Speech
by Rep. John Mica (D-Florida), July 11, 2000
ILLEGAL NARCOTICS (House of
Representatives - July 11, 2000)
[Page: H5836]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Green of Wisconsin). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica)
is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to come before the House tonight as it concludes its business
to address the House on a subject I normally do on Tuesday nights and
one that I take a personal interest in as chairman in the House of Representatives
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
And specifically always on Tuesday evenings, I try to address my colleagues
and the American people on the topic of illegal narcotics and our national
drug policy and our efforts in our subcommittee to attempt to develop
a coherent policy to deal with probably the greatest social problem and
challenge I think our Nation has ever faced in its history, a problem
that has devastated and I think we have gotten to the point where almost
every family in America is somehow touched by illegal narcotics. Certainly
the impact in crime, the social costs, the costs that this Congress incurs
in funding antinarcotics efforts, criminal justice, the system that is
fueled by those who are committing crimes and offenses against society
under the influence of illegal narcotics, the whole gamut of problems
that have arisen as a result of illegal narcotics is really astounding.
I often cite when I speak
before the House the most recent statistics of deaths. Direct deaths from
illegal narcotics in the most recent year provided to our subcommittee,
1998, amounted to 15,973 Americans died as the direct result of illegal
narcotics. The drug czar, our national director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, Barry McCaffrey, again today used the figure in a
hearing before our subcommittee of 52,000 Americans dying in a year as
a result of direct and indirect illegal narcotics.
[TIME: 2115]
So the toll is mounting. The
statistics continue to be alarming and should concern every American because,
most of all, we find that this problem is affecting not those people who
you would traditionally think have been victimized by illegal narcotics,
the inner-city, the metropolitan, the high density areas, but every single
corner of our Nation is now victimized by the effects of illegal drugs.
In fact, I cite a recent article,
and it this headline says `Drug use explodes in rural America.' It shows
that in fact in rural America that cocaine, that crack, that heroin and
methamphetamines in all of the rural areas of the country are now experiencing
an explosion.
One of the things that I try
to do as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy
and Human Resources is not only conduct hearings, such as we did today
with the national Drug Czar on our national media campaign that we instituted
several years ago, a $1 billion-plus program, $1 billion from Federal
money over 5 years and an equally significant amount in contributions
to the campaign required by the law that we established, but in addition
to conducting the hearings and evaluations and oversight of our national
drug policy and the programs that we have instituted, we attempt to conduct
hearings throughout the United States.
Most of the hearings that
have been conducted by our subcommittee are at the request of either my
subcommittee members or Members of the House who are experiencing a similar
problem. I can tell you without a doubt that in fact the entire Nation,
from the Pacific coast to the East Coast, from the Mexican border to the
Canadian border, is being devastated by illegal narcotics.
During the recent weeks we
have conducted hearings and field hearings. One was in the heartland of
America, in Sioux City, Iowa, at the confluence of three states, Nebraska,
South Dakota and Iowa. This was a hearing at the request of the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Latham). We heard absolutely startling testimony about
the explosion of illegal narcotics, the explosion of methamphetamine,
narcotics that have infiltrated that region of our Nation, and the devastation
on the community, the cost in law enforcement, the cost in social services,
the tremendous cost to that entire area that is being borne in destroyed
lives.
So we have focused not only
on hearings in Washington, but throughout the land, and we confirmed the
headline which I cited here of the explosion of illegal narcotics and
methamphetamine in particular in rural areas of our country.
It is also significant that
we have presentations before our subcommittee that bring us up-to-date
on what is happening, because we are a criminal justice, national drug
policy oversight subcommittee. Some of the recent information we have
had from the Center for Disease Control and other monitoring agencies
indicate that over half the crime in this country is committed by individuals
under the influence of illegal narcotics.
The National Institute of
Justice drug testing program, found that more than 60 percent of the adult
male arrestees across the Nation tested positive for drugs. In most cities,
over half the young male arrestees are under the influence in fact of
marijuana, and, importantly, the majority of the crimes that result from
the effects of the drug do not result from the fact that the drugs are
illegal.
According to a study by the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, which is also referred
to as CASA, at Columbia University, 80 percent of the men and women behind
bars, about 1.4 million inmates in our country, are seriously involved
with drug abuse, substance abuse, and sometimes that is illegal narcotics,
sometimes it is alcohol. So, again, the problem of substance abuse is
horrendous.
What is of particular concern
to our subcommittee and the Congress is that the trends of illegal narcotics
use, while we hear some figures being touted by some in the administration,
we find that, unfortunately, under the Clinton Administration, from 1992
to 1998, in one area for example, in heroin we have had a 92 percent increase
since 1992 in heroin use among our 8th graders, an incredible statistic
that has recently come forward. That is in one of the most deadly drugs
that one can have any young person be involved with.
In my area in Central Florida,
in fact we are having an epidemic of heroin overdoses. Many of the overdoses
are the result of a very high purity heroin. In the 1980s we had the purity
of heroin at the level of single digits, sometimes 4 or 5 percent. Today
we are finding on the streets of Orlando and the streets of New York,
Los Angeles, and even small communities across the Nation, purity levels
of 60 and 70 percent, deadly, highly toxic heroin, and we see a dramatic
increase, 92 percent increase in use in heroin among 8th graders, an absolutely
shocking statistic.
The other information that
I wanted to relay about the problem tonight is some information our subcommittee
received from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, and they came
and briefed us before the recess. I have cited some of these statistics
in the hearing that we held and previously on the floor, but the survey
by the Center for Disease Control indicated that 14.7 percent of the students
surveyed said that they were currently using marijuana in 1991. In 1999,
that figure almost doubled to 26.7 percent.
Unfortunately marijuana happens
to be a gateway drug, and we find that the statistics bear out that with
a gateway drug, an entry drug like marijuana, the next step is cocaine,
then methamphetamine, heroin and hard narcotics. We also find testimony
that was presented to the subcommittee by Dr. Leshner, the head of the
National Institute of Drug Abuse, NIDA, that in fact the most addictive
drug in the United States today in fact is marijuana. Also it is not the
marijuana of the sixties and seventies, or even the eighties. This is
a marijuana with a much higher purity, with a much more toxic content,
and a much more addictive result.
But the Center for Disease
Control reported that lifetime marijuana increased from 31.3 percent in
1991 to 47.2 percent in 1999. What has happened in our Nation, because
we have sent a mixed message to our youth, because we have not had the
leadership provided by the White House with a consistent strong message
against illegal narcotics, and in particular marijuana, we find that almost
half the population of our young people today has used marijuana at some
point, according to this survey. Again, like it or not, it is a gateway
drug.
Those are some of the statistics
that we wanted to update the Congress on today. Unfortunately, we find
that even in our enforcement area, that young people are becoming more
and more involved as a result of their use and abuse of illegal narcotics.
A recent article that was
provided to me indicated that the end of last year, the United States
Customs Service estimated that 400 teenagers had been arrested by the
end of 1999 for smuggling drugs into the country, an increase of 30 percent
over the previous year. In Texas, only 17 juveniles had been sent to prison
in the past 2 1/2 years, 98 received probation and 63 had their cases
dropped or dismissed. Unfortunately, light punishment is a selling point
for the drug cartels when they approach teenagers, according to the U.S.
Customs Service, which is now finding younger and younger traffickers,
and, unfortunately, the arrests are up in the under 18 age category. This
report also said that there is a 58 percent increase nationwide in arrests
of drug traffickers. This is now under the age of 18. Again, younger and
younger people involved.
According to customs also,
children as young as nine are used to traffic drugs across the southwest
border. According to the article, most of the teen smugglers that are
arrested and convicted are given probation, not jail time, which, unfortunately,
does lead other youth to participate in the same type of activity, and
we are seeing more and more of that across the country.
The number of heroin users
in the United States, according to another recent survey, indicates that
it has jumped from 1996, half a million Americans, to nearly 1 million,
980,000 Americans in 1999. So we have had, again, just about a doubling
from 1996 to 1999 in heroin users in the United States.
The rate of first use by children
age 12 to 17 increased from less than 1 in 1,000 in the 1980s to almost
3 in 1,000 in 1996. I think I just cited for the benefit of the House
the incredible increase we have seen in 8th graders. First time heroin
users are getting younger, from an average age of 26 years of age in 1991
to an average age, now, get this, of 17 years of age by 1997.
Also, according to the most
recent statistics provided to our criminal justice and drug policy subcommittee,
8th graders in rural America are 83 percent more likely than 8th graders
in urban centers to use crack cocaine, 50 percent more likely than 8th
graders in urban centers to use cocaine, and 34 percent more likely than
8th graders in urban centers to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately, an incredibly
high statistic is that they are 104 percent more likely than 8th graders
in urban centers to use amphetamines, including methamphetamines. Again,
startling statistics about what is happening across this country.
One of the things that was
brought up at the hearing today and that we also have found in the pattern
of illegal narcotics use is the impact, not only on the population in
general and also of our youth, which is of great concern, but also the
impact on minorities. No segment of our society is more impacted by illegal
narcotics use than our minorities, particularly our African American and
our Hispanic population. This is some of the latest information our subcommittee
has received.
[Page: H5837]
[TIME: 2130]
According to the 1998 National
House of Polls Survey on Drug Abuse, drug use increased from 5.8 percent
in 1993 at the beginning of the Clinton administration to 8.2 percent
in 1998 among young African Americans, more severely impacted than the
population at large. According to the same survey on drug abuse, drug
use increased from 4.4 percent in 1993 among the Hispanic population,
Hispanic youth in particular, to 6.1 percent. So 2 minority populations
that are most vulnerable in our society, our African American and Hispanic
youth population, have also become incredible victims of illegal narcotics
and, in particular, we have seen, as I said, the explosion of heroin,
methamphetamines, and now we are seeing a rampage of what are called designer
drugs across the Nation.
Now, how did we get ourselves
into this situation? I have brought this one particular chart out many
times, and I will bring it out again tonight. We hear repeatedly, I hear
repeatedly over and over that the war on drugs has been a failure. I submit
again to the Congress and to the House tonight that if we look at the
war on drugs under the Reagan and Bush administration, and this chart
relates the long-term trend in lifetime prevalence of drug use; this is
really the major monitor for drug use and abuse in this country, and it
is not something that I made up; it was prepared by the University of
Michigan, and this is something that they have been monitoring for some
time. But this shows the pattern of success and this shows the prevalence
of drug use going down in the Reagan administration starting in 1980 all
the way down. Now, this is what the liberals will tell us is a failure,
and that is the decrease in drug use. In fact, there was a 50 percent
decrease in this period of drug use in this country. This is what they
will try to tell us, the editorialists, the promoters of legalization,
those who say that the war on drugs has been a failure.
So when we had a war on drugs,
and that was with national leadership from the Office of the President
through the entire administration, putting together an Andean strategy
to stop drugs at their source. This is not rocket science; we know where
the cocaine is produced. It is produced in Bolivia, it is produced in
Peru, it is produced in Colombia. When we have a policy that stops the
assistance going to a country who is willing to participate with the United
States to stop the production of cocaine such as we have had with this
administration for the past 5, 6 years in stopping and blocking aid to
Colombia, we have a growth of cocaine and coca production in that area.
The Reagan administration
and Bush administration developed specific programs, the Andean strategy,
and the Andean strategy went in and went after drugs at their source,
stopped the drugs at their source. We know where cocaine is from. Can
we stop it? Well, yes, we can. When I came in with the Republican majority
in 1995 and we took over, we went to those countries, Mr. Zeliff did,
the former chairman who had this subcommittee responsibility, and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who is now the Speaker of the House,
we went to Bolivia, we talked to President Banzer and to other leaders
there. We went to Peru and we talked to President Fujimori. We gave them
a tiny bit of assistance and they completed their mission and have been
completing their mission to eradicate cocaine and coca production, some
50 to 60 percent reduction in 2 or 3 years at very little cost to the
taxpayer in stopping the production.
One of the problems we have
had is that the administration for year after year after year has blocked
assistance to Colombia until the whole Colombian region
exploded and it became a regional
disaster, and we had to pass a $1 billion-plus aid package to bail the
administration out from their failed policy. That policy will work. The
policy also has assistance to neighboring countries so if we stop production
there, it does not spill over into other areas. It worked in the 1980s,
it will work now. There is no question about it. We can stop drugs at
their source.
Now, the second most effective
way to stop drugs is to stop them as they come from the source. This administration
has done everything they can to destroy the war on drugs. Now, if one
is going to run a war on drugs, against drugs, how would one run that?
Would one stop the programs or cut back the programs where they produce
drugs at their source? That would be a farce, but that is exactly what
this administration did.
This administration cut Federal
spending for international programs 50 percent during the Democrat-controlled
Congress from 1992 to 1994. They cut it some 50 percent, from $660 million
to $329 million. In fact, we are barely getting back to the level of funding
for international programs and the spike that we did provide with the
Colombian aid package will bring us up to where we should be in going
after drugs most cost-effectively at the source.
Now, again, the second area
and most effective way to stop illegal narcotics, and a Federal responsibility,
our responsibility as Congress is to stop the illegal narcotics before
they come to our borders. President Reagan set up the Andean strategy.
We set up a drug certification. If we allow drugs to come from their country
into the United States, we stop foreign aid, we stop financial assistance,
we stop trade and other benefits that we give as a country to that country
that is sending poison into the United States. I helped draft the certification
law. This administration has made a farce of the certification law from
the very beginning, misapplying it, not applying it properly as it was
intended, as it was applied during the Reagan and Bush administration.
This they will tell us is a failure. I mean this is a decrease in drug
use by everyone in this country, and they will tell us that that was a
failure. I say that, in fact, this was a success.
This is the failure. We only
see right here where the Republican-controlled Congress took effect where
we restarted the programs on stopping drugs at their source, where we
began to restart the programs to interdict drugs before they reach our
borders. Again, each of these programs were dramatically cut and slashed,
and today, we are paying the consequences and struggling to get these
programs developed back in this successful war on drugs, in effect.
Mr. Speaker, it was one error
compounded by another error. First, the administration withheld information
and data to these other countries, information that was used to shoot
down drug traffickers as the drugs left the source country and headed
towards the United States. They said, we cannot do that. We could possibly
hurt the hair on the back of some drug trafficker. Oh, we cannot send
aid to Colombia, we might hurt some leftist guerilla or some rightist
guerilla. I do not think there was concern about the right wing as there
was about hurting the hair on the left wing.
In any event, nothing got
sent there. They blocked it time and time again, the assistance. It would
almost be ludicrous, but unfortunately, I must go back, and I cannot help
but to cite some of the mistakes by this administration that we are paying
for today. It would be ludicrous to think that they would, in fact, act
in such a fashion.
This headline is from the
Washington Post, August 4, 1994: U.S. Refusal to Share Intelligence in
Drug Fight
Called Absurd. One of the
Democrats from the other side is the one who called it absurd, what the
administration had done. We had stopped sharing information, stopped the
ability of our allies in this war on drugs to go after drug traffickers,
the beginning of the disaster that we inherited. Hearings also documented
what the administration was doing in closing down a real war on drugs.
My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) we were elected
together in 1993, and we served on the Committee on Government Operations
and I attended the hearing, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn)
asked on August 2, 1994, `As you recall, as of May 1, 1994, the Department
of Defense decided unilaterally to stop sharing real-time intelligence
regarding aerial trafficking of drugs with Colombia and Peru. Now, as
I understand it, that decision, which has not been completely resolved,
has thrown diplomatic relations with the host countries into chaos.' August
2, 1994.
Mr. Speaker, that was a prediction
of the beginning of the disaster of Colombia. We all saw it coming. We
all knew that when we close down the source countries, when we stop interdicting
drugs cost-effectively before they come into the United States and had
our allies do it rather than us even do it, just by providing a little
information to our friends.
Then, what did we need to
go after the narcotics? There was almost zero heroin produced in Colombia
in 1993, the beginning of this administration. Almost zero. But this Congress,
Democrat-controlled Congress and White House managed to stop first information
assistance, and then what do we need to stop the growth? We need something
to go after the growth. That would be some helicopters. That would be
helicopters that could fly at high altitudes, that would be helicopters
that could go after drug traffickers and surveillance information.
Time and time again, hearing
and hearing again, we begged this administration, and we even passed the
financing of sending the assistance to Colombia. The President and others
in this administration blocked that assistance. So we have seen an incredible
explosion of cocaine production, of heroin production in Colombia.
This is a February of 1997
story, and it says, `Delay of Copters Hobbles Colombia in Stopping Drugs.'
Guess what? When we do not have the equipment to go after where they are
producing or trafficking, and 70 to 80 percent of the drugs coming into
the United States are now produced, heroin and cocaine in that country,
in fact, we do not stop the drugs. That is what caused us to do an emergency
funding of $1 billion-plus for Colombia.
In each of these areas, the
new Republican majority has tried to act in a responsible fashion to restore
the source country programs. We will find in the Colombian aid package,
in fact, a good balance between alternative crop development, because
we know the peasants there must have some source of income, and we can
help them be productive; we can also help them turn away from production
of the death and destruction of cocaine, coca and poppies and heroin that
are now swamping the United States. We can easily put these programs together
for very few dollars. Unfortunately, now it is taking more dollars than
it would have if we had done the preventive steps that we asked for some
years ago.
Unfortunately, the administration
has made this an even more difficult task by bungling the negotiations
in Panama, by not allowing us to keep our forward-drug surveillance operating
locations in Panama. Even if we gave back the base, all we needed was
an operations center which we had had up until May of last year. The administration
not only lost the military use, but bungled the negotiations to keep our
forward operating locations. Part of the $1 billion package that we passed
is now to fund $100-some million to replace the forward operating locations
that we lost through the failed negotiations with Panama. All of our drug-forward
surveillance operations were out of Howard Air Force base and now we have
to pay to put them in Ecuador, and now we have to pay to put them in Aruba,
and now we have to pay to put them at great expense into El Salvador.
Two of those negotiations are semi-complete, but it will be 2002 before
we get back to the capability we had last May to detect flights coming
in with illegal narcotics and shipments from the source zone.
[Page: H5839]
[TIME: 2145]
General Wilhelm, our general
in charge of the Southern Command of this whole effort in surveillance,
and the military does not get engaged in arresting people or going after
illegal narcotics traffickers. They are even banned from that. What they
do is provide surveillance and intelligence information from the surveillance
which is passed on either to the country or to enforcement people.
According to General Wilhelm
in a report that was provided to me as chairman of the subcommittee by
the Government Accounting Office, General Wilhelm said that the Southern
Command now, and again, in charge of looking at drugs coming in, can only
detect and monitor 15 percent of the key routes in the overall drug trafficking
area about 15 percent of the time.
Again, what is reported to
our subcommittee in charge of drug policy is that this will not be corrected
until 2002. That is an absolute disaster created by ineptness in the administration
and direct policy-thwarting efforts.
I have talked about this many
times. Again, they term this with decreasing drug use among our population
as a failure. This is a success going up here. This is the Clinton success
pattern. We have higher drug use, so that is an effective war on drugs.
We dismantle the war on drugs piece by piece by piece and this is what
we get, a flood of illegal narcotics, difficult to stem.
I want to say that we have
instituted as a Republican majority the most extensive education campaign
in the history of this Nation funded with $1 billion over 5 years. Today
we held our second oversight hearing on it.
I had a different plan than
the administration. I thought that those who get the airwaves, which are
a public trust, should donate more time. The administration wanted to
pay for time out of the taxpayers' pockets. As a compromise, and the way
this place always works is a compromise, we have half the time being donated
as a requirement and $1 billion of taxpayer money going into the campaign.
But we must do something to
educate the public. We must do something to educate particularly the young
people. I must do something as chairman of the subcommittee to make sure
that the money that we spend in this most extensive campaign is appropriate
and that it is working.
That was the reason for the
hearing I held last October at the end of the first year of the campaign
and today that we conducted to see if that is successful. I am not here
as a Republican or a majority member saying that we can only criticize
the other side. We have to tell what we have done.
In fact, we have put in place
the most extensive campaign in the history of our Nation. Now we have
to make sure it works. Will it work? I do not know yet, but we are going
to do everything we can. We have put back into place the funding for the
international programs, and finally, the missing piece to the puzzle.
This is not a great puzzle.
The drugs, 70 percent of the cocaine, 75 percent of the heroin coming
into the United States is coming from Colombia. We have stopped it in
2 or 3 years under the Republican majority working with Peru and Bolivia,
and we have some assistance in this package for them.
It is coming from here. A
lot of it transits through Mexico. That is another problem I could spend
a whole night on, again the United States and this administration making
a farce out of certification, cooperation on the drug effort, giving Mexico
benefits left and right, financing their indebtedness, helping them open
their borders, giving them the best trade benefits, and then letting Mexico
thumb their nose at the United States.
It made a farce of the laws
that the Reagan and Bush administration enforced, and also made Colombia
the center of drug production for the hemisphere. The latest reports we
have in the media today is a double of cocaine is reaching our European
allies. I have met with our European allies soliciting their help in this
region. We warned them that the cocaine and next the heroin is coming
because of the tremendous production.
In fact, the latest statistics
revealed just in the last few days show that Europe is getting swamped
with cocaine, and I guarantee them that the heroin will follow, because
they pay even more in Europe than they do in the United States. We have
this flood of supply coming in.
Since our base in Panama is
closed down, we have no forward operating location, and it may be over
2 years before the administration even has a clue to get it back in order.
This is the mess that we have inherited. It does have consequences.
I have shown these before,
these quite revealing charts. I have not doctored these or produced them
myself, they were produced by the Sentencing Commission
to our subcommittee in recent
testimony.
By 1992, almost no crack in
1992. We do not even see methamphetamine on the chart at the beginning
of this. Again, this is a failure in the war on drugs.
In 1993, the beginning of
the administration, we see the beginning, the very beginning of crack.
In 1994, in 1995, it is exploding. In 1996, 1997, almost up the entire
map, out of control. What has gone down in crack is being supplemented
by methamphetamine, designer drugs, and also we do not have heroin on
the chart, which has absolutely skyrocketed off the charts.
This, again, is the result
of I think a policy that can only be termed a failure. It is incredible
how many times I hear that, again, the war on drugs is a failure; that
some of the things that we have done, the tough enforcement will not work,
that we have to liberalize our drug laws.
Recently the New York Times,
a New York Times editorial, called for doing away with the Rockefeller
laws. The Rockefeller laws were instituted in the 1970s under Governor
Rockefeller, tough laws, and they established tough sentencing guidelines.
We often hear that the people
behind bars are there because they have, say, used a small amount of illegal
substances, marijuana. Small-time users are locked up in jail. That is
what this New York Times editorial says, that our criminal justice system
is clogged, and particularly they cite New York.
In fact, on New York, we conducted
a hearing in Washington on the subject of New York. We brought in an individual,
Catherine Lapp, who is the New York State director of criminal justice.
She testified before our subcommittee. We asked specific questions about
how many people were behind bars, and were in fact New York prisons clogged
with people who were small-time users.
Let me cite her testimony
before our subcommittee tonight before the House. This is Catherine Lapp:
`Over the last several years, there has been much debate in New York about
the efficacy of our drug laws, oftentimes referred to as the Rockefeller
drug laws, which were enacted in 1973 in response to the onslaught of
drugs and drug-driven crime.
`Drug law reform advocates
have argued that the drug laws have done little to remove drugs from our
communities and only serve to imprison low level drug addicts in our State's
prison system for lengthy periods of time.
`Advocates also argue that
the law should be repealed in whole or in part and replaced with a system
to provide treatment for all drug-addicted criminals. My response to this
position is twofold. First, the facts do not bear out the position that
there are thousands of low level drug-addicted offenders sentenced each
year to State prison for lengthy periods of imprisonment on charges of
possession of small amounts of drugs.'
That is the first premise
she makes here.
She says, `Secondly, New York
State has developed a rather sophisticated and progressive system for
providing drug treatment options and alternatives to incarceration opportunities
for dealing with drug-addicted non-violent offenders. The success of that
system, however, is premised on large part on the fact that the offenders
are motivated to take advantage of the options in order to avoid mandatory
prison terms.'
Some of the statistics that
she cited in her testimony to me, and this is nothing I have made up,
the New York Times editorial will tell us they are draconian laws, and
that 22,000 inmates are currently confined in their State prison; that
inmates are nonviolent users and small-time sellers.
Again, she did the most extensive
survey ever done in New York, and this is some of what she found. First
of all, she says, `We also took a random review of the case files for
the first-time felony offenders sentenced to State prison in what I believe
is a very persuasive way. This documented the various reasons why they
were sent to prison.
`In simple terms, the offenders
gave judges little choice, as the offenders consistently and routinely
thumb their noses at the system, showing little remorse for their actions
or interest in seeking treatment. Finally, those sentenced to the State
prison received, on average,' on average, and this is what they call `locked
up forever for small-time use penalties,' `On average, 13 months in prison,
hardly the lengthy sentences which the drug law reform advocates suggest.'
As for repeat drug offenders,
our report also documented that only 30 percent of persons with prior
felony arrest histories who were arrested for a drug felony actually received
a sentenced State imprisonment, only 30 percent.
There are roughly 22,000 individuals,
that is the only thing that matches with the New York Times editorial,
currently serving time in New York State prison for drug offenses. Eighty-seven
percent of them are actually serving time for selling drugs, not mere
possession, and over 70 percent have more than one felony conviction on
their records.
`Of the persons serving time
for drug possession charges, 76 percent were actually arrested for sale
or intent to sell and eventually pled down to possession.'
Again, that is testimony that
is absolutely in conflict with the New York Times' liberal editorial that
would tell us that the State prisons in New York, because of the tough
Rockefeller laws, are full of small-time users and offenders.
This article goes on or this
testimony goes on to talk about some of the things that have also been
done in New York. I would like to go ahead and cite them.
`I would like to submit that
those who advocate a wholesale repeal of the New York State drug laws
in favor of treatment for substance-abusing offenders actually miss the
point and fail to appreciate or choose to ignore the realities of the
system.
`Perhaps the most compelling
argument in favor of maintaining tough drug laws as a way to motivate
substance-abusing offenders is found in reports of the King's County Detab,
a drug program our subcommittee has looked at that is very successful
in King'S County, close to New York City.
`On average, over 30 percent
of the defendants screened and deemed eligible for this program actually
declined to participate in the 18-month residential treatment program,
opting instead to go to State prison.' This is despite the fact that if
they were to successfully complete the program, the charges would be dropped
and wiped off their record.
[Page: H5840]
[TIME: 2200]
What would we do with this
category of offenders in the absence of mandatory minimums? Return them
to the communities?
In recent years, changes have
been made to the New York State drug laws. Now, the next thing I will
tell my colleagues is the drug laws in New York, because of the Rockefeller
laws, are inflexible. Ms. Lapp testified, in recent years, changes have
been made to the New York State drug laws to permit certain nonviolent
offenders to be diverted from prison and to treatment programs or to be
released from prison early following successful completion of treatment.
This is the bologna, the tripe
put out by the New York Times, the liberal press. This is the fact, the
testimony of Catherine Lapp, New York State Director of Criminal Justice
before our subcommittee. This is the most extensive survey done on who
is behind bars.
Again, it is unbelievable
that the media would not print the facts on what is happening in New York
or in other jurisdictions and would have us believe that tough sentencing
mandatory minimum sentencing should be withdrawn.
We had testimony before our
subcommittee from the Federal Sentencing Commission, and we have also
asked the question of law enforcement officials in almost every one of
our hearings and field hearings across the country and before us in Washington,
should we reduce minimum mandatory? Without exception, the answer has
been no.
Most people do not realize
that we have instituted, in fact, a safety valve and flexibility in the
Federal law that does give discretion, that does allow for alternative
programs, and does give small time offenders an opportunity.
But, again, what is portrayed
by the media is that one would have small-time users and abusers or even
sellers behind prison bars, and it does not jibe at all with the facts
that have been presented before our subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I want to again
address some of the myths about policies, tough policies versus liberal
policies. New York City has to be the best example of the successful implementation
of a zero tolerance as far as drug enforcement, as far as tough enforcement.
When Rudy Guliani, the mayor,
took office in the mid or early 1990s here, they are averaging 2,000 deaths
in New York. That is down to the mid-600 range, a dramatic decrease.
We called Rudy Guliani in
before our subcommittee, and we have also examined the record in that
community with a zero tolerance program. The latest statistics reveal
that crime is down some 57.6 percent for seven major crimes. Murder is
down 58 percent, rape down 31 percent, robbery down 62 percent, felony
assaults down 35 percent, burglary down almost 62 percent, grand larceny
down 42 percent, and grand larceny auto down almost 69 percent.
Here again the liberals attack
the zero tolerance policy. Either one has an activity where one has the
liberals calling for more enforcement, or they are ganging up on the mayor
in New York City because of tough enforcement. It is either not enough
or too much.
But it is interesting. We
went back to examine when the mayor was criticized during the fatal shooting
that took place by a police officer that, in fact, the number of fatal
shootings by police officers in 1999, 11, was the lowest for any year
since 1973, the first year for which records are available, and far less
than the number of 41 police shootings that took place in 1990.
Moreover, the number of rounds
intentionally fired by police declined some 50 percent since 1993, and
the number of intentional shooting incidents by police dropped by some
66.5 percent, while the number of police officers that Mr. Guliani actually
put in place actually increased by 37.9 percent.
The statistics, again, people
do not want to deal with the hard facts. The liberal media will tell us
that this policy does not work. The policy does work. The murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter down dramatically to the mid 600s. The seven major felony
categories down dramatically under this tough enforcement policy.
Now, I want to know where
the liberals were when David Dinkins' administration was in office. There
were 62 percent more shootings by police officers per capita in the last
year of David Dinkins' administrations, the last year, than under Mayor
Guliani. Where was Mr. Sharpton? Where were the liberals when these incidents
were taking place?
I will tell my colleagues
where the liberals were. One of them was in Baltimore, and he was the
mayor, Mayor Schmoke. He adopted a nonenforcement, let them do it, we
will treat them, do not worry about it, let it all hang out, that is good.
Fortunately, Baltimore got rid of the mayor. The mayor is gone. But the
deaths in Baltimore during 1998, 1999, 1997 all ranged over 300.
This is a liberal policy.
This is a nonenforcement
policy. This is the opposite
of zero tolerance. They have created a hell hole in one of our Nation's
most beautiful and historic cities, Baltimore, where the population of
addiction is somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 individuals.
This is the statistic, this
chart was given to us in 1996 where they only had 39,000 addicts in Baltimore.
That is through the leadership of a liberal policy. They now have one
in eight, according to a city council member, of the population of Baltimore
through this liberal policy an addict. Can my colleagues imagine extending
this throughout the entire Nation, one in eight in our population? The
worst thing about this is they cannot even get 50 percent of those who
are addicted to show up for a treatment program or to participate in a
program. Imagine demands on the social services.
Fortunately, they have a new
mayor. Fortunately, we held a hearing, our subcommittee, in Baltimore.
We held a hearing at the beginning of the week. Fortunately, by the end
of the week, the mayor who sat there and heard the testimony of the previous
police chief fired him and put in a zero tolerance person. That is what
we intend to support.
The subcommittee, in fact,
met this morning before our hearing with Mr. General McCaffrey and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) who represents this devastated
area. We will bring these statistics down, and we can do it through a
zero tolerance policy. Other cities have done it. Richmond, Virginia has
done it. Others have had tough enforcement.
We will do our best to provide
treatment. But one cannot just treat the wounded in a battle. Imagine
fighting a war and not going after the enemy, not going after the source
of the weapon of destruction coming after one. That is what they have
been trying to do, and it has not worked. It will not work. It will not
work.
So the liberal media that
is out there telling us that we must legalize, that zero tolerance does
not work, that the war on drugs is a failure, in fact they are the failure
that we have because they repeat this message.
It is my hope again that we
can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion. I have done my best to work
with folks on putting the package together, the Colombian aid package.
It was delayed for 5 years, and we got it done in 5 months. It is my hope
that we can work on other programs and successfully combat this terrible
plague upon our Nation.
As of July 18, 2000, this
document was also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H11JY0-795: