in, have announced programs and extensive legislation which we will be introducing every week for the next 6 weeks to combat illegal drugs, to provide funding and programs that work and assistance to our local communities and our schools for education, for enforcement, for interdiction and also for treatment programs that work. This is one of the most critical issues, social issues, before this Congress and before the American people. I am committed to this and I think that if we have the cooperation of the administration now, the cooperation of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we can come together, that we can make a difference, that we can reduce the drugs coming into this country, into our streets and into our schools. I reach out and ask all of my colleagues to join us in that effort.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, today is Cinco de Mayo, the 5th of May, which is celebrated throughout the Americas. It is a day of celebration for those who have their roots and heart in Mexico. It is a special day in history for Mexican and Mexican-Americans because, on the 5th of May in 1862, a very small, poorly armed band of Mexicans defeated, in an unbalanced contest, their colonial oppressors; as history records, too, that just several years after defeating their oppressors, that Mexican independence was lost and there was oppression in the country. That is the day we celebrate today. I come before the House tonight, and I have come many times to talk about the situation in our country relating to illegal narcotics. And I wish I could come here and celebrate the Cinco de Mayo with other Mexican Americans and supporters of Mexico but, in fact, I am not here to praise Mexico but to condemn Mexico on this occasion. In fact, today, Mexico is a source of 50 percent of the hard narcotics entering the United States of America. Not only are these drugs entering the United States, but they are also corrupting the Mexico that these Mexican individuals fought on the 5th of May in 1862 to free their country and their people. Drugs are oppressing Mexico and they are destroying the United States of America. We have tried to work with Mexico. I serve on the Committee on National Security of the Congress that deals with our national drug policy. We did not decertify Mexico last year or this year, and we should have. And I have sponsored resolutions and supported them in both instances, but they have not passed, for whatever reasons. But we should have decertified Mexico. Mexico, to date, has not extradited one drug felon or one drug offender to the United States. And one reason they were not decertified was because we sought their cooperation in these areas such as extradition. Mexico, to date, has, in fact, refused to allow our agents to arm themselves. Mexico, in fact, has not signed a maritime agreement. And the only other country is Haiti, and they have not done that because they have not organized their government. But Mexico is the only country I know of in the Western Hemisphere to not sign a maritime agreement. And the list goes on and on of failure to cooperate. So we are not celebrating a happy Cinco de Mayo here in Congress. I am not. I am concerned that, again, that Mexicans who fought for freedom, for independence, for the right of the people to live in an open society and a free society are being oppressed because of drug trafficking within the country of Mexico and the drugs that have come into the United States. If my colleagues do not think it is a problem, 50 percent of those hard drugs coming into the United States have put 2 million Americans behind bars. We have 20,000 deaths in the United States that are drug related. The cost to the American taxpayer is now $16 billion. And we can lay at the doorstep of the Mexican Government the responsibility for so many of these illegal narcotics coming into the United States. It is a sad commentary that our neighbors, in fact, are sending chemical weapons into the United States and chemical destruction, which is also destroying that country and its freedom that was fought for by these heroes on May 5th of 1862. Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can come a year from now, on May 5th, 1999, and say that indeed the Mexicans have cooperated as neighbors, as friends in this hemisphere to gain their own people's freedom from the drug trafficking, from corruption and from the depression that it has brought to their society, and also free our country from the oppression, from the deaths that it has caused and from the drugs that are on our streets, in our schools, and in our communities.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield, I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue, in trying to call to the attention of the American people this drug problem and other problems relating to our national security that he has so eloquently presented on the floor. He also mentioned the heroin production out of Asia. I serve on the national security subcommittee. We have found now 50 percent of the heroin, and heroin was not even really coming in any quantities out of Colombia, is now coming out of Colombia, mostly because of the policy of this administration. We asked that waivers be granted because Colombia was decertified as not cooperating. Time and time again over the past 2\1/2\ years we have asked for equipment, resources, materials to fight the war on drugs in that country and to stop the production of heroin. This is all new just in the course of this administration that heroin is being grown in incredible quantities, poppy fields. That is coming into Florida, it is coming into California, the gentleman's State, it is coming into the Nation. We see the results. The results are, I have heroin deaths in central Florida that equal our largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Not only the poor children in Detroit and New York and Los Angeles, but in Orlando and other suburbs across this country, are dying in the streets, in our community, now reaching 20,000 deaths, more than any war. I thank the gentleman again for his great leadership, and also for his taking time with a special order to bring this and other matters to the attention of the Congress and the American people.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the biggest signs in the history of the House to be used in a special order, but I think it addresses one of the biggest problems that we as a Nation and we as a Congress face today. The theme of this sign that we have here today is Drugs Destroy Lives. This particular sign is actually part of a billboard and a message that we developed in my central Florida area. We have 20 of these billboards up right now in central Florida. We have more going up, to let our young people know that indeed drugs destroy lives, to let our citizens know that drug abuse will affect their lives and destroy their lives. We have a tremendous problem in not only my district but throughout the United States. That is why we are trying to create public awareness again among all of our population, particularly our young, to do something about that. That is why we in Congress today, and many Members from our side of the aisle and some from the other side of the aisle have joined together under the leadership of our Speaker to make drug abuse and illegal narcotics a number one priority of this Congress and of this Nation and our communities. You may say, why? Let me just tell you a little bit of why I am here with this message and why we are here with this billboard and we are going to spread this message across our land. Since 1992, and these are incredible statistics, drug use among teens has skyrocketed by 70 percent. I heard the Speaker of the House say today as we launched our major congressional initiative that in the 1980s under President Reagan and then under President Bush, drug abuse and misuse dropped and dropped and dropped because we had a public awareness, we had a Just Say No, we had a commitment and a leadership from Washington and from every level, a focus on doing away with the narcotics problem and illegal drugs in our society, and it worked. But since 1992, 1993, and some of the actions of this administration, we have seen that trend turn around and now skyrocket with drug use among teens increasing by some 70 percent. The latest statistics show that half of the high school seniors think it is easy to obtain cocaine and LSD. These are the most recent statistics. Eighth grade use of drugs has increased 150 percent since 1992. Again a dramatic figure. Today the latest figures are that 25 percent of our high school seniors are current users of illegal drugs. This is a scourge across our whole land. We have a tremendous problem. Some of it is a result, quite frankly, of policy of this administration. I do not want to get into all the details of what took place in the past, but one of President Clinton's first actions on taking office was to gut the Office of National Drug Control Policy, our Drug Czar's office. The statistics and the facts are these. He cut the staff from 146 individuals, staff positions, to 25. In his first year, President Clinton cut $200 million from drug interdiction efforts in the Caribbean and another $200 million from alternative crop production and crop eradication. That means he took the bulk of money out of the programs that were the most cost-effective in stopping drugs at their source, in stopping drugs where they only cost a few cents, a few dollars. I serve on a committee that overviews this national drug policy, and we have seen that the most effective dollars can be spent where drugs are produced and grown in their source countries. We know that all of the cocaine and the heroin and some of these other products are coming both through Colombia, the cocaine, 100 percent of it is coming from Peru, Bolivia and Colombia, so why not target the source? We here in Congress are launching a program this week and today to stop drugs at their source. We are also launching a program that we think will help everyone by again bringing attention to this problem; not only bringing Federal resources such as we have done in central Florida, creating a high intensity drug traffic area, bringing every law enforcement mechanism together in central Florida and other communities, but across this whole land we are going to ask for accountability, responsibility, tough enforcement. We have started in my local community with this theme. We have a high intensity drug traffic area from Daytona Beach all the way through Orlando and over to Tampa. We have organized State, local and Federal forces. We are going to today launch a real war on drugs. We are sending this message that in fact drugs can destroy lives.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this administration averted a disaster last week. Even after an avalanche of opposition from Congress and opposition from our national drug czar General McCaffrey did President Clinton weigh in to prevent Federal funding for drug needle exchange. Today, the House of Representatives, with this resolution, will make clear that this Congress does not intend to pay for free needles for drug addicts. This message needs to be heard by our Health and Human Services Secretary Shalala. This message needs to be heard by President Clinton's new Surgeon General Satcher. How inconceivable it is that our new Surgeon General, as his first and premier action in that position, has recommended and promoted this free drug needle exchange. We as a Nation have not yet recovered from the damage of President Clinton's former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders. Remember, if you will, her advocacy of a drug use policy that said to this Nation and our children, just say maybe. That policy was combined with our President's statement to our youth that, ``If I had it to do all over again, I'd inhale.'' Between the former Surgeon General and the President, drug use among our teens has soared through the ceiling since 1993. I am pleased that Congress today is cutting off this new Surgeon General at the pass. His proposal to give free needles to drug addicts with taxpayer dollars is absurd. It is like providing free cigarette holders to our schoolchildren. I am saddened that the Congressional Black Caucus has called for the resignation of our national drug czar, who has sided with us on this issue. He only gave his opinion. The President reversed the other decision. Why are they not calling on the President to resign? How tragic that those Representatives whose constituents have been slaughtered in incredible numbers would support Federal funds for more drug abuse. Where is the most dramatic increase taking place with heroin which will be used by these needles? By our teens. So this program will get those needles right where they need to be, to our teens. ``Long Out of Sight, Heroin is Back Killing Our Teens.'' This is the headline from my local paper. This is absurd. This is crazy. I challenge Members to come with me and ask my constituents if they want their tax dollars to pay to supply free needles for drug addicts in my district, and I guarantee them the answer will be no.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly thank him for his leadership on the drug issue and also on so many other issues before the Congress. We do have the privilege of serving together on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee and on the subcommittee that deals with our national drug policy, and that is the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice. The gentleman from Indiana has brought tremendous leadership and, again from his tremendous experience both as a staffer and a Member of Congress and someone who cares about this issue, cares about his constituents and also is very compassionate towards what illegal narcotics are doing, and drug abuse, to the children of our Nation. Tonight I want to take a few minutes, if I may, and review a little bit of the history of how we got ourselves into this situation. As the gentleman from Indiana said, I was a staffer back in the early 1980s on the U.S. Senate side working with Senator Hawkins from Florida. You have also heard and understand, I think, that no State probably has been more severely impacted historically by illegal narcotics trafficking than the State of Florida. When Senator Hawkins was elected, the streets of Miami were overrun with illegal narcotics trafficking, we had unprecedented amounts of illegal drugs coming in and transiting through Florida and into our Nation, and for the first time we saw record drug abuse in our State and Nation. The question was what should we do and what could we do at that time. We were fortunate to have the tremendous leadership of a new President who brought a vision, who brought integrity, who brought honesty, who brought vision to the White House. His job, and Senator Hawkins and others who served in the new Senate majority at that time, was to get a handle on this situation. In fact they did, even joined by the First Lady who initiated a program of saying ``Just Say No.'' I do remember and recall how the new Republican majority in the Senate began an Andean strategy. As a staffer I helped develop the certification law that requires that countries that get United States foreign assistance or trade assistance or financial assistance are certified each year for their eligibility for United States largesse by a review of their efforts to eradicate drug trafficking and illegal narcotics. That was another product of that era. There was tough enforcement. What we saw in the 1980s under the Reagan Administration and the Bush Administration, I am not sure if this will show up to my colleagues watching C-SPAN, but in fact teenage drug use declined dramatically in the early 1980s, and not until 1992-1993 did we see that trend reverse. In 1992 I was elected to the Congress. History now records George Bush being defeated and the Democrats controlling the White House, the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. One of the first acts that President Clinton took, and I would like to review this historically because I think it is important for the record of what took place and what the results of those actions are today, one of President Clinton's first actions on taking office was in fact to gut the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In fact, President Clinton gutted the staff of the Drug Czar's office by 80 percent. The facts are, it was slashed from 146 staff members to 25 staff members. Also in his first year, President Clinton cut $200 million in drug interdiction efforts in the Caribbean and another $200 million from alternate crop production and drug eradication in Mexico and the Andean drug-producing countries. Back in the 1980s we thought that the most cost-effective means of stopping drugs was at its source, where it is grown, where just a few pesos or a few dollars is given for the product at its source. It seemed to make a tremendous amount of sense. Rather than try to catch drugs when they entered our borders or when they entered our streets or were disbursed through our communities and our schools and trying to cut off drugs at that point, we felt then, we believe now, that interdiction, eradication, crop substitution programs at the source countries are the most effective means of stopping drug trafficking. You stop it right at its source, in its heels. These programs were gutted by this administration. These are the facts. The facts speak for themselves. We have seen, again, the results. In 1993, President Clinton dropped the war on drugs from 3rd to 29th in the national security list. The President produces a national security priority list. It was his action that dropped the war on drugs to 29th as a national priority. To date, he has continued to allow the State Department to let counternarcotics issues lag far behind other priorities in our relations with other countries. Only recently have we heard the Secretary of State begin to speak out because the problem has reached such tremendous proportion and the cost and effect in our communities is so dramatic. The number of individuals, and this again is fact, I cite only fact here tonight, the number of individuals prosecuted for Federal drug violations fell from 25,033 in 1992 to 21,900 in 1994, a 12 percent drop in just 2 years. So there was a deemphasis of prosecution at the Federal level. Again, the results are very clear of what we see. It is interesting to note this, because with the election of Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of the City of New York, he introduced a zero crime tolerance policy, he introduced a tough prosecution policy, and there has been as high a drop recorded as 30 percent in crime, a dramatic drop in drug trafficking in that community of New York City. We have seen that tough enforcement, tough prosecution works. And we see the results at the Federal level of what has happened with a decrease in Federal prosecutions, again citing only the facts in this case. From 1992 to 1995, again when the other party controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, 227 agent positions were eliminated from the Drug Enforcement Agency, and Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget proposed cutting 621 drug enforcement positions from the DEA, the FBI, the INS, the United States Customs Service and the Coast Guard. In fact, my community, and I represent central Florida, probably one of the more affluent, more prosperous areas, one of the vibrant areas of our State and Nation, a great community of people who are law abiding but who nonetheless have been inundated by a flow of illegal narcotics. An investigation of this issue found that, in fact, a tremendous quantity of drugs is coming in through Puerto Rico; and some people blame the Puerto Rican State Governor and others, the Commonwealth, for not really taking a lead on the issue. What we found, and our subcommittee went down and held a hearing on a Coast Guard cutter on San Juan Bay, was that, in fact, this administration had cut the Coast Guard resources by nearly 50 percent. The Coast Guard, United States Coast Guard, in fact, since Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth and does not have its own armed forces, relies on the United States Coast Guard for coastal protection. That, again, that protection was cut by this administration by 50 percent, and those drugs came in in incredible quantities into Puerto Rico in transit for Florida and the United States. Those are the results. They are documented. We have seen this, and we have seen what this type of policy has provided as a legacy for our Nation and our children. The President, in fact, has not substantially increased funding for accountable youth prevention programs but instead has nearly doubled the amount of funding. His policy was to promote a doubling of funding for drug treatment programs, and this has been described sort of as treating the wounded in a battle and not addressing the fight itself or just approaching it from sort of the most demoralized end of the game with the least potential for success. Then, of course, President Clinton recently certified Mexico, and again no nation has been more responsible for the influx and transit of hard drugs into our Nation than Mexico, again another slap in the face of the American citizenry. I have not brought up other instances of incredible misjudgment on the part of this administration and this President, but I must when you appoint a surgeon general such as Jocelyn Elders, who adopted a program that said to our children, just say maybe, maybe it is okay. Then you had echoed by the President of the United States, a figure that every child looks to in this Nation, and his comments which I have heard over and over on various television programs and news broadcasts: If I had it to do over again, I would inhale. Now what kind of a message does that send to our young people? In fact, we know what the message has done. The message has, and this is entitled Trends In Youthful Drug Use, Ages 12 to 17. We have seen from that reduction I showed you under Reagan and Bush, the just say no to just say maybe, a skyrocketing of youthful drug use in this country. We are talking about not only marijuana in incredible amounts and a more dangerous marijuana than we saw in the streets in the 1960s, we are talking about cocaine, we are talking about methamphetamines, we are talking about heroin. Again, I come from a community, and my community is one of the most rock solid in Florida, fairly prosperous, as I said, and economically doing well, and I have this headline from our local newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel. It says: Long out of sight, heroin is back killing teens. My community in central Florida, again a peaceful community, was a victim of this policy, letting down the guard and gut slashing the budget, which they did when they controlled this body, the Senate and the White House. The guard around Puerto Rico in heroin came down not only through that country and hurting that territory of the United States but into our country and into our State and into our neighborhood so that our particular situation has been that in the last few years central Florida has seen heroin deaths on a par with other major metropolitan areas like Detroit, like New York, like Los Angeles. So this is the legacy that we have inherited through this policy. It is clear. It is documented. One of the other things that I wanted to mention tonight was that my colleague has mentioned that we took over the Congress in, what was it, 36, 40 short months ago. We have been able to bring some of our Nation's finances into balance, but we are trying to focus as leaders in this new majority with the leadership of Speaker Gingrich in addressing some of the social problems. And if drug abuse and misuse is not a problem, I do not know what is a problem. Two million Americans are behind bars. We held a hearing, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and others came into our State. They heard our local officials. One of my local sheriffs said 80 percent of those behind bars in his county jail, that went through his jail, were there because of drug abuse or drug related crime. This has an unbelievable effect on our communities and on our children. And, again, this drug problem is not relegated to the poor, to the ghettos, to the across-the-railroad-track neighborhoods. This is hitting every neighborhood, every level of society, and we must do something about it. So our committee, under the leadership of the Speaker, under the leadership of Chairman Hastert, have begun a program of restoring the funds in these programs that were cut. We have got the military back into the war on drugs, and the Speaker and others are committed to make certain that they have the resources to conduct a real war on drugs. We have restored the cuts in the Coast Guard and other protective agencies, Customs and DEA, to make certain that they have the tools and the resources and the financial capability to conduct a real war on drugs. And what we are doing this week is launching, in fact, a concerted effort to see that we have the laws in place, that we have the tough enforcement in place and that these individuals who are charged in our Federal Government with this new policy have every resource to see that it, in fact, is accomplished. So that is the purpose of our coming together tonight, is to announce this policy. We have seen some terrible mistakes in the past when we did not have control of the Congress, when we had leadership in the White House that, in fact, strayed. And maybe they were well-intended, but the results, in fact, are just devastating to our young people and our communities and the social cost involved. But we are determined again to turn this around, and whatever resources it takes we are going to devote full measure effort, whatever, again, finances the Congress can muster to make certain that we bring this under control so that the people who we represent, those who are trying to raise their children in communities, get them through schools, those who are retired trying to live in peace in their communities, young people. I met a young lady the other day in one of the local department stores working, going to college, and she told me she could not go to school at night, and it was difficult for her to work and earn enough money because she was afraid to be out at the bus stop at night because of a potential for crime. And, again, 80 percent of the crime in my community is drug abuse related, and that is a pretty pitiful statement. So for those people who we represent, their children and those trying to make a living or gain an education or live in peace and retirement, we owe them this effort, and we are going to see it through. And indeed it will succeed because we have the commitment, this new majority, and we hope we have the support of every one of my colleagues who are listening. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for yielding to me, and I am pleased also to join him tomorrow as we pass a resolution making certain that a needle exchange program which almost came into effect was stopped at the last minute through the efforts of the new drug czar, General McCaffrey, and others who know this is the wrong policy. It sends the wrong message. It is not the way to go. And if we are concerned about the minority communities, young black men and women who have been killed, we should be applauding that decision not to fund this. I am speaking tonight at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia. No jurisdiction in our Nation has been more oppressed by drugs. No segment of our communities in this Nation have been more devastated. Since I have been coming to Washington over the last 18 years, almost every year between 300 and 400 young black males between the age of 14 and 40 have been slaughtered on the streets within view of this Capitol building, a travesty which surpasses the casualty in many of our international conflicts just here in Washington, D.C. So, if the Black Caucus, if other Members are concerned about policy that will turn this situation around and save some of these young people's lives and not destroy the great young men, the young black citizens of our nation's capital who have just had their lives snuffed out, then they should be here joining with us to see if we can turn this situation around. We know what has been done, and what was done by this administration did not work. We see the results. These are not abstract or manufactured statistics. This is what has taken place from a failed policy, and we need to turn that around and give these people a chance. So I am pleased again to join with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) tonight and others as we launch a program to bring a meaningful war on drugs, a war against drug abuse and a public awareness to our young people and to our citizens that we must realize the consequences of illegal narcotics and drugs.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting point the gentleman raises about what had developed as an Andean strategy to stop in a very cost-effective manner; we only spent about $200 million out of $16 billion on this whole drug effort, but we spent about $200 million down there. It has been pretty much tightened up because of the efforts of President Fujimori, who we met with when we went down there, and also because of Bolivia's effort, but we learned some interesting things in this experience. We learned first that, and we had a knock-down, drag-out fight with this administration when they destroyed the shoot-down policy. We had a policy established under the Reagan administration that, given fair warning over these air spaces, in fact, in Peru and Bolivia and Colombia, the drug dealers would be shot down, and they, in fact, were until a liberal in the Clinton administration moved from the Department of Justice, I think, to DOD, and then turned this policy upside down, and we saw a lot of these drugs coming back. I will say the other side worked with us on this to get the attention of the President, but we had to reverse that. That did a great deal of damage. Then when we visited the jungles down there, we learned from some of our agents that overflights that had been conducted in that region had, in fact, been diverted, I believe, to Alaska by the administration to look for other problems, I think environmental problems as opposed to the drug problem flights. Then we, in fact, learned that our DEA agents in the jungles were dipping into their own pockets in some cases to keep programs alive, because money had been shifted from drug enforcement and from those programs and strategies, and I think I heard the figure of $40 million was put into Haiti for that incredibly failed program where we wasted almost $3 billion to date. So each of these attempts by the administration to destroy the program did not succeed. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has also outlined how since we took over the Congress, and in fact, I served on the subcommittee and the committee before, the Democrats held one hearing of any substance relating to national drug policy while all of this was being done, in spite of my circulating a bipartisan letter of 132 Members requesting hearings on our policy. And the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has said we are not Johnny-come-latelies in that, and in fact, we have held over 40 hearings. They may not be interesting to the media; they may not want to cover them. They may want to spend more time on tobacco and some of the outlandish figures that have been brought out as a diversionary tactic by this administration while the country is going down the path of ruin with illegal narcotics and drug abuse, and 100,000 dying in our streets. And the social costs being absolutely astronomical, in addition to, of course, medical costs and the families that are destroyed. But this is what we have learned, this is what we have done, and in fact, we have taken these actions, as Mr. Souder has outlined, and now we are faced with a dilemma in Colombia. The administration again, with another failed policy, the Colombian failed policy. We begged, we pleaded, we have sent letters. We passed, I believe, a resolution on the floor of this Congress.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his comments, and again for his dedication to this subject. I honestly cannot think of any other issue before the Congress as far as the social impact on our Nation. We have been successful in the last 36 or 40 months getting our finances in order, but now the number one priority must be to tackle the illegal narcotics problem, the crime that it does rain upon this country. This week we have launched another stage in the battle, a new offensive. It is going to take both Democrats and Republicans working together to get that passed. But we I think also tonight have documented that the policy from this point, 1993, when he took office, to 1995, did not work. It was a failed policy. The results are dramatic. Since 1992 drug use among teens has skyrocketed, the latest statistics indicate by 70 percent. Half of the high school seniors in a recent survey think it is easy to obtain cocaine and LSD; and now eighth graders, where drug use has increased by 150 percent since 1992. These are the latest statistics. One in four high school seniors is a current user of illegal drugs. This has had a dramatic impact on our young people. If we took out the areas of tough enforcement such as Mr. Giuliani in New York, and some of the other areas where some tough enforcement and prosecution and zero tolerance has taken place, we can see that we still have a very dramatic problem with tremendous cost to the taxpayers of this Nation, not to mention the insecurity of individuals who fear going from their car to the supermarket, from their community, from street to street at night, or even in the daylight being accosted by someone who is on drugs. Or the loss in our community just within the last 24 hours, as I left one of the communities, Oviedo, where a young woman was found dead, 21 years old, who worked in a local bank, either of an overdose of cocaine or heroin, just again within the last 24 hours in my community. The incident we had in my community and the college reunion festivities over the weekend in Daytona Beach, the young man from Orlando who attacked the police with a gun was a habitual drug user and had a record of cocaine use. Almost every incident of crime, of social problem that we see today is drug related, so we are committed to launch this campaign this week. We have not just spoken in the past 36 months but also acted in putting back together the pieces of an effective multifaceted war on drugs. You can call it whatever you want, but it is going to be indeed a national effort. We beg the administration to get the resources to Colombia, to other programs that are effective, to treatment programs that work. We are not against treatment, but when you have them come before our committee and testify, folks testify that these are failed programs, and then you learn that sometimes the religious or faith-based programs are the most effective, or the private sector, non-Federally or publicly funded programs are most effective, you begin to wonder. We have been spending more and more in treating these wounded. So today we take up arms, and this week I know I will be joined by everyone on this side of the aisle, and I know we will have many from the other side of the aisle, to make a meaningful effort to turn around this situation in our country, and again the dramatic cost to young people and citizens of every age, race, and color across our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) again for his leadership in taking time tonight. I know he and I would rather be with our families at home, but this is such an important issue. It is not to be made light of. It will not be on the front page of tomorrow's paper, except it will be there in the obituary page and the page of abuse, the page of murders and crimes in our community, and the social costs and disruption to each of our communities throughout this land. So that is part of our agenda. It is part of our program. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. MICA. To get aid to Colombia, which is now where there is an incredible production of heroin. The heroin, when we went down there, they told us they are producing 10,000 hectares which will make heroin as cheap on the streets of the United States, and it is getting there very quickly, and a much stronger, much more potent heroin, because of our policy. We failed to provide the equipment. The Congress directed the equipment, the funds, that spare parts be given down there to fight this war on drugs, and in the meantime this administration has denied those requests. Even of late when they have decertified Colombia with a waiver, the goods and the materiel and the resources to fight that war on drugs still have not reached Colombia, and Colombian military are being slaughtered. The national police chief Seranno has been here and begged us for assistance, and we still ignore it, and we have an incredible amount of drugs, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) just described, coming in now, not only transiting, but they are now mass producers of heroin. They are even into the cocaine business, because this administration has made it profitable for them to succeed. I can tell my colleagues, there is nothing more effective as far as use of taxpayer dollars. Out of $16 billion we are spending this money on treatment and programs that do not work. We talk about losing a Vietnam War. This would be just like putting all of our resources in a war and just treating the wounded, and that is what this administration's policy has been, and that is why it has failed. We have to have tough enforcement. We have to have tough and effective education. We have to have treatment. We have to have interdiction, and all of these elements coming together in a concentrated effort to make this thing work. And that is what we are hopefully going to do. But the gentleman from Indiana has, in fact, outlined the failed South American strategy, and we could go on more about Mexico.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I have the unique responsibility of serving on the Committee on House Oversight. In addition, I serve on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and have been on that committee actually since I came to Congress. What has been stunning to me as a member of that committee is dealing with the scandal that we have seen dealing with campaign finance contributions. Madam Speaker, this measure before us does not in fact address all the problems, but I venture to say that if you ask the American people what would you consider one of the greatest abuses that you saw in the last election, they would say it was undoubtedly foreign money coming in to our Federal political elections process. I sat on that committee and I saw an unprecedented trail of money. We have a chart here that just shows a little bit of that money, money that came from China, from Indonesia, from Thailand, from various countries around the world, to influence our elections. Madam Speaker, again, I know that this amendment does not address all the problems, but what it does do is very clearly say that if you are not a citizen of the United States, you cannot contribute. It clearly spells out that foreign contributions from a noncitizen are prohibited. So, again, we cannot change all of the provisions in our election law, and I might say that 99 percent of those who serve in this body or who run for Federal office obey the law and the law does work. But what we have seen, again, is an unprecedented trail of money. Just the money that we have seen in foreign and illegal contributions returned by the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, is over $2.8 million. Again, we cannot address every single wrong that we have seen in the election process, but we can make a beginning. We can get some of our campaign finance election laws in order and address the real problem, the real concerns that the American people have seen. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support both this measure and also the bill that our committee has brought before the House. It is not everything that everyone would like to see, but in fact it is a beginning, and it does address the major concerns that the American people have brought to the Congress.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, fortunately, history will cast final judgment on this administration and President Clinton's failed African policy. After the made-for-T.V. and carefully staged events fade from memory, some grim scenes of Clinton failed African policies will haunt us for generations. There won't be a Clinton visit to Somalia. Somalia has returned to chaos. While we hear the cheers in African streets today--we must not forget the jeers of crowds in Mogadishu. We must not forget that this President placed U.S. troops under disorganized U.N. command and they were killed and dragged shamelessly on African soil. This President turned a Bush humanitarian mission into a foreign relations and military disaster. History will also record this administration's failure to halt a ``Holocaust of our time'' in Rwanda. Not only did the President fail to act after the killing began--In fact, President Clinton and his administration repeatedly blocked U.N. efforts to send in an All-African force before the genocide began. Mr. Speaker, fortunately history will not be blinded by the temporary glare of a television camera either in Africa or in America.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House tonight to reflect on what we have seen on television and heard about, relating to the President of the United States' visit to Africa. I think all of us have witnessed the President as he has made his way across the African continent. I read in this morning's Washington Post, and I know it was covered by other newspapers, an account of what the President said. And he was in Rwanda when he made this statement. He said, ``We did not act quickly enough after the killing began.'' I believe he was talking to Rwandans. I want to talk about that statement in a second. But President Clinton will not be going to Somalia on this trip. In Somalia, our President took a humanitarian mission initiated by President Bush, and turned it into a $3 billion disaster. Remember, if you will, that President Clinton placed United States troops under United Nations command. Remember, if you will, that as Americans we watched in horror as our murdered troops were left under U.N. command, unable to defend themselves, were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Today, Somolia has slipped back into chaos after this Clinton fiasco. We have to remember what took place in Africa and what the policies of this administration were. I protested the Clinton proposal for Somalia before that tragedy, time and time again, in the well and on the floor of this House. Let me now turn to Rwanda. President Clinton, as I said in my opening statement, is quoted as saying, ``We did not act quickly enough after the killing began.'' Pay particular attention to what the President said and what is printed in the papers. Let me, if I may, as Paul Harvey says, tell you and repeat the rest of the story. The President said we did not act quickly enough after the killing began. But what the President of the United States did not say to the world and to Africa is what we should now be remembering. I saved the newspaper accounts of what the President said, because I was so stunned by the lack of action and actually the blocking of action by this administration, and brought them with me to the floor tonight. I saved them and had them blown up. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros-Ghali, begged President Clinton to allow an all-African U.N. force to go into Rwanda. Let me read what he said. This is what was in the newspaper. When last year's peace agreement collapsed on April 7th and fierce fighting broke out between Hutu and Tutsi, the United Nations cut its 2,700-member force in Rwanda back to a few hundred at the urging of the Clinton administration. I spoke out then, and I have spoken out afterwards on the floor when we saw what was happening with this administration and this policy before 1 million Africans were slaughtered. Let me, if I may, recall some of the statements that I made on this floor. I made one statement on this floor, and I will read it. Let me, if I may, trace the history of this tragedy. Let me also, if I may, trace the history of our failed policy. On April 6th, a plane with the presidents of Rwanda, Burundi was shot down. We knew then the potential for violence, terror and mass killings. On May 11th, the United States criticized a U.N. plan to send 5,500 multinational soldiers into Rwanda to protect refugees and assist relief workers. No U.S. troops would have been involved. On May 16th, the U.S. forced the U.N. to delay plans to send 5,500 troops to end violence in Rwanda, an all-U.N. force. So we see that the history of action and inaction by this administration, and history should so properly record it.