[Page: H5879]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hutto). Pursuant to House Resolution 468 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4299.
[TIME: 1031]
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with Mr. Wise, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 19, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] had been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment at any point.
Are there any further amendments to the bill?
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to tell my colleagues that there are basically two sets of amendments left. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has an amendment on counternarcotics, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and myself will have a collection of amendments on the issue of secrecy. Then that is it, and we should be able to finish this bill, hopefully, within the next hour.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which was printed in the Record.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Page 4, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. 104. REDUCTION IN COUNTERNARCOTIC AND DRUG INTERDICTION FUNDS.
The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101 for counternarcotic activities and drug interdiction, as specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations prepared to accompany the bill H.R. 4299 of the One Hundred Third Congress, are hereby reduced by $100,000,000.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify for my colleagues, the chairman of the committee said that he and the ranking Republican had a collection of amendments on secrecy. He could not tell Members exactly how many, because I think that is a secret. But it will become clear later on if Members will look very carefully. We do not want the enemy to find out how many amendments we have because who knows what that might lead to.
Mr. Chairman, what I want to do today is to discuss the urgent need for a change in the way we deal with narcotics. This Congress has spent a great deal of its time and energy concerned about crime, legitimately. It is frustrating because the major instruments in the battle against crime are not wielded from the Federal Capitol, they are State and local entities. But we are trying very hard to do our best to be helpful.
Unfortunately, I think we have in place a national policy regarding drugs which is significantly unhelpful. We have historically spent most of the money we spend dealing with drugs on a futile effort physically to keep various narcotics out of the United States. This is a very free country. We have a great deal of freedom of personal travel. We have people who are secure in their persons and in their possessions from unreasonable searches, and we have an economy that is extraordinarily open.
Given the number of people who come and go from the United States every day, given the amount of goods that are sent into the United States either in the company of individuals or shipped in, it is physically impossible for us substantially to affect the quantity of narcotics shipped into this country.
In fairness to the armed services and to the military auxiliaries and to the police and to all of the other agencies, given the freedom of the United States, if we told them that we wanted them to keep all horses out of the United States they would probably do a very good job and keep most of the horses out. Some would get smuggled in. As the entity gets smaller, particularly when it gets so valuable, it is fruitless. I do not believe that anyone has been able to point to any significant success in our efforts physically to reduce the availability of drugs in America. I want to repeat that, because I do not think there is a policy in the United States that has gotten more rhetorical support and more money and produced less. No one claims that we have made any significant dent in the flow that comes in.
What we do is divert enormous amounts of money from a strapped Government. What we should be doing is putting money into other places. I have proposed a cut of $100 million because this policy is so futile, and I would say it is not my impression that the committee thinks that this policy is very effective insofar as it reduces drugs in America. One suggestion is it may be useful because it will raise the price so people have to steal more.
Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is cut $100 million and make that available. I cannot under the rules do that here, but there are three other purposes that seem to me much worthy, local law enforcement, deficit reduction, and drug treatment and education. So I would hope we would reduce this $100 million that is being wasted on a futile effort that has been historically unsuccessful, for good reasons, because it cannot succeed, and make that money available for some combination which the House and the Senate would chose for deficit reduction, local law enforcement and drug treatment.
That is the purpose of this amendment and I hope it is adopted.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to my good friend's amendment. I would suggest that indeed there are very specific examples of success in our efforts to reduce the quantity of illegal narcotics being sent into the United States.
Madam Chairman, let me be specific. First of all, the Federal Government last year seized 110 metric tons of cocaine, which is about 14 percent of the estimated production. In addition, cooperative Latin American governments seized an additional 130 metric tons of cocaine. These seizures would not have been possible without good intelligence. Intelligence is absolutely crucial, and the last thing we need to do is to reduce our efforts at providing good intelligence aimed at interdiction. This $100 million cut would cripple our ability to interdict.
Let me go further. Total world seizures of cocaine alone last year was 265 metric tons' worth over $40 billion on the street. This lost income to both the Cali and the Medellin cartels has had a significant impact on their operations.
Beyond that, there are other examples of intelligence successes with regard to our battle against the shipment of illegal narcotics into this country. The successful hunt for Pablo Escobar was only possible with the assistance of intelligence to find his pattern of activity and identify his various hiding spots.
In Bolivia, `Meco' Dominguez was captured, and in Peru another drug lord was captured. Suppliers of the Cali cartel were arrested, and this man is now serving a life sentence.
Indeed, the last thing we need to do is to reduce these efforts, and there are many specific examples of success.
My good friend from Massachusetts says that we should spend this money, this $100 million in other ways. One of the ways he suggests we should spend it is more money into drug treatment. I wish drug treatment were successful, but the sad truth, the hard fact is that about 86 percent of all people who go into drug treatment programs end up back on drugs. There is only about a 14-percent or 15-percent success rate.
So as sad as it is, the harsh reality is that drug treatment does not work very well at all. So we should instead of taking money away from interdiction and putting it into programs that do not work very effectively, we should not be throwing up our hands in despair and in effect saying let them ship illegal narcotics into the United States.
[Page: H5880]
[TIME: 1040]
Instead we should be intensifying our efforts, because, indeed, the facts are very clear that we have been able to put a significant dent in their efforts, and for that reason, if no other reason, for that reason alone we should reject the amendment.
I urge a vote against this amendment to cripple our drug-fighting efforts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, there is an interesting statistical quirk we have just seen. The gentleman said this is a very good program because we have seized 14 percent of the drugs which were made, and denigrated drug treatment because it only helps 14 percent of the recipients. So apparently 14 percent can be either a sign of enormous success or an indication of total failure depending on which side of the argument you are on.
Mr. SHUSTER. Reclaiming my time, I would point out to the gentleman the 14-percent figure only represented what our Government alone did, and when you look at what Latin America did, it was about another 15 percent you add on top of this worldwide, so the total figure is a higher figure, but beyond the statistics even more importantly is, in my view, the U.S. position should be that we are not going to throw up our hands and simply let the narcotraffickers ship their product into this country.
We should have an effort, a war, if you will, against these narcotraffickers, and we should do it because it is effective. It is not as effective as it should be. I would like it to be more effective, but we certainly should not throw up our hands in despair.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this specific amendment.
Yet, at the same time, I think it is important for us to concede that a lot of us have been unsure about all of the dollars and where they have gone and resources we have used in the overall war on drugs, and I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said if we are going to have a war on drugs, we ought to at least declare it.
I know the total number of dollars we have spent has been questioned. Indeed, I should tell my colleague from Massachusetts that the Committee on Intelligence, the full committee, in its final hearing did question it and, indeed, we are demanding a report back from specific sectors of the Department of Defense with respect to the total allocation here.
It is not a matter of saying that we are going to rubberstamp in this legislation everything that someone has in terms of an idea about how we will utilize our funding. Nonetheless, I fought very hard not to cut the drug interdiction dollars, because I happen to represent a district through which many drugs are disseminated, and representing a district such as I do, we recognize the vast importance of providing dollars as the gentleman from Massachusetts suggests in the treatment, in education, and certainly in terms of the whole policing, because we think, many of us believe, that is a key component of it.
I should tell you Joint Task Force 6, which is also in my legislative district, certainly provides much of that kind of assistance. In fact, the El Paso intelligence community itself does well, EPIC, in providing resources, assets, and information to local law enforcement and throughout the entire United States. All 50 States now fully participate with the exchange of that kind of information.
It is not just a simple problem of saying we can only do one thing or the other. I am one of those that have always believed, like many of you, that we cannot just fight this war on drugs or this battle in only one place. It kind of reminds me of a football team, when you say, `Well, we are going to field a great football team. Oh, by the way, we are missing a guard, a tight end, a tackle. We cannot do those; we cannot afford those players. What we are going to do is just try to fight this contest with what we have and what is left.' I do not think we can do that. I think we have got to do it all across the front. I
think we have got to do it with education.
I share the concern of my colleague from Massachusetts about perhaps some of the lack of direction and funding that we have gone through, but I must say we should not give up the idea we can interdict drugs, as tough as that is, and I share his concern about the telling statistics about some of our failures. Yet, at the same time, I think were we not doing what we have done in the area of interdiction and law enforcement, the problem would be much, much greater than it is.
So I am proud of those people who have been out there on the front lines. I happen to represent a lot of them. I, for one, think a cut of this magnitude is not the appropriate thing to do. I would hope that my colleague and those who will join him in voting for this amendment would only help us and provide us with the kind of followup procedures throughout the course of this year and stay with us on this issue, because I fought some of these cuts, and sometimes in a fairly lonely battle.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman for the very thoughtful proposal. I would just say, since we are dealing with drugs and to some extent cocaine, to carry out his football analogy, maybe we need more nose guards.
The fundamental point I would make is I am glad to hear he and others on the committee intend to hold people accountable.
I remember when it was first proposed to put the military heavily into this issue, the military resisted. They did not want to do it. Frankly, I am a little suspicious that some of their enthusiasm came from the fact that back then in the early 1980's they did not need it for budgetary purposes; now they do.
I am glad to hear what the gentleman said. I just wanted to say I will be glad to work with him in establishing criteria for success as to what we think is working, and its impact should be measured by what happens in the United States. I welcome that, and I will be available to cooperate with my friends, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. COLEMAN. I will continue to urge, of course, my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts to cut our Nation's vital drug intelligence and interdiction efforts. This amendment will cripple these vital functions in the battle against the scourge of drugs.
Drugs, I might add, are related to more than one-third of the violent crime, one-half of the murders in the United States, while adding billions to our health care costs, and destroying much of our inner cities and large numbers of our youth today. Our drug war cannot afford this cut and purported savings.
Any battle against drugs, or any other enemy for that matter, requires sound intelligence to be effective. We need eyes and ears in the front lines of this war against sophisticated drug cartels which do not operate in the open, or play by anyone's rules. Intelligence provides the much needed eyes and ears to combat those drug traffickers.
Sadly, we have already seen disastrous cuts, and unbelievable bungling by this administration in our overseas interdiction, and counternarcotics intelligence efforts. We cannot stand by, and permit further erosion of our vital efforts against the international narcotics trade.
The amendment before us does just that, make no mistake about that.
The critics of our counternarcotics efforts continuously state that nothing works, the drugs pour in, and our drug problem just doesn't get any better. Those critics are wrong. We have made significant progress over the recent years.
But, let us examine the critics' arguments. I ask these critics, What would the impact be of tons of additional cocaine--for example, fiscal year 1992, 137 metric tons seized--on our city streets, schools, and to our young, if we did not get a handle on these narcotics overseas, before they reach the United States?
By the time drugs have reached the nickel and dime bags on our city streets and in our schools, we have in many ways already lost the battle. That is why our overseas coun- ternarcotics and interdiction efforts are so important.
In fiscal year 1991 the total U.S.-foreign seizures amounted to 140 metric tons of cocaine, or 14.6 percent of worldwide cocaine production. In fiscal year 1992 we seized 137 metric tons of cocaine, or 14.1 percent of the world's production. Those impressive results didn't come from random luck, but they flowed from hard intelligence work, needed to defeat the traffickers.
Actions have consequences as you can see, and to the benefit of the traffickers clearly if we were to cut our successful interdiction and counter- narcotics efforts.
We can only guess at the added costs in violent crime, health care, drug treatment, and loss of lives in American society today from more cocaine from Colombia or heroin from Burma and onto our streets, and in our schools, from this precipitous act of cutting our drug intelligence efforts.
Let us not further weaken our Nation's war against drugs by this severe cut in our counternarcotics intelligence and interdiction efforts. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment before us.
[Page: H5881]
[TIME: 1050]
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairman and my colleagues, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. My colleagues, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs recently held joint hearings on United States drug policy in the western hemisphere. I had the opportunity to attend these hearings, and I wish that many of our other colleagues could have been there. Let me say that testimony that I heard revealed a drug policy of the United States which is in total chaos. What was revealed was shocking for the Nation and also for my State of Florida.
Cocaine air trafficking is up 20 percent. The heroin supply has increased 44 percent, other illegal drugs and narcotics are not far behind.
Now, we have before us today a proposal to gut our drug enforcement intelligence capability. At this time I really cannot think of anything that could be more ill-conceived or ill-thought-out by this congress than to go forward with the proposal advocated by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
I believe that we are on the verge, quite frankly, of an onslaught of illegal narcotics unlike anything this country has ever witnessed. And I am not one to stand here and say that I have not tried to do something about this situation.
Recently this spring I asked Chairman Conyers of the House Committee on government Operations to conduct an oversight hearing on the administration's drug policy. Over 130 Members, bipartisan Members, signed that request. To date there still has not been a total oversight hearing On the U.S. policy, which continues to be a disaster.
A step today, in adopting this amendment, would be another disaster. Let us look at what has happened. On May 1 this administration suddenly reversed its practice of sharing our intelligence and radar equipment to attack the planes of narco-terrorists. With just this one small step, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, where nearly 100 percent of the world's cocaine is produced, were kicked in the face and betrayed by a reversal of U.S. policy. This was another one of these twists and turns in our disorganized U.S. drug policy. Fortunately, the administration, after this hearing, did reverse itself and has decided again to continue its past policy of sharing this intelligence information.
We see from just this one incident the importance of sharing intelligence.
Now we have before us an amendment to cut $100 million from our counter-narcotics and drug interdiction programs. My colleagues, with our international drug policy in disarray, with wholesale cutbacks in drug interdiction and enforcement mechanisms, with a genocide of young male African-Americans in this country, with mixed signals being sent to our children by this administration, with crime so closely linked to illegal drugs and narcotics--I ask is this really the time to consider a proposal like this, to cut our drug enforcement funds and our intelligence capability? I urge my colleagues today to defeat this amendment. I urge you to look at this whole drug policy, this disorganized policy, this sad message that is being sent to our country, and this bad message that would be sent by adoption of this amendment.
Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
I rise in vigorous opposition to the amendment. We have been going through now a period of time in which we are talking about the cold war ending and whether or not additional funds are necessary. We do this in defense, now we are doing it in intelligence. But what is underlying here in this particular amendment has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with a war that we are continually waging on the streets of every city of this country, every town, every rural and urban area.
No one is spared the scourge of the increase in drugs in this country. There are areas, though, that we can point to to say that we have had great success. We have had great success in our interdiction efforts. There is no question about it.
Just in my home district of south Florida, along the southeastern Atlantic coast of this country, flying out of Key West we have had a tremendous successful effort. Yet we are finding that we are having to every day get up and in some way defend what is working in this country.
Our interdiction efforts right now, we are getting $20 of drugs off the street for every dollar that we invest. The intelligence effort is a vital, a vital part of this overall network in reducing the amount of drugs that are coming here to the United States.
With this vote it is not about defense contractors, it is not about saving military hardware, military machines; what we are talking about is investing in the young people of this country.
My colleagues from Florida mentioned the young African-Americans; we are talking about the people who are mostly impacted by drugs in this country, particularly cocaine. We have found that in inner cities the youth of this country, people who are having the hardest time to get up the American economic ladder and share in the American dream, their future is being dashed and it is being dashed because of the fact that the drugs are out there. It impacts not only in the drug use but it impacts in crime, in the future ability to go forward.
Let us not give up something that is working.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
[Page: H5882]
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The problem is this: Everyone who has spoken against the amendment--and I think there are still two or three people from Florida who did not manage to get up yet--but everybody who has spoken against this amendment has talked about the amount of drugs we have seized. No one has talked about less drugs out on the streets, because there is a disconnect.
Now let me give an analogy: If we put out a lot of rain barrels, the next time it rained real hard we would collect a lot of rain. But no one would be made dry by that. We would then talk about our anti-rain policy because we collected all this rainwater. But the amount of rainwater that fell on people would not be affected.
Yes, we collect a lot of drugs, but given substitutability, given their flexibility, unfortunately I have seen no evidence that that has reduced the supply of drugs on the street.
What I am talking about is in fact trying to put money into programs that will be more effective, both law enforcement and treatment and education, than what we now do. The problem is not that we are not catching drugs out there, but that because it then comes up in another country and another country, people increase their efforts, that has not, in all this time, had a salutary impact on the situation in America.
Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Massachusetts is certainly one of the more intelligent and articulate Members of this House, but he is not using his head on this one. What the gentleman is saying is, `Let us allow more drugs to come into the country.' The gentleman from New York just a few minutes ago gave you a statistic about the amount of drugs that we are indeed taking off of the streets.
We are reducing the supply of drugs in this country by the efforts that we are undertaking here. And we are just talking about what we are taking out; what would be actually out there, grown and produced in addition to what we have taken out is anyone's guess. But we know, except for our intelligence effort that we would not only be interdicting the supply coming into the country but we would be encouraging others to produce more drugs, which would again increase the supply even more. It is unthinkable.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just think this is an interesting variation of the Joycelyn Elders school of fighting the drug scourge by defining it out of existence, turning our back on it, it will just go away.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman once again.
Madam Chairman, the gap between what the gentleman from Illinois just said and reality is very great. I know he sort of strolled in late. No one is talking about that. That really demeans the whole debate. If in fact we are going to talk seriously, as others have done, that is one thing. What the gentleman from Illinois has just said has no relation to anything. No one is talking about ignoring it, no one is talking about defining it out of existence. What I was talking about was more law enforcement----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Shaw was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chairman, the fact is that nothing in what I said remotely resembles what the gentleman from Illinois was talking about. The fact is that I was talking about more law enforcement, more education, more treatment. The problem is not ignoring drugs but how effectively to fight it.
[TIME: 1100]
I do not think that physically catching them overseas, unfortunately, has had any effect here. I think that I have not yet had anybody say to me, `Hey, we're in great shape in this city or that city, the other city because our interdiction has worked to the point that they cannot buy any drugs.' Unfortunately that does not work. But that is the rational level----
Mr. SHAW. In reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I say to the gentleman, `You're misguiding this debate. We are not talking about putting more money into police protection. We are not talking about putting more money into education.'
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am.
Mr. SHAW. The gentleman is, but that is not what the gentleman's amendment is saying. The gentleman is talking about let us cut what is working, and I think what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is talking about is there are certain things in the previous administration in the drug war that are working. Let us not try to dismantle what is working. It is out there, and it is working, and I think it is tremendously important that we continue that.
Now we can go ahead and talk about appropriating money for the different things that the gentleman is talking about, and I would support him on many of those. But let us not take it out of something that is working. It is like going into an AA meeting with a case of whiskey. One does not do that. What one does is try to reduce the supply and continue the education. That is important. But do not continue the supply and make drugs more plentiful on the streets, make drugs greater in volume at a reduced price so that more people are getting hooked and more people are getting caught up in this terrible trap.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield just for 10 seconds?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is correct. My amendment does not in itself provide more law enforcement and treatment money, but I believe in the current budget situation, if we do not make cuts somewhere, we do not have the ability to do that, and my intention would be to free up money to fight drugs in what I think is a more effective way.
Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I fail to find logic in the gentleman's argument as far as decreasing the amount of moneys that we are spending here in interdiction and in intelligence. It is vitally important we reject this amendment.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Madam Chairman, let me just say that the gentleman from Massachusetts raises an amendment which I will oppose today, but I do think that he raises some important subjects that need to be talked about.
Now first, the reasons for opposing it are, one, funding for intelligence support in counternarcotics activities is coming down radically now. The amounts recommended by the committee are $600 million less than what was authorized 4 years ago. Within the amounts recommended this year, Madam Chairman, more than $50 million is fenced until a plan for making better use of radar in the detection and monitoring mission is received, so these moneys are coming down, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] would bring them down so significantly that, I think, they would have a profound effect on interdiction.
However, saying that, I do want to say that the committee's report reflects frustration with the management of and inability to measure success in the past counterdrug strategy which was centered on detection and monitoring of cocaine shipments in the transit zones. The funds recommended now are for a new strategy which places less emphasis on the transit zones and more focus on working cooperatively with governments and nations, particularly in the Andean region which are sources to identify traffickers and disrupt their organization.
Further, significant reduction will curtail ongoing activities which support the source-nation strategy of the Clinton administration, and further significant reductions will terminate intelligence collection programs focused on heroin and the development of interagency efforts against heroin at a time when there are indications that heroin abuse is a growing problem in the United States.
So, I urge the rejection of the amendment, however, if my colleagues look in the committee report on pages 36 and 37, there is a long discussion about the inappropriate management of counternarcotics in recent years. One particular case involved counternarcotics strategy in Venezuela where, because of lack of cooperation between the DEA and the Central Intelligence Agency, large amounts of uncontrolled cocaine came into the United States, and what we found is, over the years, that there has not been the kind of management of counternarcotics programs which would prevent this kind of thing from happening, and it is very embarrassing when it happens--`60 Minutes' got hold of that particular one. But the fact of the matter is it is probably not the only one where there has been imperfect management.
The problem with counternarcotics is we are not dealing with saints or angels in terms of the relationships we have with people who are in the narcotics struggle, so I understand that we will sometimes have problems, and I also believe that the CIA has taken some response to the Venezuelan case to ensure that the DEA will have full access to operational information that is developed, and this is another example of better cooperation that is needed between the CIA, the DIA, and the FBI. But the fact of the matter is that there has been very serious management of the interagency narcotics problems, particularly in Latin America, and much improvement needs to be made.
So, Madam Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that the committee opposes this amendment, the committee does put the Central Intelligence Agency, the DEA, and the folks involved in the Defense Department on notice that we expect them to improve their management of these kinds of programs or in future years we are going to look less sympathetically on their budget request.
Finally, Madam Chairman, I would say this. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] indicates the programs do not work, and then there has been some discussion that there is a 14-percent efficiency factor in these kinds of things. Well, the fact of the matter is that the programs are needed, I believe, in order to let the cartels know that we are not going to give them carte blanche, open access, into this country. I mean the real problem, obviously, has to do with domestic usage, and interdiction probably will not stop very much when it is so profitable to bring in and sell illegal drugs into this country.
But do we just give up because we do not interdict very much of the narcotics coming in? Do we give up particularly when countries like the Colombians, and the Peruvians, and the Ecuadorians, and the Bolivians are risking life and limb to try to stop the narcotics traffickers in their countries? I say, no, we cannot give up, and, if we do give up, we open the doors even
further to the Cali cartel and the other cartels that want to bring drugs into this country. So, I think it would be a mistake to say it is not worth the effort. It is worth the effort. But I also think it is a mistake to think that the counternarcotics programs are being managed as well as they can be managed in the future.
[Page: H5883]
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Madam Chairman, if I were someone who did not know the author of the amendment better, I would say this is an irresponsible amendment, $100 million out of our efforts to interdict drugs that are coming into this country. That, in my estimation is something that is literally indefensible. As a matter of fact, it is interesting that, as far as I know, only the author of the amendment has spoken in favor of the amendment and appears to have no support on his side of the aisle or ours.
The fact is that over the last few months, Madam Chairman, the white flag of surrender has been raised on the drug war from the cutting of the drug czar's office by some 85 percent, to the cuts in the personnel at DEA and FBI, to the authorization for foreign affairs in which we made severe cuts in the efforts of international drug interdiction, and now this amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] certainly sends, I think, the wrong signal, not only to the American public, but, even more importantly perhaps, to the world at large, and particularly to the drug lords who prey on people in our country and others in selling their poisonous product.
It does not always have to be that way. As a matter of fact, when we had testimony recently from former DEA Administrator Judge Bonner, he pointed out some interesting statistics to indicate that the policy of a strong interdiction effort coupled with strong law enforcement can bring some very good results and can, in fact, show that we can cut down the use of illegal drugs. For example, from 1985 to 1992, Madam Chairman, the number of cocaine users in this country, according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, was reduced from 5.5 million in 1985 to 1.3 million in 1992. Drops in other drug use besides cocaine happened as well. On other drugs we saw half a million users in 1990, a drop down to 300,000 users in 1992. In marijuana the use is down from 20 million users in 1990 to 9 million in 1992. We also saw the destruction of the Medellin cartel. Some people said that the Medellin cartel would go on forever, and it has essentially been destroyed.
[TIME: 1110]
Why? Because we have had the courage to work with other countries to consider interdiction as part of the overall law enforcement effort.
My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, says that he wants to strike the law enforcement. Can anyone name one law enforcement agency that supports his amendment? Is there one law enforcement agency in this country that supports the Frank amendment to cut $100 million from our efforts to interdict drugs?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. Yes, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I have spoken to a number of police officials, police chiefs, who support this. I do not have the list with me, but I will get it for the gentleman. I have found a lot of people who are in the local law enforcement business who would very much prefer to have resources made available to them rather than have this. I will have the list available for the gentleman.
Mr. OXLEY. That is interesting because I have not talked to one serious law enforcement official who
does not believe that the interdiction effort is part and parcel of a strong antidrug policy in this country. No one is saying that it is the total answer, but as the chairman of the committee indicated, it is certainly part of a very important element in keeping drugs out of this country and providing the kind of support to the countries that are on the line fighting drugs.
Will the gentleman concede that if his amendment were to pass and our interdiction efforts were lessened, more drugs, not less drugs, would come into this country?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. I would, and I would say, if I may finish my answer completely, that that would make unfortunately no difference in our drug problem. And I quote from the committee's report on page 37:
Others, however, believe that progress should be measured by reductions in the amount of drugs flowing into the United States and increases in the street price of the drugs that result. If the latter is used as a measure, then the war on drugs might be considered a failure.
I would say this is the conclusion in the committee report from which the minority members expressed no dissent in this report that I have.
So the point I am making is that unfortunately the amount of drugs that is available in the street appears to be unaffected by these efforts. That is why I want to focus on efforts to deal with the problems in the street. I do not think that the interdiction would be considered a failure, and I think the committee has said that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oxley was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
[Page: H5884]
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, taking back my time, if the gentleman were to concede that there would be a 14-percent increase, if we believe the 14 percent figure, in the amount of drugs on the street, then clearly law enforcement would have an even more difficult problem if the gentleman's amendment were to pass than before.
My only point is that it makes it even more difficult because the street price would decrease and it would be easier for people to secure drugs, and we are going to have that many more people out there using illegal drugs and, by the way, committing at least half of the crime out there that we consider to be street crime.
We have a multibillion dollar crime bill that is in the conference committee, the President is trying to get us off the dime to pass it, we look at half of the crime being committed because of drugs, and then we are arguing about cutting $100 million out of interdiction efforts if the gentleman from Massachusetts were to have his way.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. Yes, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But I say that actually that $100 million is wasted because with all of this, it is not affecting drug use in this country.
And, by the way, on the argument that by substantially lowering the price we have made a big difference, if in fact it is available, raising the price so people steal more is not necessarily, it seems to me, a mark of success. I agree that the real problem here is the crime that is generated by drugs, but it is the American drug policy that exacerbates this because this does not allow us to fight crime as successfully as we should.
The point is, as the committee report says, that the interdiction efforts are not having any significant effect on drug availability in the street.
That is why I would take that money and put it into other programs, law enforcement and education and treatment, that deal better with the consequences of its being here.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I would suggest simply that if a Member were to support the Frank amendment and really conclude that interdiction has been a failure and they are willing to completely abandon our interdiction efforts, it would be a low point in the debate in this House. I am fully confident that the Frank amendment, should we have a rollcall vote, would be defeated, and I ask for its defeat.
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Frank amendment. Nothing in my mind could be more foolhardy than to cut our efforts to reduce the flow of drugs into the United States. There has been no abatement in the drug cartels efforts to thwart U.S. supply reduction programs. I recently traveled to Panama and Colombia to review our counternarcotics programs, and the intelligence we provide to host nations in Latin America to facilitate their counternarcotics operations. I learned that they rely heavily on U.S. intelligence assets to provide them early warning and assist in their interdiction programs. Our assistance is critical; yet, Mr. Frank wants to deny this assistance by reducing counter- narcotics intelligence dollars.
Intelligence is vital to interdiction successes. Without early warning intelligence, we are looking for needles in a haystack among the thousands of cars, ships, and planes coming to the United States. With intelligence we know where to concentrate resources to improve the probability of interdiction. Federal Government and Latin American cocaine seizures totaled 240 metric tons last year. This number will surely drop if we cut drug intelligence spending.
What we need in the war on drugs is not a cut in funding, but better leadership. This has been clearest in the administration's most recent self-inflicted wound. On May 1, without prior consultation with other Federal agencies or departments, the Department of Defense terminated the passage of radar tracking intelligence to the governments of Peru and Colombia. This had the immediate effect of undermining the close working relationship between these governments and the United States. Equally important, these countries had begun effective air interdiction campaigns designed to stop the shipment of raw cocaine from Peru to Colombia, which relied upon our information to make their programs work. These programs had reduced the flow of cocaine, dislocated the traffickers, and raised their operating expenses. But because of an arguable legal interpretation, DOD ceased to pass tracking data on the flights.
At no time during the discussion of this problem did a senior administration official step in to address the issue and make a decision. The problem with counternarcotics programs is not counternarcotics intelligence, it is that, too often, no one is in charge and will make policy decisions. Indeed, as Mr. Frank knows since he read the classified annex to this year's authorization bill, the committee took very specific and direct action to address shortfalls in leadership arising from the radar incident.
Because this program is classified, we must discuss the effects of the proposed cut largely in generalities without detailing how specific counternarcotics programs will be endangered. Let me assure you, however, if this amendment passes, we will see an upsurge in drugs on our streets.
Mr. HUGHES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 15 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?
Mr. COMBEST. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, let me ask, how would we divide the time? Would the time begin after the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] has finished, or before?
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I would give the gentleman from New Jersey his full 5 minutes, and I would ask that all debate on this amendment end in 20 minutes. I would take 15 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] would take 5 minutes, and I would yield time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, would we have time on this side?
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, let me amend my request. I ask unanimous consent that House debate end in 20 minutes after the gentleman from New Jersey has completed, with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] to have 10 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to have 5 minute minutes, and I would retain 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the request relates to this amendment and all amendments thereto?
Mr. GLICKMAN. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] for 5 minutes.
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
[TIME: 1120]
Mr. HUGHES. Madam Chairman, let me first of all congratulate our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for his amendment. I am not going to support it, but I think he does us a great service, because I think the gentleman is partially right about many of his observations.
I think part of the problem with intelligence gathering in the counternarcotics area is like so many other aspects of our law enforcement component in this country, and that is we have so many agencies that are involved in the activity, few of whom speak to one another, share information, and basically try to reduce the kind of waste we see in this area, intelligence gathering, and in so many other areas.
My greatest regret over the years is that the so-called drug czar has never worked very effectively. They have never attempted to, unfortunately, eliminate the overlap and the duplication that exists in almost all of our enforcement agencies.
A few years ago when we developed the new center for intelligence gathering in the intelligence community, I think we made one of the biggest mistakes, although it has not been funded and has not been staffed like originally envisioned. Because again I think we are moving in the direction of balkanization of intelligence gathering. Hey, folks, they do not talk to one another. In the some 10 years I chaired the Subcommittee on Crime, throughout all the oversight hearings, I was amazed at how little cooperation there is among agencies. I think there is a little more than we have today, but it is certainly not what it should be. And I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman from Kansas of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the oversight hearings I am informed they have conducted.
I refer you to page 37 of the committee report, where they talk about the lack of coordination, and I read from the committee report:
[Page: H5885]
The committee is concerned that coordination of counternarcotics intelligence efforts involve too many personnel spread among too many `centers.' Although the CIA created a counternarcotics center a number of years ago, it is a center in name only. For example, the CIA center only has one detailee from the Defense Intelligence Agency. There are over 200 personnel in CIA's counternarcotics center, and a lesser number working at the DIA's Counterdrug Joint Intelligence Center. In addition, there are personnel in the Department of Defense joint task force centers spread around the country and defense department personnel at the Southern Command in Panama. These intelligence community resources do not include DEA, Coast Guard, Customs, and other associated agencies. The El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC,
which is supposed to comprise most of the law enforcement agencies in the El Paso center, `or the newly established National Drug Intelligence Center.'
The fact of the matter is that we have basically balkanized the intelligence gathering in this country. Instead of attempting to bring all those resources together in El Paso, as once envisioned, where we could bring all the agencies to one location, where they would have to feed that kind of intelligence, basically collate, disseminate it, not just to our domestic intelligence agencies, but throughout the world, what we are doing is collecting all that data, and each one basically hordes that data in many instances because it is their work product. They want to work those cases. And we have contributed to that, and we continue to contribute to that.
I hope that we reach the day when we understand that we can do a far better job than we have done. There has got to be one lead agency, in my judgment, and we should have one center for collecting that data and disseminating it.
I understand why the intelligence communities come across that information, but in many instances, the CIA, for instance, has different human resources. They have to create new resources. They are, I think, because of the nature of security, themselves compartmentalized and balkanized, and I think it is an absolute mistake.
So I think while the gentleman, I think, is not doing what I would like to see us do, I think he has pointed up the fact that there is a lot of waste in this program and that we can do a far better job than we have done. And intelligence gathering should be strengthened, not weakened. We need to invest more resources in the Foreign Cooperative Program, because the more information we can collect around the world at the source, I think the more we can disseminate, and prevent it from coming to this country and other countries.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman raises an excellent point. The recent example with these ground-based radars in the Andean nations is a classic example of the kind of bureaucratic redtape that afflicts the drug war. This was at a higher level, but we ended the sharing of information overnight to countries which were fighting the drug war because of legal problems in this country, but without the kind of coordination that was necessary to effectively deal with the problem. That mistake at a high level has filtered down to much lower levels as well.
Mr. HUGHES. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would reject the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], but I think we need to get on with the business of getting our act together.
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, my problem with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, which I do understand, is that it raises the white flag on one aspect of the drug war, and that is on interdiction. We have to deal with supply as well as demand. I will concede, if there were not a demand, there would not be a supply. But there are many fronts in this war. And to just surrender on interdiction and say look, we are only stopping 14 percent of it, therefore let us give up the game and let us put the money on law enforcement and rehabilitation, frankly, and parenthetically I might add, rehabilitation has not been all that stellar an accomplishment, and for very good reasons. But I do not say give up on rehabilitation. I do not say give up on interdiction. But if we can stop this poison at its source, or in transit, before it gets distributed in this country, you will not need as much rehabilitation as evidently we do.
Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has said the interdiction has failed miserably, or there have been no significant interdictions. And we have heard the opposite in terms of statistics from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], who have talked about this.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Brief correction, since the gentleman got one of my sentences wrong: I did not say there has been no significant interdictions. I said the interdictions have had no significant effect in reducing the availability of drugs on the street.
Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, if that is the posture of the gentleman, I think it is even more illogical, because what is interdicted does not get distributed on the street. It does not get cut, it does not get sold or given away. It remains in the government warehouses for destruction.
So I just think there is a logical fallacy in what the gentleman says.
The drug war has been faltering, and the problems with it have been well illustrated by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] and others. But what is required is leadership, a seriousness on the part of government to forget the turf wars and to get on the ball, to get with it, and to get serious. This has to be done, because we are dealing with enormous amounts of money, we are dealing with murder on the installment plan for our young people and for older people who are addicted. We need to spend more money learning how to rehabilitate people. Because, frankly, once you come out of this treatment, you are thrown right back into the environment that encouraged the addiction or the incentives for the addiction, and you have not really solved a problem.
But we need all of these means of attacking this terrible scourge. But do not surrender on interdiction. Make it work better, rather than just walking away and saying we will spend the money elsewhere better. We need to spend more money in many directions, but do not surrender on interdiction.
[Page: H5886]
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank amendment.
Madam Chairman, this is not a mere across-the-board cut such as we deal with so often here in the House on appropriations bills. This is a major cut. It is a cut that the country cannot afford to make.
While we debate about spending money for intelligence activities related to the drug effort, the drug lords do not have to worry about this. They do not have to sit around with competing agencies deciding what to do or when, or where to get the money. The drug lords do not have to go to a Committee on Appropriations to get an appropriation. They do not have to go to the House of Representatives or to the Senate. They do not have to go to a President to sign a bill.
[TIME: 1130]
The leader of the cartel makes a decision and that is the way it is. That makes them a very formidable enemy and a formidable target. It is important that we maintain our ability to the best of our ability to combat those who would infest this Nation and this world with illegal drugs.
They have their own intelligence capabilities, believe me. The drug lords, the drug cartels have intelligence that in some cases is more effective than ours because they are not handcuffed with the rules and the regulations that our drug enforcement agents are.
In addition, part of intelligence is technology. We have good technology in our intelligence community, but the drug lords have good technology as well and they do not have to get somebody's permission to buy it. They buy it because they have plenty of money, the money that comes from the poor individuals who put all of the money they earn or steal into purchasing these drugs.
The drug lords do not have those handcuffs. And they do have effective intelligence operations.
We cannot afford to let down our guard. We have got to continue this war against drugs. Maybe it is not easy. Some of the targets are difficult to work with because they are not fettered by the rules and regulations that our folks are.
We have heard some complaints and criticisms today about the effectiveness of this program. Yesterday during the debate on the major part of the intelligence authorization bill, we also had complaints about the intelligence community not doing as good a job as it could.
I think we could concede that. None of us is doing as good a job as we would like or as good a job as maybe we could. But here is what has been forgotten in this whole debate, whether it deals with dollars for drug enforcement or collecting intelligence against drug cartels or whether it is against a hostile military target. The truth of the matter is, Madam Chairman, while we hear about the mistakes and we hear about a failure from time to time, the truth is, because of the nature of the intelligence business, because of the necessity for secrecy, because of the importance of having these operations clandestine in order for them to work, the general public very seldom ever hears about the successes.
I would like to say here today, Madam Chairman, and to my colleagues, there are many successes in the intelligence work against the drug cartels. There are many successes in the intelligence activities in other areas of interest to our national security. And so we should not be lulled to sleep by a few errors or a few mistakes. We should continue aggressively to correct those errors and to prevent those mistakes, but let us not overlook the real honest fact that our intelligence community has done a pretty good job. The Nation is still free.
But because of the necessity for secrecy and clandestine operations, the general public seldom hears about those successes. And I say again, there are many.
Let us defeat this Frank amendment.
Let me add a couple of more points, why I think we should defeat this amendment.
A reduction of $100 million in the NFIP and TIARA fiscal year 1995 counternarcotics budgets will prevent us from making the programmatic investments necessary to support the President's counternarcotics policy as specifically directed and laid out in the National Drug Control Strategy and Presidential Directives. Specifically, this reduction will force us to severely curtail highly successful counternarcotics interagency and regional efforts developed over the past 3 years to disrupt and dismantle major cocaine organizations which pose a threat to the United States.
This reduction will terminate essential human intelligence and technical collection programs to counter the heroin threat at a time when all indications point to an escalation of the heroin problem in the United States.
This reduction would terminate the development of interagency efforts similar to those used for cocaine to attack major heroin targets.
This reduction would eliminate effective support to the U.S. interdiction coordinator and the national interdiction command and control structure at a time when more precise intelligence is required to direct scarce interdiction assets in the transit zones.
It would severely curtail our efforts to detect and assess emerging areas of coca and poppy production in support of policy decisionmaking.
The Frank amendment would severely diminish CIA's capability to assess the destabilizing effect of narcotics trafficking organizations on the political and social structures of countries.
This reduction would prevent critical research and development efforts and the application of sophisticated technology to support counternarcotics operations and analysis.
And it would disrupt the community coordination process currently in place between various Government agencies to use available resources efficiently and achieve cost savings. For example, the counternarcotics community has established interagency working groups in Imagery, HUMINT, SIGINT, and Open Source, which coordinate collection priorities and activities, as well as the Resource Task Force, which coordinates interagency resource planning as a subcommittee of the Committee on Narcotics Intelligence Issues [CNII].
The Frank amendment would be a major retreat in our battles against the sinister drug lords and must be defeated.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want again to read from the committee report, because the question is not whether or not we have succeeded in interdicting. We have. The question is whether the fact that some percentage of drugs grown or shipped is interindicted has any significant beneficial effect within the United States.
The fact is that some of my market economy friends have lost track of the power of the market economy.
Unfortunately, in this case, market forces sometimes work whether they are legal or illegal. We get substitution. We get a powerful drive to sell something that is very profitable. The problem with interdiction is not that it does not work on its own terms but that the success of interdiction has very little, if any, physical effect within the United States. And because resources are limited, the billions we spend on interdiction prevent us from putting more money into law enforcement, treatment, and education. These are the three separate issues.
We are not simply talking about treatment. That is very important. But so is education, which does seem to have significant effects and, I believe, is more responsible for the decline in the use of drugs than anything else, certainly more than interdiction.
The committee report itself says, this is the public committee report,
There are differing views on how progress in the war on drugs ought to be measured. If you measure by physical quantities interindicted or overseas drug people arrested, it succeeds. Others believe that progress should be measured by reductions in the amount of drugs flowing into the United States and increases in the street prices of the drugs that result. If the latter is used as a measure, then the war on drugs might be considered a failure.
That is the point. If one batch is interdicted, another batch replaces it. If it is shut down in one country, this is a big world, they will grow it in Myanmar. They will grow it here; they will grow it there. The problem with interdiction is that for a free society, with the free movement of people and goods that we fortunately have and do not want to give up, it is physically impossible significantly to reduce the availability of that very small and, sadly, very valuable quantity.
Therefore, we are wasting that money. I am not talking about cutting out all the money. We cannot get into specifics. Intelligence help and cooperation with countries that want to help would still be here. But the physical emphasis on interdicting is a mistake.
When this was first offered to the Defense Department in the early 1980's, as I remember, they did not want to do it. They said, this is not for us. This is not useful.
That was at a time when they were getting all the money they needed from Congress. Now that they are in a budget crunch, the Defense Department looks more favorably on this because it helps them support some of their arguments. But it is not the way to fight drugs. It is not effective.
The problem is that given that overwhelming demand that tragically exists, we get it in here. We stop it in one country, it comes through another. We stop this shipment, another shipment comes in.
That is the problem. The problem is practicality.
The power of market forces, even though in an illegal market, overwhelm the ability of law enforcement in the freest society in the world with the greatest exchange of goods that comes in and out to stop it.
Therefore, I believe we ought to begin the process of shifting resources. We will then decide among ourselves, there is deficit reduction. There is local law enforcement. There is education and there is treatment. All four of those seem to me to be preferable to the time wasting and money wasting policy that we now have.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[Page: H5887]
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I do oppose the amendment. The President has proposed a new policy which focuses less on interdiction and more on disruption in the growing countries, the Andean region countries. I think that is an appropriate change in policy.
I think this cut would be very disruptive at a time when we are going after the regions of Colombia and Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and remaining countries.
[TIME: 1140]
I also want to note to my colleagues that we have had in the committee serious problems with the management of intelligence-sharing relationships with other intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies in the whole counter-narcotics area. We have requested that the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Brown's group, report no later than September 1 the details of the administration's supply reduction strategy. They have come up with a good strategy in generic terms. We want to see some meat on the bones of that policy.
Madam Chairman, we have asked them, No. 1, to provide how the United States will help build resolve to attack the drug problem in narcotics-producing countries and what each department and agency of the U.S. Government will contribute in terms of personnel and fiscal resources to achieve overall supply reduction goals.
No. 2, we have asked them the specific role of the U.S. Southern Command and how it will support U.S. goals and objectives.
No. 3, we have asked them for an assessment of the advisability of integrating cocaine eradication as part of a supply reduction plan.
No. 4, and most important to us, we have asked them the policy of the United States in providing intelligence support to narcotics-producing nations, particularly as it relates to providing U.S.-generated radar tracking data.
Madam Chairman, my concern is that our Government, both this administration and the past administration, has not conducted an evaluation for cost-effectiveness on the whole issue of intelligence support in the counter-narcotics effort. The new directive will help, at least on paper. We want to see the specifics. It is incumbent upon the intelligence community to implement measures of effectiveness for both national and tactical problems to do so quickly.
This would be hurt of the Frank amendment is adopted. For that reason I urge its rejection, but I do want to warn this administration and the agencies of the intelligence part of our Government, as well as the law enforcement part of our Government, that we do expect more effectiveness and better coordination in the operation of these programs.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 18, noes 406, not voting 15, as follows:
[Page: H5888]
[TIME: 1203]
Mr. BAESLER changed his vote from `aye' to `no.'
Mr. OBEY changed his vote from `no' to `aye.'
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: At the end of Title III (page 5, after line 23), add the following:
SEC. 303. DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
During the fiscal year 1995, no element of the United States Government for which funds are authorized in this Act may provide any classified information concerning or derived from the intelligence or intelligence related activities of any such element to a Member of the House of Representatives unless and until a copy of the following oath of secrecy has been signed by that Member and has been published in the Congressional Record.
`I do solemnly swear that I will not willfully directly or indirectly disclose to any unauthorized person any classified information received from any department of the Government funded in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 in the course of my duties as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, except pursuant to the Rules and Procedures of the House.'
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to abbreviate this very quickly and then yield to my distinguished friend, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But before I do, I just want to point out that this is a very simple amendment. We did it last year. It passed.
It merely requires that Members of Congress, the House of Representatives, who wish to have access to classified information, take an oath that they will not willfully and knowingly disclose classified information. It is that simple. We have been over this ground.
I am prepared to yield briefly to the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment of course requires before a House Member could attain access to classified information he would have to sign basically a secrecy oath which would be placed in the Congressional Record. The gentleman offered this last year. I amended it last year by including the Senate and the executive branch as well. The germaneness rules do not allow me to amend the gentleman's amendment.
As the gentleman knows, my amendment was accepted by the House by a vote of 262 to 171. So last year the House voted requiring parity between executive and legislative branches when it comes to mandating an oath of secrecy and publishing the fact that such an oath has been executed. I am going to go ahead and accept the gentleman's amendment this time because I will then offer a subsequent amendment which will cover the Senate and the executive branch, which I understand both the gentleman from Florida and my colleague from Texas [Mr. Combest] have no objection to.
Mr. GOSS. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. GLICKMAN. That will be a separate section in the bill. That will do what I want, which is to bring parity so that it will not only be the House, but it will be the Senate and the executive branch who are covered as well. And based on the understanding that the gentleman does not object to that amendment, I accept his amendment.
Mr. GOSS. That is my understanding.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, ranking member on the committee.
(Mr. COMBEST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida.) The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
The amendment was agreed to.
[Page: H5889]
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which was printed in the Record.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman:
At the end of title III (page 5, after line 23), add the following:
SEC. 303. DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.
During the fiscal year 1995, no element of the United States Government for which funds are authorized in this Act may provide any classified information concerning or derived for the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of such element of a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government unless and until a copy of the following oath of secrecy has been signed by the Member, or officer or employee, as the case may be, and has been published, in an appropriate manner, in the Congressional Record:
`I do solemnly swear that I will not willfully directly or indirectly disclose to any unauthorized person any classified information received from any department of the Government funded in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1995 in the course of my duties as a Member of Congress (except pursuant to the rules and procedures of the appropriate House of the Congress), or as an officer or employee in the executive branch of the Government, as the case may be.'.
As used in this section, the term `Member of Congress' means a Member of the Senate or a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the House of Representatives.
Mr. GLICKMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the same language that was adopted by the House last year to include both the Senate and the executive branch. The amendment which we just passed by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] includes the House. I see no reason why the House should take a different position on this issue than it took last year. I urge my amendment be adopted.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As was indicated, the amendment would certainly be acceptable on this side.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Torres) having assumed the chair, Mr. Peterson of Florida, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 468, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
[TIME: 1210]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 410, nays 16, not voting 8, as follows:
[Page: H5890]
[TIME: 1243]
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
END