John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I am trying to remember back now. Let us see. I came in 1992, in that election. 1993, I was here in 1994. I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] was here in 1993, 1994. I see my colleague on the floor, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], was here in 1993 and 1994. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and I, I remember we came trying to get campaign finance reform brought before this House. In fact, I am trying to remember, was there ever, when the other party controlled the House, the other body, and the White House, any consideration on this floor of campaign finance reform. That was 24 months. Now, I do recall when we took over the majority, the things that we did. We did bring to the floor campaign finance reform, and I do not think it was a good bill. In fact, I thought it was a terrible bill. I thought the Republicans had a terrible proposal and the Democrats had a terrible proposal, but it was debated, it was heard fairly and squarely. What did the Republicans do? They passed a gift ban. In fact, we passed a pretty awesome gift ban. What else did we do? We talked about lobby reform that was long overdue. We not only talked about it, we passed legislation here on the floor. So we talked about these problems and we did something about them. What we are hearing today is an attempt to speak against a rule that is a fair rule to proceed in an orderly fashion with the business of the House and the business of the Congress. What we are hearing is an attempt by the other side to blur the issue. I serve on a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. We passed a protocol; in fact, we passed a protocol almost immediately, a fair protocol, to consider just about any problems that are brought to our attention, including this, even though we have committees of other areas of jurisdiction to deal with campaign finance. So those issues will, in fact, be heard and the important issues will be heard. We also heard them say we go too fast. Last year we were going too fast. Now they are saying we are going too slow. We are trying to take the people's business in an orderly fashion, and our actions speak louder than our words. We brought the Nation's finances into some balance. We cut $53 billion in spending without hurting Medicare, without hurting education, without hurting the environment. So we are on our way. Do not be misled, and we will get the job done.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for the purpose of a colloquy. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] has worked with the subcommittee both last year and this year. He has some very specific concerns about the application of this legislation, and we were not able to meet all of the requirements he would like in this legislation, but he is going to state in his colloquy his goal.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sessions] another distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to assure the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the distinguished ranking member that he has my commitment to work with him and the subcommittee in working out any further details or problems with this legislation as it moves through both the House and the other body.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, when the Veterans Preference Act was passed in 1944, veterans had a reasonable expectation that service to our Nation would be recognized and rewarded. Veterans, many of whom risked their lives and livelihood, could expect, with all other factors being equal, to be given a preference when seeking Federal employment. As our country has moved from the threat of international conflict, rewarding those who in fact have served our military has become more an illusion than a reality, unfortunately. While hiring preferences for others, for various reasons, has actively been encouraged, veterans' preference in securing Federal employment has, unfortunately, withered on the vine. Lacking any enforcement or redress capability, veterans have watched the value of their so-called preference decline as others usurp their rightful place at the front of the Federal employment line. How ironic it is that those whose Federal service often put them at the most peril in an armed conflict now become more often the last hired and the first fired in a time of downsizing. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997 provides much-needed protection to our veterans. It provides an effective redress system, and it expands job opportunities for those who in fact have served our Nation honorably in its armed forces. Mr. Speaker, this bill is strongly supported by 19 major veterans service organizations representing 12 million veterans. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this bill.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that it is my intention to work with the gentleman on the matters he has raised, and the gentleman has my commitment to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time we have left on each side?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 240) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that consideration may not be denied to preference eligibles applying for certain positions in the competitive service, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor this afternoon to present H.R. 240, the Veterans' Employment Opportunity Act of 1997, as reported. This legislation contains many vital features of importance to our Nation's veterans. This bill is the product of hard work by a number of Members on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. I want to take just a moment to pay particular thanks to several individuals who have helped make this historic legislation possible. First, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], who chairs the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], who is chair of one of the subcommittees and last year worked with us on a nonstop basis. Both of those gentlemen deserve great credit. In addition, of course, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who has been an untiring advocate on behalf of our veterans interests, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], also the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], chair of our committee, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen]. I also want to pay a particular debt of gratitude to the new ranking member of our subcommittee, the Civil Service Subcommittee, which I chair and which produced this legislation, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden], again, the current ranking member of our subcommittee, and also to the gentleman for Virginia [Mr. Moran], who was the ranking member of the subcommittee last year, and his untiring efforts helped make this legislation possible, and also to the many Members who served and acted as cosponsors of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, last year the House passed a very similar bill, H.R. 3586, with overwhelming support. However, the other body failed to act on this legislation before we adjourned. In order to strengthen that proposal that we had last year, that bill, and in order to facilitate its consideration as it moves through the Congress, we have consulted with the major veterans service organizations, Federal employee organizations, and other interested parties before bringing the legislation back to the House. I want to thank each of these organizations also for their assistance. Mr. Speaker, there are two important differences that I would like to explain between the bill before the House today and the bill we passed last year. First, H.R. 240 makes the knowing violation of veterans preference a prohibited personnel practice. Second, as a result of our consultations, we made it clear that the bill would not interfere with job bidding and assignment under selective bargaining agreements in the Postal Service. Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to detail here all of the benefits in this bill for our veterans, but I would like to emphasize what I believe are the three most important provisions of this legislation: First, H.R. 240 establishes for the first time an effective user- friendly redress mechanism for our veterans whose rights have been violated. The second major provisions of H.R. 240 protects veterans against reductions in force using techniques that we have seen such as single person competition that in fact undermine veterans preference. The third major provisions in the equal access section of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this provision has been included to ensure fair treatment for the men and women we employ in the Armed Forces. Just because these Federal employees have worn uniforms should not bar them from competing for Federal jobs. Yet that is the practice in the Federal civilian work force that we see today. This bill tears down those artificial barriers for those who have served honorably in the Armed Forces for 3 years. We have made clear, however, that the equal access provisions do not interfere with certain transfers, promotions and assignments of employees under collective bargaining agreements between the Postal Service and its unions. The language in the bill has been carefully crafted. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not interfere with the reassignment or transfer of rights of postal employees, and it does not diminish the rights of injured postal employees to what is called limited or light duty positions. Finally, the bill has also been revised to permit the Judicial Conference to develop its own program for implementing veterans preference in our judicial branch. We recognize that personnel practices in the judicial branch may differ and do differ markedly in many instances from civil service processes in the executive branch. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have honored the request of the Office of Personnel Management that in fact when there are changes in reduction in force procedures, that we do not disrupt ongoing RIF's and that at least 90 days will be allowed in which to implement those changes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] who is the very distinguished Member who has been a very strong advocate on behalf of our veterans.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 108) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 240.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield, I am quoting columnist Paul Craig Roberts.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the other side would have you believe that we are being unfair in this process as far as funding. I serve on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I came to the floor back in 1993 and 1994 and asked for fairness. We were given initially 5 investigative staff, and this is when they controlled the White House, the House and the other body, 5 investigative staff to their 55 staffers. It was finally brought up to 12. But let me tell my colleagues that we provide for 25 percent staffing for the minority under our proposal. Is that fair? I just ask, are we being unfair? They would also have my colleagues believe that the reason for last night's delay was that some of us were opposed to the investigation or that we caused these problems by investigating. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the responsibility of the House and this House Investigations and Oversight Committee to do this task. It has been that task since the early 1800's, when the predecessor of this committee was formed. Let me read you this morning's paper about why we need these funds and what these funds will be used for. And this is not what I say. This is what is in the paper this morning: The Clintons and their administration are submerged in what one Democrat activist has called a scandal of unprecedented proportions: China-gate, Lippo-gate, Campaign-gate, File- gate, Travel-gate, Whitewater-gate, the illegal naturalization of alien criminals in order to swell Democratic voter rolls, IRS-political-auditing-gate, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Reno-gate, Espy-gate, Ron Brown-gate, Paula Jones-gate, Lincoln-bedroom-gate, an FBI director who admits he lied to Congress, special prosecutors, congressional investigations, disgrace Presidential appointees, and innumerable first couple utterances of ``I don't recall'' swirl in such profusion around the Presidency that only rocket scientists can keep up with it all. That is why we need these funds. To accuse us of creating a slush fund, when I saved over $200,000 in my first 2 years and it went into a fund that we never saw again, not to mention the banking scandal, the post office scandal, I mean this other side of the aisle created the term ``slush funds'' with their actions. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are here for.

Mr. MICA. At least someone tells the truth.

Mr. MICA. I do not have the title of the paper. It was just given to me.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, for many of us as Christians we begin to celebrate Easter this week. Easter, for our faith, represents the triumph of life over death. This legislation today could represent the triumph of life over death for thousands of the unborn. How ironic it is for our President to surround himself with children and many photo opportunities, and submit legislation to this Congress to provide health coverage to our children, and then to veto legislation banning the slaughter of innocent unborn. This great Nation really is separated from other nations not just by a standard of material wealth, but rather, and most exclusively, by our standards of justice. I ask the Members, how can we claim that justice prevails in our Nation when we allow this barbaric procedure to continue unchecked? How can we as a Congress and a nation continue to ignore the health and life of children?

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to this body in 1992, and I have been waiting for this day. You cannot imagine in your wildest imagination, Mr. Speaker, the way our side was treated by the former predecessor of this committee, the Government Operations Committee. We now have the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. I pulled these charts out of the attic, but look at these charts. You want to talk about fairness? In the 103d Congress, this is the investigative staff that they gave the minority. This chart was presented on this floor, and I came to this well and railed against what was done to us. How dare they come here today and say we are mistreating them when we offer such an incredible increase in percentage. In fact, we are running Government Operations, we are running the Postal and Civil Service Committee, the D.C. Committee, all combined, for about half of what they were spending. What this is about, is fairness and equity. We gave them in our proposal 25 percent. It is higher than anything they ever gave us. So I have been waiting for this day. I do not have enough time to go into all the grisly details, Mr. Speaker, but I will present every one of them when I get my full time when this rule is completed. So do not come here and say this is unfair. In the 103d Congress, $25 million for Government Operations, Civil Service and Post Office. What we are doing now, the 104th Congress, we spent $13.5 million for the same task. This request if for $20 million. It is still almost $5 million less than what they expended. Again, look at the distribution of what they did to us, and that is when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. There was no oversight. We see the results of it. The results of it is the scandal, the unprecedented scandal. I chair the House Subcommittee on Civil Service. I have 7 staffers that replaced 54 Civil Service staffers, 7 staffers. I have in my possession right now 1,000 documents, almost 10,000 pages, almost as much as we had in the Filegate matter. Mr. Speaker, this is about a scandal that is unprecedented in the history of this Congress, and they are trying to blur the focus, they are trying to make it look like a partisan attack, they are trying to attack our chairman, they are trying to attack our Members and they are trying to say, most unfairly, that we are being unfair. Mr. Speaker, there could not be anything further from the truth.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the rule, and I am going to vote against the Hastert amendment. Let me tell my colleagues why. In the 1980's, I helped draft the certification laws as a staffer in the other body. If we read the Hastert amendment, it requires a studying, the decertification process. I come before my colleagues to say that we do not need to study the decertification process. We need to toughen the decertification process and the penalties against countries that traffic in drugs. The 1986 Antidrug Abuse Act established four very clear criteria, tests of cooperation. Let me read them. It requires steps that would prevent smuggling. And how can anyone in their consciousness certify Mexico when Mexico has 70 percent of the cocaine coming into the United States, when they do not even produce one gram of cocaine that is not naturally produced there? So it is all being smuggled. So by that criteria, do they judge cooperation? Punish money laundering? They have not prosecuted one person under their money laundering law. Achieve maximum reductions in drug production? Achieve maximum reductions? Eighty percent of the marijuana is coming out of Mexico; 30 percent of the heroin flooding our streets and our neighborhoods and our schools. Are they cooperating with the letter of the law? No. Do they facilitate the prosecution of traffickers, as the law says to the maximum extent possible? This is what Tom Constantine, the head of DEA, told our subcommittee just before certification. There is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has a trusting relationship.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic vote. In fact, this is the first time in the history of the House of Representatives that we have voted to decertify a nation. It is our duty under the Constitution to protect our citizens against all enemies foreign and domestic, but I submit to my colleagues that our Nation, our way of life, and our children's future are in fact under attack by the scourge of drugs that are entering our lands. If Mexico were to lob missiles across our border, they could not do as much damage as they have done in expediting the flow of drugs into our Nation. I know Mexico is our friend and neighbor, but friends are not accomplices in the painful deaths of our children. Neighbors do not turn away when crime is committed in their backyard. This is the headline from my paper. It has been said by those who support certification of Mexico that we may endanger United States trade and business. To that argument one must ask, can we ignore the slaughter on our streets for the sake of a few dollars on Wall Street? Tens of thousands of Americans have lost their lives as Mexico has reached the status of a narco capital of the world. What has Mexico done to deserve certification? You heard the statistics. The cocaine, 70 percent of all the cocaine. I submit to my colleagues that a few years ago there was hardly a blip of cocaine coming through. They do not even produce 1 ounce of cocaine in Mexico, and it is coming in, 70 percent, destroying us. Heroin, marijuana, tons of metamphetamines. So my colleagues, I ask, just take a few minutes, look at the facts. It is our responsibility and duty under the laws of this Nation, under the Constitution to pass this certification and decertify Mexico.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House tonight, before an important vote tomorrow, and that vote tomorrow is the question of whether the Congress will vote in fact to decertify Mexico and override the certification granted by this administration and this President. Certification, and as a staffer some years ago in the other body, I had the opportunity to work on drafting that certification legislation, is predicated on several factors. One is enforcement and eradication and stopping drugs at their source. The other is the cooperative effort of a nation. Then there are certain sanctions and penalties that we impose on countries that do not cooperate, and we either certify them or decertify them. Tomorrow this Congress will decide on whether we agree with the administration, and I think they made a grave error and a grave mistake. If we take a few minutes and examine the record, look at what has happened with drug flow into the United States, and let us look at heroin, let us look at cocaine, let us look at methamphetamines. Just a few years ago, most of the heroin came in in very small amounts from Mexico and it was a brown heroin. Today 30 percent of all the heroin coming into the United States is coming in from Mexico. Cocaine, there is no cocaine to my knowledge produced in Mexico. Most of it is produced in Bolivia and Peru, a little bit in Colombia. But 70 percent of all cocaine coming into the United States, and this is by DEA's estimates, is now coming in from Mexico. Eighty percent of all the marijuana coming into the United States is coming in from Mexico. And methamphetamines, which I spoke of, from mid 1993 to early 1995 Mexican traffickers reportedly produced, and last year, produced 150 tons of methamphetamine, or speed, coming into the United States from that country. So the record has gotten worse and worse and worse, of drug eradication. The problem is getting greater and greater. What is worse for our country and our children and our neighborhoods and our communities is, it is affecting our children. Heroin use is up by teenagers dramatically. Emergency room visits are also up. And then we look at the question of whether we should certify Mexico based on cooperation. We asked Mexico to do some of the following things, and let me say in every one of these areas they have dragged their feet or failed to comply with our request. First, agree to extradition. You will hear them say they extradited 16 people. That is false. Only 3 have been extradited according to our requests and only one who had some record of involvement with drugs, and he was extradited because he had dual citizenship, both American and Mexican. Failed on extradition. Failed to allow our DEA to protect themselves with firearms. Failed to allow 20 more DEA agents to be placed in Mexico. Failed to share intelligence with the United States. Failed to install antidrug radars in the south of Mexico. Failed to comply or put together a permanent maritime pact. And they failed to arrest and prosecute drug traffickers and drug money in their own country and really enforce their new laundering money laws. They have failed to take concrete steps to comply. So by no measure do they deserve certification. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I urge my colleagues to come to the floor. Trade is important with Mexico, cooperation is important with Mexico. They are our southern neighbor and an important part of this hemisphere. But when their actions, their lack of cooperation is destroying our schools, our children's future, our neighborhoods and our communities, this Congress must act in a responsible manner to stop that action against us by our neighbors. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we must come as a Congress and send a very clear message to Mexico, not based on finance or business but on the future of this country and, again, our children and what is happening. The alternative is what? We have almost 2 million Americans in jail. Seventy percent of the people in our prisons and penal facilities are there because of drug-related convictions. Where is that narcotic coming from, those illegal drugs coming from? They are coming from, I submit, and we have proved here, Mexico. We must send this message and we must do it as a united Congress tomorrow.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House tonight to talk about the question of whether or not the House should certify Mexico or decertify Mexico. As my colleagues may know, the administration just recently certified Mexico as being cooperative in trying to stem the flow of drugs and illegal narcotics from that country under a certification law that, as a staffer in the other body some years ago, I had a chance to help develop. Today, we have seen around the Capitol, scurrying around the Capitol Building, the Ambassador from Mexico and various lobbyists on various sides of the issue. But I come before the House tonight to say not to weaken, not to cave in to the Ambassador, not to cave in to interests, trade interests or other interests, and put them before the only interests we, as representatives of the people, should be representing in the people's House, and that is the safety of our children, the safety of our schools, the safety of our streets and the very security of this Nation that I think is at jeopardy with the current situation. Now, the question before us is whether Mexico is helping to eradicate and stop the flow of drugs. Let me talk not about what I know, but the facts that we have gathered and what others have said. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice that does the oversight on our national drug policy. Just prior to the certification in the House of Representatives, I was stunned, as a member of that committee, to hear Tom Constantine, the head of our Drug Enforcement Administration, the head of DEA, when he came before us just days before this administration certified Mexico. What did he say? Let me quote. ``There is not a single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has a trusting relationship.'' Those are his words, not my words, words before Congress about who we can trust with cooperation. I was stunned today to hear the Ambassador from Mexico tell me that a level of cooperation unprecedented exists. Well, how can a level of cooperation exist when the DEA head says that there is not a single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA, our chief law enforcement in the drug war, has a relationship? Assistant Secretary of State Robert Gelbard came before our committee, again just days within this certification by the administration, and said, ``There is persistent and widespread official corruption throughout Mexico.'' And then today the administration sent folks up here to lobby us not to decertify Mexico. Now, I know trade is important in our relationship with Mexico. It is important and there is probably billions of dollars at stake here. But there are the lives of our young people, the safety of our streets. Our senior citizens cannot sleep in their own beds at night because of fear of being broken in by someone. Just look at the statistics. At least 200 tons of cocaine entered the United States from Mexico last year. That is 70 percent of the cocaine. This used to come through Colombia, now it comes through Mexico. In testimony before our subcommittee it was stated that just a small amount a few years ago of brown heroin came through Mexico. Now, 30 percent of all the heroin that is killing our children and our people is coming through Mexico. Over 150 tons of methamphetamines that are destroying young people in the Midwest and the West, and heading toward the East Coast, and has become the new drug of choice, is coming through Mexico. Mexico has failed to cooperate. They have failed to extradite. They have failed to put radar on their borders. They have failed to allow our DEA agents to go there. They have denied allowing our DEA agents to protect themselves by arming themselves. They have also subverted our attempts to have a solid maritime agreement. They have also left vetted units, which we have trained in Mexico City. They are not doing the job. They do not deserve our certification, and they deserve this week to be decertified for these actions.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that as one of its last actions this historic 104th Congress will pass the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act. In one of its first legislative actions, this Congress took the unprecedented step of making itself subject to the same laws that govern private citizens and businesses. Now, this legislation, which I introduced, will make the White House obey those laws, too. When the President signs this bill, the last plantation where American civilians toil beyond the reach of some of the basic labor and employment laws imposed on private enterprise will have fallen. As a result of the Congressional Accountability Act and this legislation, the political branches of government will be required to wrestle with the same knotty problems that private businesses face every day. They will face compliance with the same laws and edicts imposed on all Americans. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are passing today is not nearly as strong as the bill this House passed by a vote of 410 to 5 on September 24, 1996. It has been watered down in a number of areas, mostly as a result of administration pressure. Unlike Congress and the private sector, the White House will have the option of following the Federal sector version of some of these employment laws. That is, rather than obey the same law as the legislative branch and American businesses, the President may take advantage of special variations of those laws that apply to the executive branch. Some very important provisions have been stripped altogether. One was a long overdue revision of the definition of ``special government employee.'' These special government employees--who often serve without pay--are subject to conflict-of-interest statutes and financial disclosure requirements. Such checks on the activities of volunteer advisers to the President and White House employees are indispensable for safeguarding the integrity of governmental processes and decisions. Yet ambiguities in existing law were exploited by the Clinton White House and Justice Department to hold that Harry Thomason, whose questionable activities have been documented in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's report on the Travelgate scandal, was not a special government employee. The President needs his personal and confidential advisors, but the American people need to hold such people accountable. Harry Thomason and other political operatives used this White House like a personal office annex. He should have been accountable to the ethics laws, conflict of interest, and other measures that ensure the integrity of the highest offices in the land. These abuses must be stopped. Mr. Speaker, the bill this House passed on the 24th would have made it clear that such people are to be considered special government employees. Under that bill, they would have been subject to conflict- of-interest rules and financial disclosure requirements. It would have prevented future abuses. But those provisions have been stripped from the bill we will pass today. When the next Congress convenes, I will again introduce legislation to make future Harry Thomasons accountable to the American people. Another key provision of the House-passed bill that is not found in the version passed by the Senate required the President to appoint a chief financial officer for the Executive Office of the President. The chief financial officer, which is found in other agencies throughout the Government, would review and audit the White House's financial systems and records. The Travelgate, Filegate, and hearings related to other White House scandals highlighted the shortcomings in this White House's financial responsibility. We will need to strengthen this law during the 105th Congress. During our hearings last year, we learned that the White House's financial operations lacked structure, so we could not achieve accountability. Sometimes, the White House paid for equipment it no longer needed. Other times, it paid for items that were never delivered. These hearings also revealed other egregious examples of waste and abuse because accounting controls were so poor the White House Communications Agency recently had $14.5 million in unvalidated obligations. The Department of Defense's inspector general reported that the Agency paid only 17 percent of its bills on time, so taxpayers got stuck for penalties and interest on the other 83 percent of its obligations. The House-passed bill also included provisions, advanced by Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Representative Stephen Horn and Representative Charles Bass, that would have placed an inspector general in the White House. The White House opposed this provision, even though other Government agencies must comply. If you can believe it, Mr. Speaker, the same people who put a bar bouncer and political trickster in charge of White House personnel security insisted that they do not need to meet the same oversight standards as the rest of the Government. With the gross mismanagement and lack of accountability that we have uncovered in this White House, I can assure you that I will pursue these matters vigorously in the next Congress.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House as we wrap up our work and leave Washington to report on one of the final hearings that will be held before the Congress tomorrow morning. This is a hearing that I requested, and I want to thank Chairman Zeliff of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, on which I serve, for holding that hearing. I want to thank Chairman Clinger for his outstanding leadership, particularly on the drug issue. Our Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and our specific subcommittee has tried for the last 18 or 20 months, since we took control of the committee and the Congress, to make a real national drug policy a priority of this Congress and this country. The reason for the hearing tomorrow is really quite disturbing. I found in reports that I received that shortly after assuming the office of drug czar, that General McCaffrey, who was appointed to that position by the President, did in fact, and we are learning more of the facts and we will find out all of the information tomorrow at the hearing, but did in fact receive a report, and I have finally gotten a copy of the report. The report was requested by the Secretary of Defense and prepared for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support. This report was presented in March at a meeting shortly after General McCaffrey assumed the office of drug czar, and I am told that in fact he ordered that no one was to release the contents of this report. In fact, this report was extremely critical of the Clinton administration's drug strategy, a failed drug strategy that in fact had dismantled interdiction, that had dismantled the use of our military, our Coast Guard and other assets in stopping drugs cost effectively at their source. This report in fact was given to General McCaffrey, and we are going to find out tomorrow if in fact he ordered that report buried. If he did indeed, it is a disgrace, and it is a sad commentary on his first step as drug czar, and I think he needs to answer for that. We are seeing the results of this failed drug policy and lack of a policy. The President, the first thing he did after taking office was in fact fire a majority of the staff, two-thirds of the staff in the drug czar's office, and then appointed a national health officer, Joycelyn Elders, who told our children, ``Just say maybe.'' Then we had a President who just said nothing. In fact, when he did speak, and I have seen the clips from this on MTV, he said if he had it to do over again, he would inhale. I as a parent wonder what kind of message that sends to our children, and I as a Congressman wonder what is happening when a report like this is in fact buried and kept from the Secretary of Defense and kept from this Congress, that in fact substantiates that the Clinton approach to curtailing drugs on our streets and in our neighborhoods and in our schools is an abject failure. So tomorrow we are going to hear about that report. Now we are getting news reports, ``White House buries critical drug report.'' The study in fact supported interdiction, supported the efforts by the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration to crack down on drugs. Now, this Congress and the Republican majority have restored those cuts and are replacing those funds. In this budget that we have just passed in appropriations, there is a record $8 billion. Remember, the other side of the aisle, the Democrats controlled the House and the other body and the White House for the first 2 years, and it is their proposals to wreck a policy of solid accomplishment and get us into this situation where we have drug use increase among our juveniles in epidemic proportion across this land, and even in my district children and teenagers are dying of drug overdoses and heroin use and abuse. So in every category we see the results of a failed policy, and it must be changed.