ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily                        <Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly 

[Congressional Record: November 1, 2000 (House)]
[Page H11774-H11779]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr01no00-103]                         



 
                           REPUBLICAN AGENDA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House tonight. 
Many of the Members are curious as to what is going to happen. The 
House and Congress have a responsibility to pass measures to fund our 
Government. I do want to say that the two previous speakers on the 
minority side, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), are not usually part of the 
problem; they are usually part of the solution. They are conservative 
and very moderate in their views and also very fiscally responsible, 
and I applaud their efforts. I worked many times with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), on the balanced budget amendment. I remember 
coming as a freshman with a gleam in my eye, coming from the private 
sector saying that we must balance the budget. He, in fact, was one of 
the leaders on the other side calling for fiscal responsibility. So I 
do not consider the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) or the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) part of the problem.
  We do have disagreements on some of the reasons why we are here. The 
reason why we are here is we have 435 folks. I always joke that my wife 
and I almost not a day passes, although I love her dearly, been married 
28 years and there is only two of us but there is not a day that the 
two of us do not disagree on something. That does happen. As the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) says, imagine serving in a place 
where you have 435 class presidents and all of them think they are 
right; not to mention that we have to deal with another body, the very 
esteemed Senate that Bob Dole used to say one of the things he enjoyed 
over there with the Senators is watching paint dry.
  They sort of take their time in getting things done. That may be the 
case here, and that was really what the Founding Fathers intended that 
we do have someone that can look at problems with a longer term and 
then the House, which is the people's house and immediately 
responsible, we are all up for election every 2 years and responsive to 
the people, but we are here because there are differences. Some of them 
are glossed over by the media and not apparent, and many people in 
America, my colleagues, are out there just trying to make a living, get 
their kid through school and pay their bills and make certain that they 
provide for their future and they do not pay a whole lot of attention 
until hopefully an election comes up or some major issue, but there are 
some differences. There are some things in the bill that are 
unpalatable that are just not acceptable to us on this side.
  I come from a State, Florida, that has suffered from illegal 
immigration. In fact, I held a hearing in Fort Lauderdale yesterday and 
after the hearing I met with Coast Guard officials; and they said, Mr. 
Mica, we have some news for you and it is not too pleasant. They said 
the numbers of illegal immigrants coming in to Florida off the coast 
has dramatically increased. I said, where are they coming from? They 
said, it is from all over, Chinese, coming in through the Caribbean and 
the Florida waters, Haitians, Dominicans, South Americans in large 
numbers. We have a number of countries in South America that are 
undergoing severe crisis, Colombia. The situation in Panama has been 
difficult since the United States left there. Ecuador, Venezuela has 
been destabilized by some of its current government and other problems 
throughout Latin America.
  So I think that one of the provisions that has raised some great 
concern is the President's insistence on granting amnesty to literally 
millions of individuals. Now, I must also speak from the standpoint of 
being the grandson of immigrants on both sides of my family, Italian 
and Slovak immigrants who came here almost 100 years ago, worked in the 
factories and worked real hard to raise families and did not have any 
government programs; had to come here in good health; had to fend for 
themselves and something has gone wrong if, in fact, we do agree to 
granting amnesty at this time. What a message that would send to so 
many people abroad. The United States does not pay any attention to its 
laws. You can come in illegally and you will be granted amnesty and can 
stay here. It is sad. We have also created sort of a haven and magnet.

  One of the ladies that I talked to recently at home came up to me and 
she said, Mr. Mica, I have a neighbor down the street and she is here. 
She is not a citizen. And she said to me, Mr. Mica, I get less than 
$500 a month in Social Security. I worked all my life. I am an 
American. I was born here and the lady down the street is not a 
citizen, not here in the same manner that others have come here. She 
gets more payments than I do. She has all kind of benefits and health 
care and other things that she did not have. Somehow the system has 
skewed in the wrong direction. But for us to cave in at this point and 
to go along with the President's demand to grant amnesty to millions of 
people who are here illegally, it just sends the wrong message.
  For those who came legally and worked and raised families, were 
contributing citizens, one of the neat papers I have in my family's 
little folio is the naturalization papers of my grandparents. I know 
how much they treasured becoming citizens in a legal manner. Again, we 
throw a lot of that out the window if we just cave and accept this. 
What a wrong message we send. Here we are increasing the bipartisan and 
immigration spending in these bills, but why bother if we ignore the 
laws that set some parameters and some standards by which you become a 
citizen in an orderly fashion? Let me say I am a strong proponent of 
legal immigration.

                              {time}  1945

  It has made this country great. It is diversity; it is bringing 
people from all over the world together in a melting pot and allowing 
people to be their best. To have the best opportunity is something I 
would never want to diminish in any way. But this is wrong. It is a 
wrong message. I am sorry we have a disagreement on this; but again, it 
is something that I think lies below the surface, but also creates 
opposition at this juncture.
  There are other serious differences: school funding. Now, all of 
these differences are not money, and I have to agree with the gentleman 
who just spoke on the other side, we are spending in these bills more 
than we would want. Some of us like myself and some of the others who 
spoke again from the other side are fiscal conservatives, and we want 
to stay within those limits that we worked for in 1997 to create a 
balanced budget, to get our Nation's finances in order. Mr. Speaker, 
one can do amazing things when one has their finances in order, whether 
it is personal or Federal. It is not that complicated. We just had to 
limit the amount of expenditures not exceeding the money coming in, the 
revenues; and we balanced the budget in a short period of time. But we 
have to stick to that formula.
  Now, we are very fortunate. The economy has dramatically improved. We 
have more money coming in. The estimates are somewhere around $240 
billion. We do not know exactly how much we are going to spend of that 
annual surplus. It may be $30 billion, $40 billion, I have heard 
estimates as high as $60 billion, and some of us on both sides of the 
aisle disagree with that.
  But at some point we have to stop the expenditure of that surplus, 
because then our promises and our pledges to balance the budget that we 
made in 1997 are meaningless. So there are many people who do not want 
to go home. They will stay here through the election; they will stay 
here until the Potomac freezes over and we can put up the Christmas 
lights and begin that celebration of the holiday, because they do not 
want to spend us back into deficit. They do not want to spend the 
surplus.

[[Page H11775]]

  One of the things we have tried to do on our side is come up with a 
90-10 formula, that we use 90 percent of the surplus to pay down the 
national debt. I know one of the hardest things I have when I go home 
is convincing folks that we have actually paid down a little bit of the 
national debt. When I leave here, whenever I leave here, I think I am 
going to look back and say that under my service, and under the service 
of some of those who were fiscally responsible, we began paying down 
that enormous debt, and it is not $3 trillion to $5 trillion. Even the 
previous speakers alluded to the incredible debt we have of money that 
has been taken out of Social Security, taken out of trust funds, taken 
out of pension funds, unfunded liabilities. So it is much more. We have 
just paid down a little tiny bit. But for those of us who feel it is 
important to be here, to be responsible, to not yield any further on 
spending, it is another reason to be here.
  We do have differences. There are people who would spend it all; 
there are people who have been here who have spent it all. There are 
differences in Medicare and payments for HMOs.
  I sat on the floor and heard the debate this week. One of the great 
things about being here when we do not have a full legislative agenda 
and running to hearings and all of that is one can actually listen to 
more of the debate. I thought the HMO debate was quite interesting. I 
have had folks write me and say, Mr. Mica, I want to address my 
concerns to you, and one gentleman from Winter Springs, Florida, wrote 
and said, Mr. Mica, I want to address you and the other dummies in 
Congress. I thought he had a very good point, because he was trying to 
illustrate that we are not paying attention to what is happening out 
there with HMOs. He said, you are arguing about whether I can sue my 
HMO. He said, Mr. Mica, my third HMO has gone under, out of business. I 
am concerned I do not have an HMO that I could even sue. And that is 
part of the problem, is that HMOs which were designed to give broad 
health care at low cost with a minimum package of benefits have now 
been forced to go under.
  But the debate was interesting. Some from the other side say, we are 
paying HMOs too much money. Part of the debate here also is how much in 
this final bill that we do pay HMOs. We have HMOs that are closing, 
they are closing for our seniors, they are closing in rural areas. They 
are not closing because they are making too much money. Some folks on 
the other side said, well, they are getting huge amounts of money. 
Well, part of the debate here is over whether we pay them 1 percent or 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 percent. I would venture to say that 
if someone is going under, it is not because they are making too much 
money. Some HMOs are for profit.
  We also heard accusations that executives of HMOs were getting huge 
fees, and that may be true in some cases. We also heard the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who came up and said, I hate to tell my 
colleagues, but my HMOs in Mexico are all not-for-profit, run by 
various churches, Catholic and other churches, so they are not getting 
too much money in her State. They need the funds to survive and to 
provide health care.

  Mr. Speaker, we cannot have people forced out of nursing homes. There 
have been record bankruptcies in nursing homes in this country. We 
cannot have people forced in rural areas not to have health care 
provided.
  Now, it would be nice, in one of the motions to instruct, to require 
HMOs to provide service forever and ever, but that does not happen. It 
does not happen in the real world. HMOs, whether they are not-for-
profit or for-profit, if they do not meet the bottom line, they will 
fold. So we have a responsibility to make certain that these health 
care service providers, whether it is home health assistance, which is 
so important; whether it is hospitals, nursing homes. Again, not-for-
profit or for-profit, HMOs do require our attention.
  There has been agreement on almost all the points, although I know 
there is a disagreement on the lawsuit point, but I can tell my 
colleagues that as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service for 4 
years in the Congress, I oversaw the largest health care plan in the 
country, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. It serves 4.2 
million Federal retirees and employees. I will tell my colleagues, I 
watched that program, and partly under my tenure, the President came up 
with a so-called Patients' Bill of Rights, or patients' protection 
proposal. We conducted hearings on that, and I lined the folks up and 
said, well, what is the patients' protections going to do? What medical 
benefit is there going to be to it? No one could testify to a medical 
benefit. This particular proposal did not have a lawsuit element in it. 
But each of them testified that there is no specific medical benefit.
  What we saw happen is that the President, by Executive Order, which 
he does so often, instituted that on the Federal Employees Health 
Benefit Plans. There were almost 400 to choose from before he imposed 
these new regulations and requirements and paper work and reporting on 
them, and that has dropped dramatically the last I heard, 60 or 70 had 
dropped out, because again, when we impose more regulations, more costs 
to deliver the health care, some of these marginal providers will not 
be able to perform. What was interesting too is we saw dramatic 
increases, almost double digit, when the private sector was having 4, 
5, 6 percent Federal employees, including Members of Congress have been 
getting close to double digit increases.
  So the more regulation we put on health care, the more restrictions 
we impose, and we do need some reform of HMOs. The law has not kept up 
with the delivery of service. But we have to understand, the more we 
require of them and the more paperwork and the more reporting, the more 
the cost is.
  We are going the wrong way in looking at suits. Talk to anyone in the 
medical profession today. It is no longer a question of getting 
compensation where someone has been negligent. It is almost a case now 
of extortion, where suits are being filed. They never even make it to 
court. If we do not think that adds into our health care costs, whether 
it is drugs or hospitals or any health care provider, every health care 
provider is conducting what they call defensive medicine. You go in for 
a hang nail and they are going to run 20 tests on you, because if 
something goes wrong, they are liable to be sued. But we are headed in 
the wrong direction there.
  Prescription drugs is a similar issue. I do not know if my colleagues 
have noticed the lack of some vaccines on the market. I held hearings 
on the question of some of the immunization vaccines; and immunization 
vaccines, I am told, can be produced for $1 or less per vaccination. 
But what has happened is, first of all, very few people, I think we are 
down to one or two manufacturers, who will even produce vaccines. The 
cost of the vaccine, the substance, may be $1, but the insurance on the 
vaccine and the other costs may, in fact, be $18 to $20, if we can find 
someone who will insure you, and if someone will produce it in the 
United States.
  That is why drugs are cheaper in Mexico. We do not have the 
protections, we do not have the liability, and if we talk to those 
involved in drug manufacturing even in Europe; in Europe, I asked the 
drug manufacturers when I met with them how much R&D they do, and they 
said zero, zip. We do not want to discourage R&D; we should be 
supporting R&D. By research and development, we can bring the costs 
down, and that is something we should be looking at.
  By limiting some of the exposure on these suits, we can also bring 
the costs down. If you have someone who has lost a loved one or a limb 
or someone who has been negligent, they should be properly compensated 
for that negligence, but the whole system is out of kilter; and that is 
part of the problem.
  But part of the reason we are here is to make certain that our 
nursing homes are provided adequate compensation, that they are not 
closing down, and that our HMOs are adequately compensated. We cannot 
continue to limit their reimbursement to 1 or 2 percent, when even 
inflation is higher than that rate or their cost is higher. It will not 
work. They will go out of business. We can play these games, but we 
cannot force people to provide health care if the bottom line is not 
met.

[[Page H11776]]

  So those are some of the reasons that we are here tonight. There are 
differences. I am hoping they can be settled. I do not enjoy being 
here; I would much rather be with my family.
  One of the other issues, and I am going to really talk about two 
issues here, Mr. Speaker, and I want to talk a minute about something I 
heard yesterday morning. I turned on the television and in his 
bombastic manner, Vice President Gore, he was saying he was going to 
save Social Security. I sort of broke into chuckles, having come to the 
Congress in 1993, I sort of thought, I guess yesterday was Halloween 
and here was the Vice President saying he is going to save Social 
Security. It just struck me as very humorous. Because when I came here, 
as Vice President, I never heard him ever offer a solution to Social 
Security. In fact, he is one of the people who was in the other body, 
the United States Senate in the Congress, when year after year they 
raided Social Security. We have to remember, in 1993, when he became 
Vice President of the United States, they submitted, the Clinton-Gore 
administration submitted a budget to this Congress; I came here as a 
freshman, and that budget had in it a $200 billion-plus deficit that 
they presented to us.

                              {time}  2000

  Now, that deficit alone was bad enough because that is $200 billion, 
but on top of that, they were taking all the money out of the social 
security trust fund.
  So here is the person who is now saying he is going to save it 
proposing a budget that had a $200 billion deficit, and raiding all the 
money in social security. Not only had they raided it in 1993, they 
raided it in every year I believe he served in the United States 
Congress.
  So for him yesterday on Halloween to get up and say he was going to 
save social security, and I am sorry I have to chuckle, I just could 
not keep a straight face. Here he had proposed a budget again that was 
running us further into debt, $200 billion just for that year, and on 
top of that taking the money out of the trust fund, and had done that 
year after year after year. So suddenly he has become the savior of 
social security.
  What is sad about that budget too is if we looked at that budget, and 
we have copies of the budget that was presented by the Clinton-Gore 
administration in 1993, this year in 1999 it would have projected a 
close to $200 billion deficit this year. That was with, in 1993, the 
largest tax increase passed in the history of Congress being part of 
their package and remedy.
  So they increased taxes. The deficit was running $200 billion plus, a 
$200 billion plus projected deficit, even with that tax increase they 
proposed to us. The records are there. I am not exaggerating this in 
any way.
  It does concern me that the people who raided the trust funds, and if 
it was just social security, that would not be excusable, but they took 
from the highway trust fund. They diverted money from the 
infrastructure of the country. When we fill up our tank and pay 
gasoline tax to the Federal government, now it is 18.4 cents, they were 
taking money out of the highway trust fund dedicated for infrastructure 
and spending it on other programs. They were taking money out of 
aviation trust funds.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, I was absolutely 
appalled, stunned. When I came from the private sector as a 
businessperson to take over chairing the Subcommittee on Civil Service 
and I looked at Federal employees' pension funds, there are about 38 
Federal employees' pension funds, it is absolutely incredible that 
about 33, I believe, of the 35 had zero dollars in them.
  They did the same thing to social security that they did to these 
pension funds, Federal employees' pension funds. They put in 
nonnegotiable certificates of indebtedness of the United States, paying 
the lowest possible interest rate, but there is no hard cash in all but 
a couple of these funds. The few that have some hard cash in them, it 
is a minuscule amount.
  The gentlemen that were speaking before me talked about unfunded 
liabilities for social security. If we start adding in unfunded 
liabilities for these pension funds, we are talking probably in the 
neighborhood of a $19 trillion-plus deficit. There are trillions of 
unfunded liabilities. So here again, the folks that were taking out, 
the tax and spenders were taking out of these funds money that should 
have been set aside.
  This raises a very important issue. I really admire the courage of 
our Republican nominee, George W. Bush, because it is a very tricky 
issue. Seniors become very concerned when they hear anything about 
reforming social security. Everyone knows we have a problem.
  I borrowed these charts from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), 
who comes to the floor very often and does a great job on explaining 
the problem with social security.
  But for a presidential candidate to stand up and say, we have to do 
something about this, and propose some reforms, I think is very 
significant. He is not brushing over this issue. It is an issue that 
needs addressing.
  Members can see from this chart that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith) provided, we have a short-term surplus right now if we continue 
with a good economy and all of that, and we are good stewards, we keep 
the money in the trust fund, we do not raid the trust fund. But if we 
get down here to somewhere around 2011, it begins to go south. This is 
the problem we have to face.
  Now, some of the solutions that are being proposed are not realistic. 
Governor Bush is in the private sector. I came from the private sector. 
There are only several things that one can do.
  First of all, we can either increase the contribution, the payroll 
tax for social security. We have done that. If Members have not looked 
at their paycheck lately, and the gentleman from Michigan again brings 
out a great chart, it even caught my eye, but 78 percent of the workers 
in this country pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
  This is part of the problem. We have gone from a 2 percent charge for 
social security back in 1940 to 12.4 percent, so people are paying as 
much as $9,448 in the year 2000. We cannot tax our way into making this 
solvent. It just will never keep up to get us out of this red hole.
  The other part of the problem is, and this is, again, one of the 
charts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) which I will borrow 
tonight, it just shows we have 38 workers, I believe, in 1940, or at 
the time we started social security a little bit before that, I 
believe, and in 2000 we have six, and we go down to just four here in 
2025. So we have fewer workers contributing, even paying. That makes 
the equation even worse.
  Another factor is, just like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), 
who is getting older by the hour serving in Congress, particularly in 
these long sessions, the population is growing older. We are living 
longer. People used to retire and they died earlier. Now, through 
medicine and again many health improvements, people are living longer. 
So we have fewer people contributing, we have people living longer, and 
we are starting to max out on our tax base.
  So this is the coming problem. Governor Bush has said very simply, we 
have to get, first of all, some pressure and some relief. No one wants 
to touch the benefits of anyone now. The only way we could really 
change this equation without either increasing taxes, now, there is 
another source of taxes that would be Federal taxes to put in to 
subsidize this, but again, it would be a very awesome responsibility.
  So today we have to start planning for retirees for tomorrow, young 
people. They are not going to get that, first, when we have no money. 
There was no hard money in the funds. And again, the folks who I 
chuckled about who are here to save social security were taking any 
hard money out, putting in these nonnegotiable certificates of 
indebtedness of the United States.
  What were they paying in return? They are paying on average 1.9 
percent. Even a senior citizen who does not know much about finances 
would be very reluctant to put their savings account in a bank that 
paid a 1.9 percent return.
  I know we want also security for our social security dollars, or any 
trust funds or pension funds. That is important, that they be secure. 
But even with government-backed securities, we could double and triple 
the return. Even by giving people a small option to

[[Page H11777]]

take part of their money in an account with their name on it, they 
could get a better return. There is no way we can solve this problem 
without owning up to the problem. There is no way we can solve it 
without reforming it.
  Now, no one will change any of the existing benefits. In fact, we can 
grow the benefits if there is a better return from the funds, and 
again, on only secured investments. We are not talking about penny 
stocks or investment in speculative issues, we are talking about backed 
by the security, full faith and credit of the United States of America.
  But a few dollars of these funds could turn this situation around. It 
is the only way we can turn it around. We are starting to max out again 
on what we can tax folks for.
  We have this expanding population of elderly. I read a report from 
the University of Florida, my alma mater, their school of medicine. By 
mid century, we will have 2.5 million centenarians, I believe that is 
the term, people who are 100 years old, 2.5 million.
  It also said in the article that when Willard Scott started 
announcing the birthdays, I guess it was in 1980, they got in about 400 
requests maybe in the year in 1980. Now they are coming in by the 
thousands. The population of elderly is dramatically growing.
  So we have to be honest, we have to own up. We cannot scare senior 
citizens. All Republicans have elderly relatives, parents, and many of 
them, my family has many who have relied on social security, who have 
worked hard and did not have any pensions, and rely on it. My mother 
did, and other family members. So we would not want to do anything that 
would reduce benefits or endanger the fund.
  But I am so glad to have someone who comes from the business sector 
look at this, as Governor Bush has done, and said, we have to make a 
change.
  It is interesting, if Members travel around the world to Third World 
countries or other countries who have had failed social security 
systems, they are making some of the same changes that are proposed. So 
we do not want to be behind the Third World countries, we want to push 
off the inevitable disaster that we can face here in not preparing for 
retirement security for our young people today and those who are older.
  One of the other provisions that we have had in the tax bill that the 
President vetoed, we had actually two provisions, that was to increase 
IRAs from $2,000 to $5,000. It was a good provision. It allows people 
to save money for themselves. Not everybody can save that amount of 
money.
  One of the other provisions we had in there was to allow people over 
50 to double some of their contributions, because people who are 50 are 
going to need to retire early.
  I regret that the President vetoed those measures. We thought we had 
an agreement. That is another reason why we are here, because it is 
unfortunate, but I think the President put politics in front of people. 
We cannot do that, we really cannot. I know it is sort of a last gasp 
here to focus attention on his presidency. But people, I think, have 
tired of that method of bickering, of a lack of agreement.
  We thought we had a gentleman's or a gentlewoman's agreement on some 
of these issues, and now at the last minute to cloud them, to 
politicize them, to put the political fortunes ahead of the people's 
fortunes I think is really unfortunate. I am dismayed by it. I think we 
will all be happy when this era is behind us. People do not send us 
here to bicker and fight, they send us here to solve their problems. 
This is a problem that we face, a very serious problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk tonight about something that I have 
talked about for probably some 40 or 50 special orders, something that 
is extremely important. I chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, 
Drug Policy, and Human Resources. I inherited 18 or 19 months ago from 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is now the Speaker of 
the House, the responsibility to oversee our national drug policy.
  The gentleman from Illinois during his tenure and service in this 
subcommittee's responsibility made a great attempt and some tremendous 
progress in restarting our war on drugs. Quite frankly, I have heard 
many people say that the war on drugs is a failure. I cite that the war 
on drugs basically closed down with the beginning of the Clinton-Gore 
administration in 1993.
  The Clinton-Gore administration took some very specific steps that 
got us into a situation that we are trying to bail out of right now 
with drug abuse at record numbers, with drug deaths at record levels. I 
inherited that responsibility. I take it very seriously.
  Even when I was a Member of the House in 1993 to 1995, when the 
Democrats controlled the White House, the House, and the United States 
Senate, I requested hearings on the House side. There was one oversight 
hearing in 2 years conducted.

                              {time}  2015

  It was shameful that they would dismantle a serious war on drugs that 
had been developed by the Reagan-Bush administration and had made such 
tremendous progress and declining drug use in this country, but they 
made some very serious mistakes and they have had some serious 
consequences.
  When you close down a war on drugs, you pay the price, and we are now 
paying the price. It is an expensive price. As our subcommittee learned 
in the last month, drug-induced deaths in the United States now exceed 
homicides for the first time. I believe these are the 1998 figures. I 
do not have 1999, but I think the situation that we will get from last 
year is even worse.
  More people are dying from drug overdoses and drug-related deaths 
than by homicides. It is a problem that has been swept under the table. 
A problem that has been compounded by some horrible policy decisions of 
the Clinton-Gore administration.
  This chart illustrates where we have come from, 11,700 deaths to 
16,926 deaths. I have not doctored these figures. They are provided by 
the administration. They are, in fact, a record of failure, a record of 
illegal narcotics becoming a national epidemic, a national scandal and 
very little being done.
  I do want to say that we have made an attempt as a new majority to 
try to put back together Humpty Dumpty, try to put together a serious 
war on drugs. One of the things, of course, that is lacking is a 
national leadership on the issue, which we saw under President Reagan, 
who made this an issue, which we saw under President Bush.
  They started initiatives, the source country programs, to stop drugs 
at their source, the most cost-effective way to keep the flood and tide 
of illegal narcotics coming in. If that is not a responsibility to 
protect our shores from deadly death and destruction of illegal 
narcotics, I do not know what is a Federal responsibility.
  But they dismantled those programs, slashing the international and 
source country programs by more than 50 percent, by slashing the 
interdiction programs, by taking the military out, by cutting the Coast 
Guard budget and the antinarcotics effort.
  A report that was released to me in the early part of this year by 
the General Accounting Office said that anti-drug smuggling efforts 
flights, surveillance flights, had been cut some 68 percent from 1993 
to 1999 by the administration. Maritime interdiction had been reduced 
by 62 percent, and those actions have some very serious consequences, 
and that is a tide of hard drugs, drugs that are pure and deadly, 
unlike anything we have seen in the past.
  One of the problems that we have is again the administration closing 
down the war on drugs.
  I did not say this, the Drug Czar, Barry McCaffrey, he said in 1996, 
in September of 1996, the U.S. took its eye off the drug war, and this 
is the results as of 1996. Unfortunately, the story gets even worse. 
This is what Barry McCaffrey said. Of course, this is the consequences 
of, first of all, coming in and firing everyone but 20 of the 120 folks 
in the drug czar's office. That was cutting the size of government.
  Then hiring Jocelyn Elders as the chief health officer who just said 
maybe, or comments of the President, which he was quoted as having said 
if I had it to do over again, I would inhale.
  These things have a direct effect. Young people pick this up, and we 
see the results. We also saw the results of their closing down some of 
these antinarcotics efforts.
  This is not my quote; this is the DEA official, when I was with the 
DEA just

[[Page H11778]]

a few years ago, I was spending half of my time figuring out ways to 
eliminate or downsize agency operations, while the drug cartels were 
expanding theirs. And this is Phil Jordan, a high-level DEA official. 
He said that in 1998. Again, reflecting on the closedown on the war of 
drugs, not what I am saying, what DEA officials said.
  Mr. Speaker, since this may be my last special order for some time, I 
want to make sure we get all of this in here. Again, these charts and 
information were provided, some of it, by the administration. This is 
by our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources. We know where the problem has been, where cocaine and heroin 
have been coming from, and they have been coming from South America, 
primarily Colombia and also Peru and Bolivia that we do not see on 
here, up until the Clinton administration, they were transited and 
actually the dealerships and cartels were located in Colombia, and then 
came up through Mexico into the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, to deal with this, in the Reagan administration, at 
Panama, and this is Panama here, I have this little sticker, this is 
where we headquartered our forward-operating locations, FOLs they call 
them, to go after drug traffickers, at least as far as surveillance, 
getting the information to the countries, the countries would either go 
after the traffickers, shoot them down or whatever.

  The first thing that the Clinton administration did was stop these 
flights and also sharing the information, which even the Democrats went 
crazy over. Then the next step that the administration took was to 
decertify Colombia without what they call a national interest waiver, 
that was to allow Colombia to get aid to fight narcotics.
  So they blocked aid to Colombia in a policy decision of the Clinton-
Gore administration. From 1993 to present, Colombia has become and 
almost produced absolutely no native poppies or heroin, it came from 
zero in 1993 in this chart, producing 75 percent of the heroin coming 
in to the United States, and I guess it is now world production. That 
again is through some direct policy decisions.
  Incidentally, the Panama-forward surveillance operations which were 
closed down while the administration unfortunately bungled the 
negotiations to let our antinarcotics surveillance missions continue 
there, we are now building in Aruba; Curacao; El Salvador; and Manta, 
Ecuador; and three more operating locations which will not be available 
until 2002. So we have dramatically reduced our ability to conduct 
surveillance operations.
  Again, that is why we see this flow of incredible flow of heroin 
coming in to the United States. A whole series of bungling by the 
Clinton-Gore administration, made Colombia the number one producer of 
heroin from zero when they took office, and that would not be bad 
enough, but we have had to fund a $1.3 billion emergency package after 
Barry McCaffrey declared last year that Colombia had become what he 
said was a flipping nightmere.
  We had to have an emergency package, which never got to our desk 
until February, but we did pass it, got it through here, did a 
responsible thing. I am not happy that we had to spend that much money, 
but there are consequences to policy actions that are failure, and the 
Clinton-Gore administration turned Colombia into a basket case and a 
major producer of narcotics.
  The same thing happened with cocaine, almost no cocaine was produced 
there. Interestingly enough, Mr. Hastert, the former chair of this 
subcommittee and current Speaker of the House, and I went down to Peru 
and Bolivia. We worked with President Fujimori, with President Hugo 
Banzart, and we have been able to cut almost 60 percent of the 
production of cocaine with very little money.
  The opposite is true where the Clinton-Gore administration blocked 
assistance to Colombia back in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, could not even 
get last year helicopters down there that had been appropriated by us 
to go after some of this stuff. So we turned Colombia, through, again, 
inept policy from just a transit country and minor producer into the 
major producer of cocaine coming in incredible volumes.
  Another failure of the administration is when you just say maybe or 
you have the lack of leadership or appoint a health surgeon officer who 
sends out just say maybe to our kids, this is the result. It is not a 
doubling, but a dramatic increase in the amount of kids that have used 
marijuana, students who have used marijuana in this country.
  Today I saw in the paper, statistics that have been released that, in 
fact, marijuana use among college students rose 22 percent between 1993 
and 1999, according to the study this week released by Harvard School 
of Public Health.
  There are consequences to a lack of leadership and lack of policy. 
And these are pretty specific. Now, a lot of people say marijuana is a 
soft drug. Marijuana that is coming in, it is not soft. It will damage 
young adults and adults. It is highly potent. It is not the stuff of 
the 1960s and the 1970s. And everyone who has testified before our 
subcommittee says it is a gateway drug, almost everyone who uses it 
goes on to another drug. I might correct myself, not everyone, but a 
large percentage, unfortunately, and almost all of those, and I should 
correct myself there who have used harder drugs say that they, indeed, 
have used marijuana to begin with.
  The long-term prevalence of drug use, in the Reagan- Bush 
administration, there was a 50 percent drop in drug use in the United 
States, when you have a policy and a policy that deals with the supply, 
deals with demand, deals with leadership, even going into Panama, 
remember in 1989, President Bush went in to Panama with our troops and 
took out Noriega, put his rear-end in jail in the United States for 
drug trafficking and drug money laundering, that was leadership.
  This is a successful war on drugs, a 50 percent decline.
  This is the Clinton-Gore record. A little help was on the way here 
from when we sort of restarted the efforts. So you see a slight change 
in that, hopefully that will continue. But this is what their policy 
did, a flood of drugs; and drug use dramatically increased, and you can 
look at it. This is the heroin chart, again, supplied by the 
administration, and also reputable sources, this one is from the 
University of Michigan who does a study.
  Look at the use, the prevalent use of marijuana dramatically under 
the Bush administration, you see drops leveling out here.
  And the trends in lifetime cocaine use, back in 1991, 1992, you see 
the bottom, so to speak, this is 8th grade, 10th grade and 12th grade 
in cocaine use. The administration also has the distinct record of 
having the average heroin user age drop from 25 in 1993 to 17 today.
  Again, the Clinton-Gore legacy that I do not think you will hear 
about in any of these commercials or ads.
  Now, we do require also, and as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, we do require that 
we have a specific plan. This is the plan. We are trying. This plan is 
supposed to have a goal of getting us down to a 3 percent drug use, 
instead of a 3 percent drug use, the latest reports are going from 6.4, 
6.20 to 7 percent.
  This is a performance measure that we have asked, so instead of 
heading towards this goal, we are reaching 7 percent of the population 
who are now drug users. So this is their plan. This is the results. If 
your children, you feel, are at risk, you should be very concerned 
about these trends.

                              {time}  2030

  You can look at this chart, too, and see what they did. They cut the 
interdiction funds. They cut the international source country fund. 
They put all the money into treatment, and we have just about doubled 
the money on treatment. The Republicans have even added money in 
treatment. We have added money in education. You do have to have a 
balanced approach. But when you cut interdiction in international, you 
have a surge of narcotics that you cannot keep up with. That is partly 
what we have faced.
  A lot of people say just keep putting more money in treatment. They 
said that in Baltimore. In Baltimore they have gone from just a handful 
of addicts to somewhere in one in eight in the population are now drug 
addicts in Baltimore. They sloughed off on the

[[Page H11779]]

law. They had a liberal mayor. We have put tremendous amounts of money 
into treatment. We will continue to do that for successful programs, 
but you cannot treat yourself out of the problem. This is the Baltimore 
record. Not only have they have had record numbers of homicides in that 
locale in Baltimore, they have stayed in the 300 range consistently. We 
see 1999 also 300, with some 60,000, 70,000 addicts.
  Tough enforcement locales like Rudy Giuliani in New York have cut 
dramatically the murder rate which was some 2,000 a year down to the 
mid-600s; incredible changes of a 58 percent reduction in crime. This 
man should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for what he did for one 
of the largest cities in the world. It is just incredible what he has 
done. All the seven major felony categories have had dramatic 
decreases, an overall 58 percent reduction in those major felony 
crimes. Murders, thousands of people are alive in New York because he 
had a tough zero-tolerance policy. Thousands of people are dead in 
Baltimore for a liberal policy, if you look at the record over these 
years.
  What is interesting is, Mr. Giuliani also did it with fewer incidents 
of using firearms in going after folks, fewer complaints against his 
officers; and he also increased the officers by some 20 percent. You 
can go back and look at the complaints filed against the Koch 
administration, the Dinkens administration. They were two and three 
times what they were under Mr. Giuliani. In spite of the comments of 
some of those who say to the contrary, those are the facts.
  The Washington Times outlined just a few months ago what we are 
facing now is we face heroin in record numbers, overdose deaths. Now we 
are facing Ecstasy and cocaine in tremendous proportions. 
Massachusetts, here is a headline from this week: ``Massachusetts Worst 
in Drug Use Survey; some categories highest in the United States. Half 
of the principals polled say drug use getting worse.'' Heroin in inner-
cities worse, and if we looked at the population of our most at-risk in 
this country, according to 1999 National Household Survey on Drug 
Abuse, drug use increased from 5.8 percent in 1993 to 8.2 percent in 
1998 among young African Americans.
  Our minorities are the hardest hit. You will not hear that in the 
campaign commercials. Among Hispanics from 4.4 percent in 1993, the 
beginning of the Clinton-Gore administration, to 6.1 in 1998, even 
worse I am sure in 1999. They do not want to release those figures 
before the election. But our African Americans, our Hispanics are dying 
at a disproportionate rate, jailed at a disproportionate rate, and 
victimize the people of those communities by drug abuse. It is not a 
pretty picture. It is not a legacy I would be proud of. I have done my 
best to try to bring solutions, to restart the war that was sabotaged 
by the Clinton-Gore administration.
  The next President, whoever that is, must provide the leadership. The 
Congress must put together a plan that includes education, prevention, 
interdiction, use of military, whatever resources possible. We have 
never lost this many people even in some of our battles that we are 
losing to drug deaths in this country. No family in this Nation now is 
spared from the destruction of life and well-being and happiness from 
drug abuse.
  With one final warning to my colleagues who may be listening at this 
late hour, I will just put this chart up. This does show 
methamphetamine. I talked about Ecstasy, but in closing here anyone who 
is watching this, this is a normal brain and this is a brain that we 
could put Ecstasy up here and show you the same thing, the brain scans 
that have been provided to our subcommittee. Basically, it induces a 
Parkinson's type destruction of brain tissue.
  This is what methamphetamine will do to you, Ecstasy. People think 
that these are harmless drugs and young people are dying and having 
their brains damaged, their bodies damaged by use of this. This is what 
these illegal narcotics and designer drugs will do to you today. They 
are not harmless, and that is why we have laws to control them.
  So people look at what this does to your brain. I hope Members will 
convey this to their constituents, particularly the young people who we 
are now seeing as the victims of so many of these drug tragedies 
throughout the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate your patience. I know that we have 
further business to conduct, but I am not sure if I will have another 
opportunity. I want to thank the staff who have endured my 50-some 
Special Orders. I take this very seriously, and it is a serious problem 
for the country. Again, we must address it in a bipartisan manner but 
learn in fact from the past and do a much better job to bring the most 
serious social problem our Nation has faced in a generation under 
control.

                          ____________________




		


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: