U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

62–235 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

NEW YORK MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI: WINNING

THE WAR ON DRUGS AND CRIME

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Serial No. 106–75

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

BOB BARR, Georgia

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

ROBERT B. CHARLES, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MARGARET HEMENWAY, Professional Staff Member

AMY DAVENPORT, Clerk

CHERRI BRANSON, Minority Counsel

MICHEAL YEAGER, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 24, 1999 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Giuliani, Rudolph, mayor, city of New York .................................................. 11

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Giuliani, Rudolph, mayor, city of New York:

Charts concerning crime rates ..................................................... 13, 22, 24, 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Meeks, Hon. Gregory W., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, charts concerning crime rates ............................................... 44, 48

Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Hawaii, FBI data chart ................................................................................ 52

(1)

NEW YORK MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI:

WINNING THE WAR ON DRUGS AND CRIME

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY,

AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, John L. Mica (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mink, Gilman, Towns, Barr, Hutchinson, Ose, and Kucinich.

Also present: Representative Meeks.

Staff present: Robert B. Charles, staff director and chief counsel;

Margaret Hemenway, professional staff member; Amy Davenport,

clerk; Cherri Branson and Michael Yeager, minority counsels; Ellen

Rayner, minority chief clerk; and Courtney Cook, minority staff assistant.

Mr. MICA. I would like to call this meeting of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

to order before these witnesses. I would like to go ahead and get

started.

We have several opening statements. This is the first Washington hearing of our subcommittee. I am pleased to welcome everyone this morning as we begin our oversight and investigation of

problems relating to criminal justice, our national drug policy, and

human resources.

In just a few minutes, we will be joined by Mayor Giuliani of

New York City. I am going to start with my opening statement,

then I will yield to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink, and other

Members for opening statements so we can proceed in an expeditious fashion.

Again, good morning and welcome. Our subcommittee began its

work several weeks ago with its first hearing in my district in central Florida.

The focus of that field hearing was to review the situation relating to illegal narcotics and the epidemic of drug overdose deaths;

particularly those that have ravaged the young people in central

Florida.

Heroin of a very pure quality is destroying the lives of our young

people. In central Florida, drug overdoses well-exceed homicide

deaths. Across our Nation, heroin use among our youth has risen

2

875 percent among our teenagers from 1992 to 1998. With heroin

and illegal narcotics comes crime.

Two of the primary charges of our subcommittee are to conduct

congressional oversight relating to the problem of crime and illegal

drugs.

In my district and across the Nation, illicit drugs and criminal

acts are crippling our families, our neighborhoods, and our schools.

Our jails and prisons now hold nearly 2 million Americans.

It is estimated that between 60 and 70 percent of all those behind bars are in jail because of drug or substance-related crimes.

The cost to our society, in dollars, totals billions and the loss in

productive lives cannot be estimated.

Over 14,200 Americans, mostly young, died last year from drugrelated deaths. Drugs, crime, and death are inevitably linked.

Our subcommittee will not only conduct oversight and investigate failures of government programs, we are also interested in

reviewing successful efforts by our State and local officials in tackling crime and the problems surrounding illegal narcotics.

Certainly the New York City turn-around, led by Mayor Giuliani,

must be one of the most successful efforts achieved by any chief executive of any major American metropolitan area. Let me just, if

I could, give you a few statistics about that turn-around.

This is New York City. Total major felony crimes fell by 51 percent from calendar year 1993 to calendar year 1998, and 11 percent

in the last year, 1997 to 1998.

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 1993 to 1998, declined

by 67 percent, and by 18 percent in the last calendar year.

Total felony and misdemeanor narcotics citywide, 1993 to 1998,

went from 70,000 to 120,000. The total number of crime complaints

reported to the New York City Police Department for 11 major felonies in calendar year 1998 declined by 11 percent compared to

1997, and by 51 percent compared to 1993.

Since Mayor Giuliani took office in 1994, the most significant decrease in crime complaints is reported in murder, which declined

18 percent in the last calendar year, and by 67 percent from 1993

to 1998; astounding figures.

Calendar year 1998 marked the lowest number of murders in

New York City in 36 years. Let me give you a couple of other statistics from some of the areas affected.

In southeast Queens, major felony crime was reduced by 21 percent with 1,645 arrests and 89 search warrants executed. In Staten

Island and central Harlem, the central Harlem initiative resulted

in 2,887 drug arrests; 44 search warrants; a reduction of major felony crime in the 28th and 32nd Precincts by 20 percent.

In Staten Island, there were 552 arrests, 38 search warrants executed, and major felony crime was reduced by 12 percent. We will

hear more from the mayor on this.

New anti-drug initiatives will be phased in, in east Harlem,

southern Brooklyn, northern Queens, and central Bronx.

Total narcotics arrests increased 17 percent in 1998 compared to

calendar year 1997, and 90 percent compared to 1993.

Today, we will have a great opportunity to hear from Mayor

Rudy Giuliani as to how he achieved this incredible record in our

Nation’s largest, and probably most famous, metropolitan area.

3

The statistics in saving lives from murder is so dramatic in New

York City that it has actually helped to impact our national murder statistics. We have seen a decrease in crime in those national

statistics as a result of his efforts.

Thanks to Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s efforts, I have calculated based

on what the murder rate was before he took office that 3,500 people or more are alive today who would have otherwise been fatal

statistics.

This morning, we will hear from Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Tomorrow

morning, our subcommittee will hear from General McCaffrey who

will present to this subcommittee the national drug control strategy for the administration.

Next week, we will hear from our DEA Administrator, Tom Constantine. The week after, we are hoping to announce the date that

Mrs. Mink, our ranking member, will help put together a rather

comprehensive hearing on education, prevention, and drug treatment programs.

So, that is the schedule that our subcommittee has. Again, I welcome you this morning. I am delighted to see some of our Members

present this morning. I would like to, at this time, yield to our

ranking member, Mrs. Mink, for her opening statement.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My remarks basically are addressed to the mayor. In his absence,

I would like to extend my appreciation to the Chair of this subcommittee for his very comprehensive and energetic leadership in

engaging members of this subcommittee in a recent tour of Central

and South America where, for the first time, at least for me on this

subcommittee and in Congress, I had the opportunity to engage the

very difficult questions of source, traffic, and demand issues that

face this Nation. Mayor Giuliani of New York City undoubtedly has

the Nation’s most impressive record with reference to not only

crime control, but his overall policies with reference to drug control.

He presides over a city government that is very complex and has

always been, in its long history, a crime challenged city; probably

the most in our country. We have witnessed some very dramatic

improvements in public safety over the last two decades.

According to the data published in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, violent and property crime declined 6.7 percent in New York

City between 1996 and 1997. Crime across the United States also

dropped during this same period, but only by 3.2 percent.

New York’s success is not nearly a short-term trend. Crime

began to drop sharply and steadily beginning in 1990, during the

administration of Mayor Dinkins. It has continued a steady decline

during Mayor Giuliani’s administration.

Probably many reasons account for this. Rapid economic growth

and job creation have undoubtedly played a role, but so has his

well-publicized focus on reducing quality of life crime.

It appears to be getting results. That is really what all of us are

after. As you may know, this subcommittee has jurisdiction over

the drug control policy. We play a role in developing our strategy.

So we are particularly interested in learning lessons of success, as

well as lessons of failure that apply to national policy.

4

One positive reason evident from the New York City experience

is the importance of a strong partnership between the Federal,

State, and local governments.

Just as an example, last year Mayor Giuliani joined with Presi- dent Clinton in announcing $120 million in Federal aid grants, all

part of the COPS initiative that helped to fund 1,600 new police

officers in New York City.

Since the inception of the COPS Program, funding to New York City has totaled more than $237 million. In addition to that, New

York received millions of dollars in grant aid from the Justice Department, including funds for drug courts, the Brooklyn Treatment

Court, juvenile mentoring, local law enforcement block grants, and

many, many others.

Another positive lesson is the importance of a comprehensive approach to fighting drugs. New York City’s program focuses not only

on law enforcement in criminal justice, but also on drug treatment,

addiction, and education.

The city’s strategy recognizes, as does our national drug control

strategy, that we need a comprehensive approach if we are to begin

to defeat this drug trafficking and consumption in our country. I

welcome Mayor Giuliani and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the ranking member for her opening statement. I would like to now yield to the distinguished gentleman

from New York and our leader in international relations, Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased we will be welcoming the distinguished mayor of

America’s largest city, New York, to our hearing. It speaks well of

our new distinguished chairman of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Mica, who is starting off this subcommittee’s examination of these highly important

crime and drug issues with Mayor Giuliani as our lead witness.

Our distinguished mayor of New York has been effectively fighting these related evils, both as a U.S. Attorney in the southern district of New York, and now as mayor of the biggest city in our Nation.

The experiences of the city of New York under Mayor Giuliani

in these three important areas have a number of lessons for our

Federal Government; lessons to hear, to observe, and to pay close

attention to, and to utilize the benefits of that experience.

The mayor’s message and crime fighting success, even the big

and all-knowing Federal Government, can learn a few things from

today and improve the lives of our citizens throughout the Nation,

and especially our young people.

One of the most serious questions of the current Federal administration’s performance on its policy in fighting illegal drugs is the

over-emphasis on the demand side; especially treatment as the

cure-all.

The current Federal administration announced from its very

onset its intention of focusing more and more attention and resources on treatment and on rehabilitation of hard-core users.

It began by declaring that there was no war on drugs, which we

needed to wage. Its policy was largely based on treating the wounded by diverting the means and resources to accomplish that oneVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:20 Mar 06, 2001 Jkt 066697 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\62235 pfrm02 PsN: 62235
5

sided demand emphasis approach from other vital areas such as

interdiction and—efforts, eradication, and enforcement.

I remain concerned about this initiative from its inception. The

plan to cut back in the areas of interdiction and eradication at the

source of these drugs abroad was a clear and mistaken signal that

narcotics was no longer a top foreign policy issue for this administration.

In a 1994 visit to Washington, Mayor Giuliani spoke to the

Washington Times about the importance of placing narcotics at the

top of our U.S. foreign policy agenda. If anyone does, Mr. Giuliani

knows from direct experience as a U.S. Attorney in New York that

what is needed to effectively prosecute the international war on

narcotics and crime is certainly not just a demand approach.

He also knows as the mayor of the Nation’s largest city, the impact of illicit drugs from abroad on crime rates, on health care

costs, on safety of our streets, and the very viability of our great

cities.

Back in 1994, Mayor Giuliani said that local government may

have a bigger role to play in combating narcotics, but only the Federal Government can provide overall guidance. To do so properly,

it has to make the drug problem a matter of foreign policy.

It was sound advice then and it is still sound advice today. The

Federal administration failed to adhere to that sage advice. It let

its guard down. It cut back in source nation and interdiction efforts.

The drug policy was, and has never been, at the top of our foreign policy since then. A number of Presidents have indicated that

drug use and drug trafficking are a national security risk; a risk

that must be attended to.

The costly damage tag is already on that foreign policy failure.

Let me just use a hard drug like heroin as an example of what has

occurred. It is a particularly important drug in the New York region, as we all know, and throughout the Nation.

While the administration cut back abroad, as well as on interdiction, it mistakenly took its eye off the ball and turned its back on

source nations like Colombia.

Today, the heroin marketed in our New York region, once dominated from Asia, is now being dominated from nearby Colombia;

one of our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere.

In addition, the ever-pure, cheaper, readily available Colombian

heroin—that supply has lead to a startling 875 percent increase, an

875 percent increase, for the first time in teen heroin use; the ages

between 12 and 17.

Supply can help create and sustain an increased drug demand.

Today, Colombia heroin dominates the eastern market of our Nation. It is purer. It is cheaper and more deadly than ever.

While the administration scrambles belatedly today to provide

high performance helicopters, which I was pleased to work on, for

Colombia for the excellent anti-narcotics police for opium eradication in the Andean region.

Incidently, the police force has lost 4,000 courageous officers in

the last few years in their war against drugs. I hope that we are

not too late for the new heroin crisis, and that we can avoid costly

errors like that in the future.

6

Today’s session with Mayor Giuliani hopefully will start the

learning process with the 106th Congress; particularly for the last

3 years, the current administration. Just yesterday, at the request

of our chairman, we met with Pino Arlacchi, the director of the

United Nations Drug Agency.

He reminded us that some say we have lost the drug war. He

says the war has not yet begun. He is undertaking some major

steps in getting an intensive drug substitution, crime substitution

program that hopefully will lead to eventually eradicate those

sources of both opium and heroin in Latin America and in the

Asian area.

So Mr. Chairman, I, again, want to commend you for bringing

about this series of hearings that we are about to start today to

focus attention once again on the high priority that we wish placed

on this issue of drug trafficking and drug use on our agenda.

I look forward to working with you. Thank you for moving forward in this area.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from New York.

He has been a long-time fighter in the war against drugs and

helping us on the international scene so ably as Chair of our International Relations Committee.

I guess our witness is here. Let us defer for just a second. I

would like to welcome Mr. Giuliani. Mayor, you should have been

here a couple of minutes ago.

They were all singing your praises from both sides of the aisle.

We will provide you with a tape of some of those comments, maybe

for your future view. We are in the middle of opening statements,

Mr. Mayor. We are going to proceed now. We have just heard from

Mr. Gilman. We have heard from our ranking member, Mrs. Mink.

Now, I am delighted to yield to a gentleman who I had the privilege of serving under when he chaired so ably a subcommittee of

Congress when I was a freshman; a gentleman also from New

York, Mr. Towns. You are recognized, sir.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say, I look forward to working with you in dealing with

this very, very serious issue. I think that your timing could not be

better to get going on this very early on in the 106th Congress.

I also would like to welcome the mayor of the city of New York

who also has been on the forefront in terms of fighting this problem

as well.

We must be realistic enough to know that we cannot put everyone in jail. In a 1998 report, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse found that 80 percent of the money spent to build

and operate prisons in the United States was spent to house substance involved criminals.

We must, and I say we must, I emphasize that, actively pursue

treatment options that give people a chance to break the hold of

addiction and start new lives. The Center on Addiction estimates

that it would take $6,500 per year to treat an inmate for substance

abuse and provide vocational training.

This is a small additional amount to pay, given the average cost

of $20,000 per inmate for incarceration; incarceration without

treatment and training. It is estimated that every inmate that returns successfully to society saves $68,000 in reduced crime.

7

Therefore, it is cost-effective and efficient. We must be realistic

enough to be concerned about the effects of drug abuse on pregnant

women. I believe that each of us share the concern that the youngest victims of drug abuse may be those children who are born to

drug-addicted mothers.

I worry that a reporting requirement for fetal drug exposure may

have a significant impact on women and their children. If these reports, without additional evidence, can be used to place children in

foster care, women will forego prenatal care or the followup services they need to hold onto their children.

The compassionate response is not reporting them, but treating

them. I believe that our response to the drug issue must be realistic, cost-effective, and compassionate. I believe our mayor shares

those core values.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the mayor

of the greatest city on Earth, New York, NY.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Towns.

We do not allow any commercials on this subcommittee.

I am pleased to recognize now the vice chairman of our new subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia who needs no introduction,

Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is an honor to have you here today, Mr. Giuliani. I look forward to both hearing your testimony and hearing some of the responses. I know there will be some fairly specific and probably wide

ranging questions for you.

I have some based on some of the material that you have presented and some of what I have read in the newspapers over the

last several years about the remarkable success, under your leadership, New York City, has seen in its war not only against mindaltering drugs, but crime in general.

Of course, you understand perhaps better than anybody the

interrelationship between those two factors. Even though your testimony that you have provided us, your 8 pages here, is but a summary and is very detailed.

I really do think that it personifies what I have always considered the four C’s of an effective anti-drug policy. It represents a coordinated approach, a comprehensive approach, a consistent approach, and a constant approach. Those are indeed, as you know,

certainly from your years with the Department of Justice and as

mayor. Any successful program attacking a problem as pervasive

as mind-altering drug usage in our communities has to contain at

least those four elements.

During the work that I have been engaged in over the last few

years, Mr. Mayor, up here in the Congress, we have done a lot of

work of course not only on domestic drug policy, but international

drug policy.

I have had the opportunity to travel to both communities here in

this country, as well as those abroad. One of the great heros of the

anti-drug movement in the international arena is General Jose

Serrano, the head of the Colombian National Police [CNP].

8

He is really almost a mythical figure in Colombia, as well as the

annals of anti-drug policy because of his work over the last several

years. Chairman Gilman alluded to it before you came in here.

He also, I think, has a deep understanding of both the societal

problems, as well as the law enforcement problems of attacking

something as insidious as mind-altering drugs.

The gains that he has made, almost single handedly, in Colombia

over the last several years have inspired almost mythical loyalty

because of his tremendous honesty and integrity, the consistency of

his approach, and his deep regard for the citizens of his country

who have been plagued by tremendous drug problems over the last

several years that, in some ways, even make ours pale in comparison. Their very society has been threatened by it.

Based on your work, both as an official with our Department of

Justice, as a U.S. Attorney, and now most relevant today what you

will be speaking about in your experience as mayor.

I would place you certainly up there as one of the true heroes

of the anti-drug movement; not only for this country, but for the

world. In setting the standards that you have and achieving the results that you have, certainly not single handedly, but I mean you

have many, many thousands of tremendous men and women that

work with you I know.

In setting the tone for that and in implementing this policy in

New York, you are sending not only a signal to our citizens in this

country that indeed the job can be done and it can be won.

You are also sending a very important signal overseas. Those

who are in countries fighting the war against mind-altering drugs

and working with us are very mindful of what goes on in our country.

I know that even during my tenure as a United States Attorney

in Atlanta back in the late 1980’s and into 1990, we had a very serious problem because on the one hand we were asking Colombia

to extradite drug cartel figures up here and they saw the problems

we were having even here in our Nation’s Capital with drug usage

at the highest levels.

There was a correlation between their willingness to sacrifice

their citizens, sending them up here—when they would extradite or

talk about extraditing a cartel figure up here, they would frequently have murders, bombings, and so forth down there.

They began to wonder, several years ago, whether it was really

worth it when they saw some indications that maybe we, in this

country, were not really serious about fighting the war against

mind-altering drugs.

Largely through your efforts and through the efforts of some of

our Governors and other mayors, but most notably yourself, I think

you have turned that around. So, in setting the example that you

have in New York that we are willing to fight comprehensively

drug usage in this country and do it consistently, you are doing a

tremendous service to our international effort as well.

That then becomes the model, the example, and makes it much

easier for us to work with foreign nations because they see that we

are serious about fighting mind-altering drugs. Therefore, they are

much more willing to participate with us and take the risks that

they do in participating with us.

9

So, I salute you not only for what you are doing for our anti-drug

effort and our anti-crime problem here in this country, but also for

the example that you have set in the international arena.

I thank you and look forward to your testimony and your answers to the questions today.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note that we have

received word that last year in Cartegena, Colombia, one port city

in that Nation, the drug police, under General Serrano, seized 18

tons of cocaine; 18 tons in one seizure, nearly as much as Mexico

did in that same period throughout the entire country of Mexico.

I think when we talk about that kind of massive seizure, it gives

us an idea of what we are confronted with; 18 tons. We used to talk

about 1 gram being seized as a major effort. Now we are talking

about tons; 18 tons with a street market value of millions and millions of dollars.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

I would like to yield now to another distinguished mayor, a

former mayor, who is a colleague now from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich.

You are recognized.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to welcome Mayor Giuliani. Certainly, as a former councilman and a former mayor, I understand the day-to-day concerns

which confront city officials when drugs become a problem at a

community level.

That is where you have to attack it in order to eradicate it. I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns of local officials, such as yourself, Mayor, who have to grapple with this on a

day-to-day basis, and confront the realities of people who live in

neighborhoods who are asking, ‘‘What are you going to do about

this problem in my community? You know, we have a drug house

here. We have activity taking place on the corner. Sometimes, it is

in full view of others in the community. What can be done about

it?’’

When you get calls like that and people come to you, I know that

it motivates you, as all local officials, to try to find a way to come

up with strategies to respond.

I know that this subcommittee in reviewing the same, Mr. Chairman, is very interested in hearing from you with respect to what

kind of action will effectively reduce, not only illegal drug usage,

but more specifically, drug-related crime and drug trafficking.

These are certainly among the major problems facing this Nation

today. I have a statement that I want to submit for the record.

In closing, there are just a few things that I am hopeful that we

will be able to get into today. Unfortunately, in the scheme of

things in this Congress, we have other committee meetings we

have to go to. So, I may not be able to stay for the whole presentation, Mayor.

I do want to ask you if, at some point, you will be able to address

the role of economic growth in the reduction of crime. If we expand

our economy and more people have opportunities for employment,

is there a relationship in a reduction in crime?

10

The other thing is where we have crime rates lowering, have we

also seen a rate of recidivism declining? Are we seeing fewer firsttime arrests as well?

The third thing that I think might be of interest is that under

your administration there has been a sharp attention to so-called

quality of life offenses, such as littering, aggressive panhandling,

loitering, and other minor offenses.

I think I remember seeing in the New York Times a few weeks

ago a report that said that this has led to delays in the criminal

justice system.

I guess the question would be, that I hope you get a chance to

address, is there a way in which the rest of the criminal justice

system is adequately prepared to respond to new strategies?

Do they have to make adjustments down the road to be able to

meet the demands and requirements of an Administrator such as

yourself?

So, I appreciate you being in front of this subcommittee. I certainly wish you well.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

I am going to yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.

Hutchinson; a very skilled former prosecutor. We look forward to

your statement.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to be under your services on this subcommittee.

I want to welcome the mayor. Your praises are sung in the lands

of Arkansas. We have a great respect for the work that you have

done.

I am anxious to hear your testimony. So, I am going to yield my

time and look forward to hearing some of what you have done and

also asking further questions down the road.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. We have one additional Member at the dias. I would

like to recognize a new Member to Congress, Mr. Doug Ose from

California, who just came back with us from meeting some of the

Central and South American leaders and discussing the issue of

curbing illegal narcotics.

Mr. Ose, you are welcome and recognized.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to be here with you after spending last week on

the Mica march through Central and South America. Mr. Mayor,

I am especially appreciative of your appearance here today.

On this visit last week, we heard substantial input. I am looking

forward to yours regarding what we are doing on the domestic

front to address our drug challenges with respect to education and

treatment, law enforcement, incarceration; the entire domestic approach on which we are spending around $18 billion a year.

I begged to be on this subcommittee because of the importance

of this issue. The one day that I was able to get back to my district

over the weekend, I spent talking with people who have either been

children or who are parents asking them for input regarding our

domestic strategy.

I thought the comment earlier about treating the wounded in our

country was appropriate. We are accused or it was suggested to us

11

in South America that we were the few, the myopic, and the vociferous.

I have to tell you, there are more than just us up here who are

interested. I am myopic on this issue. I intend to be vociferous. So,

I am hopeful that you can give us some guidance here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee

of Congress. A part of our rules for the subcommittee is that we

do swear in our witnesses. So, if you would please stand, Your

Honor.

Would you raise your right hand?

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative.

It is my pleasure now to introduce the mayor to our subcommittee. It was my privilege back in the early 1980’s, almost two

decades ago, to work with Rudy Giuliani, who was then the Associate Attorney General of the United States.

In that capacity, he assisted me. I was a staffer with Senator

Hawkins of Florida and our Nation faced a wave of crime, illegal

drugs, and immigration problems that were just staggering.

I must say that there was no one in that administration at that

time who did more to bring that situation under control than

Mayor Rudy Giuliani, at that time, Associate Attorney General.

I know because he was on our side when we tackled those tough

problems. He has an incredibly distinguished record, not only as

mayor, but also as U.S. Attorney when he tackled the problems of

organized crime in a manner that is almost legendary.

So, it is with great personal pleasure that I welcome before our

subcommittee of Congress one of our first witnesses, someone who

we want to hear from. We appreciate his counsel and his—if there

are any disturbances from the audience, would you please alert the

Capitol Police. I will have anyone removed immediately.

Mr. AUDIENCE ATTENDER. Mr. Ama Dou Diallo, who was only 22

years old, a Black man, gunned down and killed.

Mr. MICA. I am sorry, sir. You are going to have to leave the subcommittee room.

Mr. Mayor, again, we are absolutely delighted that you are here.

We are anxious to hear about your record of success. We know that

sometimes with success you also get criticism.

We want to hear your commentary on how you have tackled the

problem and how you are tackling the situation with illegal narcotics and crime in the city of New York.

You are recognized, sir.

STATEMENT OF RUDOLPH GIULIANI, MAYOR, CITY OF NEW

YORK

Mr. GIULIANI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you for the opportunity to discuss what I believe, as I

believe members of this subcommittee——

Mr. MICA. Mr. Mayor, you might have to pull that up as close

as you can. Our audio system is antiquated. We are working on it.

12

Mr. GIULIANI. I appreciate the opportunity to address what I believe and I think members of this subcommittee have just expressed the same thing. The most important domestic and maybe

international problem that we face is the problem of drug abuse.

I think that unfortunately it does not often enough rise to the

level that it should in order to have the coordinated intense response that it needs, given the damage that it does to our society.

In New York City over the last 5 years, a lot of good things have

happened and there still are a lot of problems. Probably the thing

that is known most is the tremendous reduction in crime.

We went from a city that had about 2,000 murders a year, 5

years ago, 6 years ago, to a city that last year had 629 murders.

So, we have had a 70 percent reduction in murder. We have had

a 50 percent reduction in overall crime. In the poorest neighborhoods of the city, and some of the neighborhoods that were afflicted

the most by drugs, one of them Crown Heights in Brooklyn, we

have had an 80 percent decline in murder; Washington Heights in

Manhattan, which used to be a center of drug dealing, has had

about an 85 percent decline in murder; about a 70 percent decline

in crime.

[The information referred to follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. GIULIANI. New York City is now, according to the FBI, the

safest large city in America; the city with the least amount of crime

that has a population of over 1 million, which probably would have

been unheard of 5, 6, 7, 8 years ago, a decade ago, a decade and

a half ago.

There are a lot of reasons for that, and a lot of different things,

and a lot of people that have contributed to it. Things that have

to do with the communities; things that have to do with the police

department; the technology that is now employed; the broken windows theory that is used; accountability that exists within the police department.

I think I should also say, in light of the interruption before, that

one of the myths that is created in trying to rob the police department of the credit it deserves for the tremendous amount of work

that it has done to make New York City the safest large city in

America, is that despite at times tragic incidents, and at times

even criminal conduct on the part of police officers, the overwhelming majority of police officers not only conduct themselves

lawfully, but have put their lives at risk and have lost their lives

in order to achieve this degree of safety. I, unfortunately, have

been at too many of their funerals where a police officer laid down

his life in order to save somebody in New York city of whatever

race, religion, or ethnic background.

Finally, on that subject, one of the myths that is created is that

this tremendous record of crime reduction has been achieved by police officers becoming more violent. Just the opposite is the case.

Police officers in New York City, over the last 5 years, have reduced their use of guns, and weapons, and shootings by over 67

percent. So, as they have reduced crime by 50 percent, and they

have reduced murder by 70 percent, they now shoot their guns and

discharge bullets on a per capita basis 67 percent fewer times.

As compared to cities with populations of over 800,000, we exceed police officers who discharge their weapons less often than in

just about any other city in America.

So, there was an article in the Washington Post I think a few

months ago comparing Washington to New York and pointing out

that New York City police officers discharge their weapons about

4 or 5 times less often than in Washington, DC.

So, I wanted to say that so that there will not be the sense that

although people acknowledge the tremendous decline in crime and

the increase in safety, that people also understand that the police

officers in New York City, 40,000 of them, are among the most restrained in the use of their weapons of any urban police department in the country, and have become considerably more restrained as they have reduced crime.

Having said that, and even with that record of crime reduction,

I would have to say that one of the primary reasons for the major

crime reduction that we have had, and one of the primary reasons

that it may or may not continue is the whole area of drug enforcement.

We have obtained a great deal of our crime reduction by putting

a tremendous amount of emphasis on drugs, and a tremendous

amount of emphasis on dealing with the problem of drugs in a

very, very comprehensive way.

19

When I was Associate Attorney General, maybe even before that

when I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney back in the 1970’s, I used

to be in charge of narcotics enforcement. Then I had the responsibility of overseeing the Drug Enforcement Administration when

I was the Associate Attorney General in the Reagan administration.

I developed a theory in those years that I now have a chance to

put in practice as a local official; at least part of it. It seems to me

that there are five things that we should do about drugs.

There are five different areas of concentration. In none of those

areas are we doing as a Nation or as a society what we should be

doing. We are doing some of it, but we are not doing enough of it.

Drug interdiction, drug enforcement, drug policy should be a

major area of our foreign policy. It should be right at the very top.

It should be right up there with international trade, disputes between countries, border disputes, regional disputes.

It should be one of the three or four most important aspects of

the foreign policy of the United States. When you pick up a foreign

affairs magazine or a foreign policy magazine, you should read as

many articles about what should be done in engaging the countries

that are the source countries for drugs as you read about international trade, or about border disputes, or long-standing ethnic

disputes.

The reason for this is really simple. This is our most important

domestic problem. The art of foreign policy is to, over a wide stage,

try to advance the interest of your country.

It is in the interest of the United States to reduce dramatically

the amount of drug production that goes on and drug shipments

that go on all throughout the world. We should use our influence.

We should use our ability to influence other nations.

We should use our ability to give them aid and assistance. We

should use our ability to persuade. We should use requests for our

assistance as a quid pro quo for every opportunity that we can get.

This is not particularly a criticism of just this administration.

This has been an institutional problem for a long time. It has never

given the drug enforcement, drug interdiction, and drug policy the

same level of intensity as some of the other issues that face us in

the area of foreign policy.

That is something that the Federal Government and literally the

President, have to achieve. It has not been achieved.

The second thing is this has to be a source of tremendous intensity with regard to border interdiction. That, again, is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

There are three areas, however, where local governments can

play a very important role. We need help. We need help from our

States. We need help from the Federal Government. It is an area

where I have been able to focus on as a local official.

Education, treatment, and enforcement, all three, and you have

to do all three. You have to be equally committed to all three, if

you want to reduce drugs in a city, in a State, and in a country.

We have increased our educational efforts dramatically in our

schools and in our community groups.

We have police officers that now go into our schools with a tremendous amount of support from the community to teach young

20

people on a one-to-one basis, not only the dangers of using drugs,

but the life-fulfilling and life-affirming things that you can do that

buildup a resistance to the temptation of being involved in drugs.

That program, the DARE Program, has been an enormously successful program. It has not reached every child. It has not reached

every school. Over the next year to 2 years, it will.

As we are doing all of the intense things that we are doing in

law enforcement, the educational part of it, is equally as important.

We also have increased our specific program to setup what we

call drug-free zones around our schools, so that the police put extra

attention on the areas around the schools in order to remove drug

dealers from the schools and from the areas around the schools.

After a 4 year battle, I was able to persuade our Board of Education, because I do not control the school system as Congressman

Towns knows, I have two votes on the board out of seven. However,

after 4 years of persuasion, I convinced the school board to allow

the police department to take over school security.

We have 3,400 school security officers. They were not very welltrained. They were not particularly well-educated on dealing with

the dangers of drugs; even seeing the temptations and the problems that come up with drugs.

The last 4 or 5 months, they were taken over by the police department. They are now being trained. We will make every school

a drug-free school with a drug-free zone around the school.

So that even if we cannot get drug dealers out of every single

neighborhood in the city and drive them completely out of the city,

we can keep them away from our schools and maybe send a different message.

We have also put a tremendous amount of emphasis on drug

treatment. Rather than going into the details of it, which I would

be happy to supply in questions, I would like to give you the philosophy of it; something where I really need your help, the help of the

Congress, and of the administration.

We are making a mistake in the way in which we do drug treatment. New York City pays the biggest price for this. We put the

majority of our money in New York City, which is largely State and

Federal money, and is mandated to be used to keep people addicted.

A minority of our money is to involve people in drug-free programs. Because of the mandates and because of the matching Federal dollars, the State funds a drug treatment program in which

somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the people in the treatment are on methadone.

Methadone is a drug. Methadone keeps you addicted. Methadone

means that you can be addicted for 15 or 20 years. Roughly, the

percentages work out something like this. Well-over 50 percent of

the people who are in methadone go back to heroin.

So, you have accomplished nothing, but sustaining them in their

addiction. Then they go back to drugs in a fairly short period of

time. About 70 to 80 percent of the people on methadone cannot

work and do not work.

They never achieve the ability of being able to take care of themselves. Methadone, if justifiable at all, is justifiable as a transitional treatment to a drug-free program.

21

Maybe it needs to be reserved in those few very, very difficult

cases in which freedom from drugs as the end result of a treatment

program just cannot work. We have flipped it. It reminds me somewhat of what we did with welfare back in the 1960’s and the

1970’s.

We intended to help people for a short period of time. It became

generational in nature. Now what we have done is we have made

the exception the rule because it is easier and because industries

have grown up that draw in huge amounts of money for doing

methadone maintenance.

They shy away from doing the more difficult work of putting people into drug-free programs. We are trying to reverse that.

Our goal over the next 2 to 3 years is instead of 70 percent of

our treatment slots being for maintaining people interdiction, and

30 percent for drug freedom, we would like to flip it and get it to

70 percent drug freedom, and 30 percent reserved for methadone

as a transition drug, as a temporary measure.

There is a philosophical problem here at the core of the Federal

Government’s mandates and the way in which it conditions money

to the cities and the States. It has them invest much more in keeping people addicted, rather than investing in moving people toward

drug freedom.

Now, the area that I think probably is the real core of this testimony is what we have done in the area of law enforcement.

As a part of the crime reduction in the city of New York, and also

as a part of trying to make New York City as drug-free as possible,

I learned very early on when I was a U.S. Attorney, by using Federal agents to arrest people that ordinarily would have been arrested by just the local police. If you can concentrate your drug enforcement resources, in essence, block-by-block, neighborhood-byneighborhood and just arrest every drug dealer you can find and

prosecute them, then you cannot only get tremendous reductions in

drug activity—I began this way back in 1983, 1984 on the lower

east side of Manhattan by flooding the area with police and arresting drug dealers of every kind; the highest level drug dealers, the

middle level drug dealers, the people on the street.

We ended up, over a period of about 6 months on the lower east

side of Manhattan, seeing 50 and 60 percent reductions in car

thefts, burglaries, rapes, and other forms of crime. We have taken

that concept and we have refined it quite a bit.

[The information referred to follows:]

22

23

Mr. GIULIANI. We do it in cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration and sometimes with the FBI. We have essentially taken the areas of the city that had the most drug activity

and we have created for those areas what are called drug initiatives.

We take a large number of police officers and put them in groups

of five. They are called modules. Their job is very simply to wipe

out drug dealing in a community. They go block-by-block.

They work with the people in the community. They try to identify every drug dealer. They try to, over a period of 6 months to

a year, get every drug dealer arrested. Then we work with the

prosecutor’s office to get those cases prosecuted so that they are

concentrated on in the courts. We try hard to avoid parole or probation for them so they do not get back out on the streets quickly.

We have now spread that throughout the city.

[Map shown.]

Mr. GIULIANI. I have a map here that kind of demonstrates it.

One of the things that we have done, and the thing that has

brought about the crime reductions in the city is we keep moving

and increasing our commitment to it.

[The information referred to follows:]

24

25

26

27

Mr. GIULIANI. So that the goal ultimately will be a city in

which—if you look at that map—that is the city of New York. That

is the greatest city in the world, Congressman. That is the one you

mentioned before as the greatest city in the world.

If I could just stand up here for one moment, I could point it out.

The drug initiative began right here. This area, although it is only

about 19 percent of the population of the city, was producing 29

percent of the crime in the city.

This area was exporting more crime to other areas. A few years

ago, we put 1,000 additional police officers into those areas to arrest every drug dealer we could find.

The result is that this area, for the last 2 years, has just about

lead the city in crime reduction. It has now become one of the safer

areas in the city.

What we knew would happen is if we drove drug dealers out of

this part of the city, they would then increase in other parts of the

city. So, we kept the drug initiative there and then we just increased it. We then moved to other parts of the city.

Now, the areas that are colored areas, all of those areas have intense drug enforcement, drug initiative task forces. Essentially,

they are following the patterns of the drug dealers.

As we move them out of here, they move here. We move there.

We stay there. We do not move out. When we put pressure on it

here, and here, and here, and here, they move to these areas. Then

we move with them.

Essentially, it is a very, very heavy commitment of arrests. New

York City had the safest year that it has had since 1964, 1965 last

year. It had the most drug arrests in its history.

So, there are a lot of sophisticated reasons for the crime reduction; the COMSTAT Program, the Broken Windows, community

groups, and community policing. Probably equal to all of those and

maybe slightly more important are the 120,000 drug arrests that

took place last year.

If those 120,000 drug arrests did not take place last year, I do

not think there would have been an 18 percent decline in homicide

and a 12 percent decline in overall crime. We have just expanded

these drug initiative task forces to three other parts of the city of

New York.

[The information referred to follows:]

28

29

30

31

Mr. GIULIANI. It is a very, very labor-intensive effort. It is a very

dangerous effort because drug dealers, as you know, are among the

most violent and the most dangerous criminals that we deal with.

The end result is really a wonderful one. There are communities

in the city of New York that I knew very, very well when I was

a U.S. Attorney and a prosecutor, and when I ran for mayor the

first time and the second time that were overwhelmed by drugs,

where you can now go and there are no drug dealers.

Children are playing on the streets. Children are able to go to

their schools. They are growing up not living in oppression. I used

to feel that there were large segments of New York City where it

did not make much difference whether you lived in New York City

or you lived in the Soviet Union in those days because you were

just as oppressed.

Except in New York City, you were oppressed by the drug dealers who controlled your block. They told you what to do. They told

you where to go. They killed you if you turned them in to the police.

Now, those areas have, in very, very large measure, been liberated; not to perfection. We still have serious drug problems. That

is why we need your help on a Federal level with assistance for

these programs, but also with a much more intelligent and a much

more focused Federal drug policy. I do not see, right now, the philosophy or the movement in the Federal drug policy.

Of the people that we arrest, 70 to 80 percent are involved in

drugs, to this day, even with the crime declines. Maybe even more

tragic, 70 to 75 percent of the children that we have to bring into

foster care because their parents are beating them or abusing

them, and we have about 40,000 children in foster care.

So, this is a large number and a tragic number. About 70 to 80

percent, at least one of the parents or the care giver, is a drug

abuser and maybe more than one.

There is a clear correlation between the success that a child can

have and their ability to be able to work, their ability to be able

to succeed, and their ability to stay out of being involved in crime,

and their exposure to drugs, or a family that is involved in drugs.

So, I am looking forward to working with you on constructive

things that we can do. The local governments have an important

responsibility here. I believe we are taking on that responsibility

as best that we can.

The State governments do, but the Federal Government also does

in the area of foreign policy, border patrol, and in cooperation with

regard to the treatment, education, and law enforcement efforts

that are absolutely necessary.

There is absolutely no way in which anybody could exaggerate

the danger of drugs. I think the more concentration that we can

have as a Nation and how we turn around this problem, the more

successful, the healthier, and the better America we are going to

have in the next century.

The people who we will help the most are the people who are the

poorest sometimes and the most oppressed in our society because

they are the ones who are most affected by this.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giuliani follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mayor Giuliani.

I would like our staff director to give you a copy of the national

drug control strategy. I know you have not seen it. It was just

rolled out by the administration last week.

Tomorrow at 10 a.m., we will hear from the national drug czar,

the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on this

strategy.

You cited, Mayor, that you felt the Federal Government has certain responsibilities. I think one of the first and primary ones that

you alluded to is our responsibility to stop drugs at their source

and interdict drugs.

We have reviewed this strategy on a preliminary basis. Last year

the Congress put $17.9 billion in the anti-narcotics effort, drug

treatment, and all of the other programs.

This year the administration has proposed $17.8 billion; $109

million less. It is sometimes not how much money you spend or

throw at a problem, but it is how you spend it. This strategy also

would propose, over last year’s budget, reductions in interdiction,

eradication of drugs at their source and crop substitution.

How effective do you think these programs are? Should we closely visit these figures as, again, a Federal responsibility?

Mr. GIULIANI. I think it is a question of philosophy, approach,

and commitment. Then I would be able to tell you if the dollars

were sufficient. I do not see, on the part of the State Department,

the kind of commitment to persuading in some cases, and pressuring in other cases, the governments that have to be dealt with

to reduce the source of drugs in the first place.

I agree entirely with, I think it was Congressman Barr who said

this. Part of that process has to be to reduce the demand for drugs

in the United States. I mean that is our end of the bargain.

It is very, very hard to go to somebody in Colombia, or somebody

in Pakistan, or somebody anyplace and say you put your lives at

risk to reduce the drug dealing, but we are going to spend $60 billion on drugs in the United States and not do anything about it.

So, this is a very, very coordinated thing that has to be done

here. We have to show our commitment by reducing the demand

for drugs in the United States by really very, very well-focused,

very intense, and very disciplined anti-drug programs, advertising

programs, educational programs in the schools.

Public officials from the President on down speaking out about

the drugs often, and about the danger of drugs, and the alternatives to drugs. It should be a major commitment to doing it.

At the same time, we should be putting an enormous amount of

pressure on the governments that are the source countries for

drugs to take the risk that they have to take in order to do crop

substitutions; literally changing their economies.

It has got to be a major focus of our foreign policy. It cannot be

something that is a second level issue, or a third level issue, or occasionally a State Department hierarchy will get engaged in it, but

it is not the major focus of what they are doing.

As far as the financial commitment to it, it would seem to me

from the results that we have had over the last 10 or 12 years that

we need more of a commitment to it, not less. We also need to very

41

much dramatically refocus the way in which we conduct foreign

policy.

When an American ambassador, or the Secretary of State, or the

Deputy or the Assistant Secretary of State are engaging diplomats

in other countries that are source countries for drugs, this should

be at the very top of the agenda.

This should be item No. 1. What are you doing about reducing

the crops? What are you doing about cooperating with us if you are

a trans-shipment country? You want help from us. We have got to

see much better improvement on this. We should keep statistics on

it.

We should publish the statistics. We should couple our efforts

with foreign policy.

Mr. MICA. Our subcommittee is charged with putting together

Congress’ policy. We would like you to provide us with your recommendations as a local official.

Mr. GIULIANI. I will be happy to.

Mr. MICA. The other question that I had dealt with the pressure

now to legalize drugs, to provide free needles, and methadone for

those on narcotics.

You have stated that you have concerns about some of these programs that seem to keep people on drugs or addicted in some way.

There is more and more pressure for Congress and for States to liberalize our laws relating to drug use.

Could you comment about your philosophy and maybe provide us

with some direction from your experience?

Mr. GIULIANI. Well, the urge to legalize drugs, de-criminalize

drugs, I think comes out of frustration for people who are well-motivated.

It comes out of the frustration of not seeing the kind of progress

that we should be seeing on a national level in reducing the

amount of drugs, the number of drugs, the amount of money that

comes out of the drug industry.

I think it is a very, very, very dangerous debate to have because

it reduces the ability to convince young people that drugs are dangerous.

To me it is very, very perplexing. In an era in which Americans,

American opinion leaders, are much more concerned about the dangers to your health of smoking, of unclean air, and all other kinds

of environmental problems and issues, all of which is a very, very

good thing, to have people suggesting that we should de-criminalize, and by de-criminalizing you encourage. Make no mistake

about that. The law is ultimately a teacher.

What it does is it creates dividing lines for us between what is

right and wrong and the direction in which we move young people.

So, if you break down the barrier and now you say use all of the

marijuana you want, that is OK, then you are going to see significant numbers of people that you are not seeing today using marijuana.

Then you are going to see a certain percentage, not all, start

moving on to cocaine and to heroin. That is just the reality of life

in the countries that have done it. The countries that have decriminalized and legalized drugs, they have seen a significant inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:20 Mar 06, 2001 Jkt 066697 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62235 pfrm02 PsN: 62235
42

crease in the amount of drug use, not only of that drug, but of

other drugs.

I will give you one other perspective on it that comes out of my

experience of investigating and prosecuting organized crime for a

good deal of my life. There are people who argue for legalizing and

decriminalizing drugs.

They say it will take the profit out of drug dealing. It would be

the best thing you could possibly do for organized crime.

You would end up in a very short while giving them the opportunity to make even more money than they are making today, as

they have actually done in countries in which they have legalized

drugs.

They would have a black market in which they would just adjust

the price on the black market to meet the increased demand for the

additional drugs that people want.

If you were to de-criminalize drugs, and you were to allow people

to use heroin, they would not be able to get all of the heroin they

need from legal channels.

A doctor is not going to give you a prescription that says have

all of the heroin you want any time you want it, which is what a

heroin addict eventually needs.

So, the heroin addict would supply their need for heroin in the

legal marketplace. Then they would go to a black market to get the

additional amount of heroin that they want or that they want to

traffick in.

Organized crime would be able to make, by just adjusting its dollars—the price of drugs can vary dramatically as a function of supply and demand.

You would end up with a black market in drugs that would at

least be the equal to or maybe greater than organized crime’s involvement in the present availability of drugs.

It is a very, very damaging approach. We should be using our

laws to make America healthier. We should be using our laws to

move us toward a freer, more independent society as opposed to,

in essence, caving into a vast social problem, admitting that as a

government and as a society there is nothing we can do about this

except letting a lot more people destroy their lives by using drugs,

and we are just going to stand by and watch.

It should not be ignored in all of this that the people who will

pay the biggest price for this abandonment of any kind of social responsibility here will often be the most powerless, and people with

the least opportunity in our society.

Maybe it is a little bit easier to talk about this social experiment

because it does involve significant numbers of people who are

among the less powerful in society.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

I would like to yield now to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

I do want to take this time to recognize the presence of one of

our distinguished colleagues on this side of the aisle representing

the city of New York; our colleague, Mr. Meeks. I would like, Mr.

Chairman, to yield my 5 minutes to Mr. Meeks at this point.

Mr. MICA. Without objection. You are welcome to join us. Thank

you.

43

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Ranking Member Mink. Mr. Mayor, what I would like

to start out with is your initial comments that you made at the beginning of your testimony where you have indicated initially with

reference to crime rates going down under your administration.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report tells us a different story. Given

the crime index which combines violent crimes and crimes against

property in the report, the report shows a clear decline long before

your administration.

[The information referred to follows:]

44

45

Mr. MEEKS. A result of the economic boom and community policing that was actually started under Mayor Dinkins is that crime

in fact had begun to decline; not only declining in New York City,

might I add, but every major metropolitan city in this Union.

Crime has gone down, as opposed to it just being within your administration.

So, would you not agree it is fair to say that the economic climate

of this country has a lot to do with the reduction of crime?

Mr. GIULIANI. Well, I would say that the economic up-turn in

America has a lot to do with the reduction of crime. That is quite

true, but I would have to correct some of the other things that you

have said.

First of all, in the 4-years before I came into office under the

prior mayor, the city averaged 2,000 murders a year. I think it was

2,200; 2,100; 1,985; and 1,055.

Since I have been in office, we have been able to bring that number down to 629. The reductions that occurred in the last year of

the Dinkins administration, the last 2 years, were very, very small

percentage reductions.

Since I have been in office, they have been about 10 to 15 percent

per year. They have been 5 times the national average. If New

York City had a crime decline like the rest of the Nation, then New

York City’s crime decline would be about one-fifth of what it has

been.

There may be another way to look at it. For the 5 years that I

have been in office, New York City has accounted for 24 percent

of the crime decline in America. So, the crime declines in New York

City have been much more significant than in the rest of the country.

Since I have been in office, they have been much more dramatic

than the small declines in overall crime that occurred during my

predecessor’s administration. In the area of murder, under my

predecessor, New York City set records for murder that have never

been reached at any other time; 2,100; 2,200; 1,955; and 1,985.

Although the economic up-turn had something to do with this,

and would explain the baseline decline in crime, the fact that New

York City’s decline has been 4 to 5 times the rest of the country,

and the fact that New York City’s crime decline has been sustained

over a longer period of time than any other city in the country.

When I came into office, New York City was one of the more dangerous cities in America from the point of view of overall crime and

murder.

It has now gone down to city No. 160 out of 180. There are

things going on in New York that explain a good deal of the crime

decline because it is much greater than the rest of the country.

Mr. MEEKS. Yet in fact, Mr. Mayor, at least, based upon your

earlier statement in reference to the decline of the number of

shootings, the police has utilized as far as bullets are concerned.

In New York City, as you well-know, recently the shooting of Mr.

Ama Dou Diallo, and incidents with reference to Mr. Abner

Louima, Mr. Diaz; in cases of police brutality in the city of New

York, particularly in reference to the minority community, your

voice has not been as loud as it has been on other issues.

46

In fact, during the period between 1996 and 1997, over a 1-year

period, the city has had to settle 503 police misconduct cases. The

city’s law department reports that police misconduct, assault, excessive force, false arrest, and shooting by the police cost the city’s

taxpayers more than $44 million in your first 2 years as mayor. That is an astounding average of about $2 million a month for

police misconduct cases alone. There has been an increase in the

number of brutality claims. They have in fact tripled to 2,735 between June 1996 and June 1997, according to the city’s comptroller.

Also, it seems clear that most of the victims of police brutality

happen to be African American and/or Latino. They have filed 78

percent of the complaints against the police. While 67 percent of

the officers involved in this happen to be white—was released in

February 1997, found that 81 percent of blacks and 73 percent of

Hispanics believe that police brutality is a serious problem in New

York.

It seems to me that, at least from the district that I represent,

I was just told on my way over here that another young man in

my district was unarmed, was shot by the police yesterday.

I was also told by a number of African American men in my district that when they are pulled over by the police, they fear the police as much as they fear the common criminal on the street.

Now, what I will agree with you is on this—I would agree with

you that the overall number of individuals in the police department, as a former prosecutor myself, do a great job in the city of

New York.

However, they need the voice from the top, which it appears has

not been under your administration, that says we will not tolerate

police brutality and excessive force by the police department in the

city of New York.

Mr. GIULIANI. First of all, I do not think you have ever listened

to my voice. I have said over and over again, including—that was

a long question. You have got to give me a chance to answer it, if

you are being fair.

The fact is that I have over and over again said that police officers have to be respectful. We have taken action against police officers who have acted improperly. One of the cases that you mentioned, it was my administration that fired the police officer in

question, even though he had been kept on by prior administrations.

We have worked very, very hard to make this police department

more respectful and more restrained. In your selective use of statistics, you leave out the fact that incidents such as the one that you

are talking about have occurred in New York City for the last 20

to 25 years.

That police brutality and the issue of police brutality has not

been an issue just exclusively of my administration or while I have

been mayor of New York City. Then you have got to start looking

at, if you are interested in fairness rather than demagoguery, you

have to look at the number of incidents.

The number of incidents of police brutality, for example, are less

in my administration than in the administration of Ed Koch or

David Dinkins. That is something you did not mention. 1993 was

47

the last year of David Dinkins’ administration. I just happen to

have these statistics with me.

There were 62 percent more shootings by police officers per capita in the last year of David Dinkins’ administration than last year

which was my administration. In every year of my administration,

something you left out of your statement, in every single year of

my administration, the police officers have grown more restrained

in their use of firearms, even as we have added 10,000 police officers and given them automatic weapons.

I will give you the exact number. In 1993, there were 212 incidents involving police officers in intentional shootings. In 1994,

there were 167. Now, in 1998 it is down to 111. That is 2.8 shooting incidents per 1,000 officers.

[The information referred to follows:]

48

49

50

Mr. MEEKS. In 1993, David Dinkins’ last year in office, there

were 7.4 shooting incidents per 1,000 officers. That is 62 percent

less per capita. So, yes, we have problems. Yes, we have difficulties.

Yes, we have lots of things that we have to work on.

Yes, I have spoken out about it 100 times or 1,000 times. I was

at a police graduation last week. I said to the 800 police officers

that what we expect of them is restraint, almost an inhuman ability to be restrained when they have to be.

We expect respect for every single citizen of New York City. I

have increased the size of the civilian review function in the police

department. I have increased the number of inspectors and people

who are involved in that.

Finally, on the incident that you just threw out there without

any analysis, let me tell you what I know of that incident. That

was an incident in which police officers were called to a man’s

home because he was beating his wife.

He apparently broke her jaw. The wife called because she said

over 9–1–1, that this man was trying to kill her. These two police

officers went there to save her life. They did not sit back and think

about, oh, are we going to save this woman’s life who is Catholic,

Protestant, Jewish, white, or black?

Are we going to save this person’s life and some kind of political

demagogic debate that sometimes takes place in the area of politics? They put their lives at risk to go there to save her life.

He turned to them and said, ‘‘You will have to kill me.’’ They

shot him and wounded him. We had an incident in New York

City——

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Mayor—— Mr. MICA. I am sorry, Mr. Meeks. The time—— Mr. MEEKS. That is just—— Mr. GIULIANI. You have to—— Mr. MEEKS. You actually make a presumption in this case, but

yet when Mr. Diallo was shot, you do not say the same thing where

there are 41 bullets that are fired at one man.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. So, you make a presumption on one and talk early

on one instance and not on the other.

Mr. GIULIANI. I do not make presumptions and I do not make

demagogic speeches without the facts.

Mr. MEEKS. Neither do I.

Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIULIANI. The simple fact is that I do not know the facts in

the Diallo case. There were four police officers involved. There were

no witnesses. I do not know the facts. So, I will not presume the

facts.

I will not presume the facts against the victim in any way. I have

great sympathy for the victim and his family. You left out of your

statement the fact that I called the victim’s father.

I reached him in Viet-Nam. I arranged for him to get a visa. The

city offered to pay for getting him to New York City, as well as the

family. I spoke to the father; expressed my sympathy.

I told him how sorry I was about it. I am in the position where

I do not know the facts, and neither do you, of what happened in

the Diallo situation. The four police officers were involved. There

51

were no witnesses. The four police officers have exercised their

privilege against self-incrimination.

Anybody who is telling you the facts is making them up on either

side of it. We have, unfortunately, prejudiced people on both sides

who will give prejudicial viewpoints rather than speaking from the

facts.

The facts that I just gave you about the incident, if it is in your

district, come from four discussions with the police commissioner,

from several witnesses to the incident, including the police officer’s

partner, the woman whose jaw was broken by the man who was

shot, and I believe the man’s mother.

They were witnesses to the incident. In the other incident, we do

not have any witnesses. I would be happy to give you the facts, if

I had them.

Mr. MICA. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask consent to insert at this

point in the record, FBI data and a chart?

Mr. MICA. Without objection; so ordered.

They will be made a part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

52

53

Mr. MICA. I do want to thank the gentleman for coming. Also,

I try to give a free opportunity for folks to enter their questions.

Mr. Towns, when he was chairman, always allowed me that courtesy when I served under him. Other Members are always welcome. I think that is a part of our process here, to keep it open.

Sir, I would welcome you submitting questions to the mayor as

our witness, written questions. I will leave the record open for 2

weeks for additional commentary.

Mrs. MINK. For me too?

Mr. MICA. You are in the deal.

I cannot do anything without my ranking member. She has done

a great job.

Mrs. MINK. I have so many questions.

Mr. MICA. If we have another round, you will be welcome. We

will also leave the record open. I do want to be fair to all Members.

Mr. Barr has waited patiently.

So, I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Georgia,

Mr. Barr, our vice chairman.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think your record, which I am very familiar with, Mr. Mayor,

speaks for itself. It speaks for our country and for the very best of

our effort to fight mind-altering drugs. Let me ask you, some of you

did not touch on it.

It may be that you all do not have this problem in New York.

I suspect you do to some extent. We have it in communities in my

district where I live in Smyrna, GA; perhaps not to the same degree, but certainly it is a serious problem.

That is with illegals; illegal aliens coming into our communities.

Some of the problems that our local law enforcement are facing I

know are the same sorts of things that you grappled with when you

were at the Department of Justice and likely as U.S. Attorney.

That is what do we do? How do we address the problem of the

illegal aliens being detained on drug charges? We are seeing some

particular problems with INS, the Immigration and Naturalization

Service.

Just recently, Commissioner Meisner has indicated an intent to

start releasing felon offenders from detention, including drug traffickers and other criminals.

This comes at a time when we in the Congress and the President

by signing the appropriating and authorizing legislation have

greatly increased the amount of money going to INS.

Specifically, to assist them in working with local law enforcement

and State law enforcement to keep the illegals detained so that

they are not released back into the community.

Is this a problem that you are seeing in your jurisdiction? Is this

helping or hindering your ability to fight the drug problem in New

York City?

Mr. GIULIANI. The failure of the Immigration and Naturalization

Service to timely deport people convicted of drug dealing, even

though if they finished their sentences, is a very damaging thing

in the city of New York.

On a comparative basis, I do not know if it would be as damaging to New York as it is to Los Angeles or Miami where there

54

might be a higher level of it. It certainly is something that creates

additional difficulties for the police.

The number of deportations that take place in the city is just a

very, very small percentage of the number of people that could be

deported who have actually been convicted of felonies.

So, we have the problem of not only finding the people who are

doing it and incarcerating them, but when they finish their sentences then they are returned to society. They are not all deported.

So, they remain in the city of New York. As unfortunately is the

case, because of the recidivism rates, particularly in the area of

drug crime, are pretty high, they go back to selling drugs again.

Now, I have to say that the INS over the last 2 years, with some

urging and some cooperation that we have given them, have increased the number of deportations.

It is something that they are trying to do something about.

Frankly, they do not have the resources and the funding to do the

number that they should. I am sorry. I do not have the exact numbers. I will get them for you.

If they deport 20 percent of the number that could be deported

who have not—not just accused of selling drugs, but are convicted

of it, that would be a lot. So, it is probably about 80 percent that

are returned to society. I will get you the exact numbers.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. I would appreciate that because I would

like to compare it to some of the problems we are seeing in some

of the communities in my jurisdiction.

One thing that impresses me about your approach is not just

that you have a very sound, a very, very strong handle on the big

picture, but you understand some of the nuts and bolts.

Frankly, I am amazed. I do not know how you do it. Either you

are a rocket scientist or you have a tremendous staff that works

with you to be able to put together this sort of—— Mr. GIULIANI. I am no rocket scientist. So, it has got to be the

staff.

Mr. BARR. There would probably be some folks that would disagree with that. Even in your summary remarks here, one thing

that impressed me was your recognition that before you go into an

area, you have the chart up here.

I know in your comments you also talked about your targeting

of model blocks and your drug initiative areas. You do not just sort

of go into an area willy-nilly and sort of catcher’s catch can.

Apparently, what you have done is to look very carefully at each

individual area, develop the data and the information that you can

then analyze before you target your resources. I think that is perhaps one reason why you are seeing such tremendous results.

Could you comment briefly on how you have been able to do that

and if there are any particular pointers that you can give us? How

can we replicate that under other communities? Also, if you are familiar with one program in the Atlanta area we are working with

Justice on, the PACT Program, Pulling America’s Communities Together, and some of the grant money that has been available

through that to do on a smaller scale?

I think some of what you are doing here, stressing the need to

develop computer software, data collection, and analysis techniques

so that we can better target. Could you give us some pointers on

55

how you have been able to do that and the importance of coordinating that effort among different jurisdictions?

Mr. GIULIANI. Probably the thing that I could say most relevant

to that is to describe very briefly the COMSTAT Program. The

COMSTAT Program is a program that the police department started 5 years ago.

It won the award last year from the Kennedy School as the most

innovative program in government. It is an information gathering

computer program of massive proportions.

I guess to simplify it, what it does is every single day statistics

are gathered from the 77 police precincts of the city on every conceivable kind of crime. Statistics are gathered on civilian complaints. Statistics are gathered on complaints by the community

about the conduct of the police and about corruption that might be

charged against police officers. So, it is a complete management

tool.

It is reviewed on a weekly basis by the leadership of the police

department and on a weekly basis by me. Then the police commanders are brought in on a regular basis in a room that looks like

the room at the Pentagon with big maps of the city and maps of

their community.

What they try to do is to focus on where the crime problems are

emerging and how they should move around their resources. Police

commanders are expected to have a strategy for how they deal with

it.

They are also expected to have a strategy for how they deal with

some of the problems that might arise in policing, including civilian

complaints. Ultimately, what that allows you to do is to manage

your police department to reduce crime, instead of manage your police department just to arrest people.

So, if during those meetings which take place twice a week, every

day of the year, so they are on a rotating basis. A police commander would be back there four or five times a year. Basically,

you can look at an area of the city.

We have a map up there. Let us say this is what would happen

at the COMSTAT meeting. They would notice that there was all of

a sudden an increase of car thefts in this area. There were 20 percent more car thefts going on for 2 months in this area in the

Bronx. The COMSTAT process would review that. The police commanders would be expected to add additional police officers to focus

on that and reduce that problem before it became a long-term problem.

Suppose we have gang violence in the lower part of Manhattan

or in areas of Brooklyn or Queens, the same thing. We expect them

to address that immediately. So, that is the core of the program.

When you have these meetings for a year, 2 years, or 3 years,

that is why I could say to you before that when we did the first

drug initiative, we did it in the part of the city that had something

like 19 percent of the population, but 29 percent of the crime.

That part of the city was exporting more crimes to other parts

of the city. In other words, we were picking up people who came

from that area who were committing crimes in other parts of

Brooklyn, committing crimes in Manhattan, committing crimes in

the Bronx.

56

So, it made sense to do the first drug initiative there. Having

done it there, we ended up with double the overall rate of crime

decline in that area of the city than in the city in general.

Since then, we have moved out to 11 other areas of the city of

New York. It is a very, very information, data-intense computer

program. I would invite you, the subcommittee members, if you

would like to come to a meeting. The Vice President has been

there. A number of other public officials have been there.

It is an excellent program. It can be replicated with a lot of

changes, depending on policing, the interrelationship between police, and problems in different communities. It can be replicated

anywhere.

It is being replicated now in a number of communities in the

United States and overseas. I would invite you to come and see it.

I really cannot do it justice in just describing it generally.

You have to sit through the 1 hour, 11⁄2 hour program. Immediately, you will see what the concept is and why it works.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Towns, you are recognized.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by a question I think was asked by our chairman.

I did not quite get the answer. If you answered it, I probably

missed it. So, I will not say you did not answer it.

I did not get the answer. I think the chairman asked your position on the Needle Exchange Program. I did not hear your answer.

Mr. GIULIANI. My position on the Needle Exchange Program is

that we have it in the city of New York. It is done under State law,

State authorization with Federal funding. I honestly do not know

if it works.

It concerns me greatly. It concerns me because I understand the

purpose of it. The purpose of it is to avoid the spread of HIV–AIDS

and try and reduce that method of spreading that terrible disease.

On the other hand, it concerns me because what we should be

about is convincing people not to use drugs, not facilitating them

in the use of drugs.

I have to say that in the areas that have the clinics, although

people anticipated this, including me, that it might have an impact

on higher levels of crime, there are lower levels of crime now than

when the clinics began, and significantly lower levels of crime.

Now, whether that is in any way a reflection of the clinics or it

is a reflection of the overall reduction in crime that is going on, I

cannot tell you. From a practical point of view, I understand the

need for them.

From a philosophical point of view, they continue to concern me

because I worry about underscoring or helping people use drugs

and not trying to deal with those people by trying to get them into

drug-free programs. Ultimately, there is nothing the city can do

about it.

It is authorized. All of those programs are permitted by and licensed by the State Board of Health. They have Federal funding

for them. I cannot tell you that they have caused any significant

problems.

57

The people in the communities that have them do not like them.

They worry about them, but there is no additional—I knew I would

be asked the question. I tried to get all of the statistics out on

crime in those areas. Crime has gone down in the areas in which

the clinics are located. That could be for different reasons.

Mr. TOWNS. In the other part, from the health standpoint in

terms of hepatitis, and in terms of AIDS in particular.

Mr. GIULIANI. I think there is no question that depending on the

report that you read, and I have read maybe six or seven different

reports, five or six that say they are very useful and very helpful

in the sense of the health-related things that you are talking about.

I get one or two that say they are exaggerated in that direction.

In any event, I think from that point of view, yes. It probably is

helpful in reducing the spread of diseases.

There is a different concern that I have which is I am uncomfortable with the idea of the State being involved in giving you a hypodermic needle to facilitate your remaining dependent on heroin. I

would rather see those programs put at least some emphasis on

trying to move the people who want to utilize the program into

drug-free treatment programs so we can give them a chance to lead

a decent life and a life free of drugs.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you.

You know, I think that you have sort of moved to my next question. I think that is a real problem with our treatment in terms of

our approach to dealing with the drug problem. I think it is really

not coordinated.

I think that is the problem. I will give an example, when you

talk about opening a drug treatment facility of any type in any

community, I mean of course the community is up in arms.

I understand that and rightfully so because of problems around

it. I think that what we have created we can deal with it. Most

clinics in every hospital close at 4 p.m.; almost every clinic. At 4

p.m., it closes down.

Why not at 5 p.m., it opens up to treat addicts, even in the Methadone Program, whatever it is? You can have all of the support systems there in terms of the backup of the hospital.

You can have the police, the guards, everybody is there. The

lights are already on. The telephones are already in there. So, all

of this is there. So, you cut down on the tremendous amount of cost

because you do not have to go out there and build a facility. You

do not have to go out there and fight with a community to be able

to get them to accept the facility, and you waste all of the money,

the time, and the energy in that.

Even in the Needle Exchange Program, they could work toward

counseling patients to come off of whatever they are on and to encourage them to go into a certain type of program based on the assessment of that person.

I think that we need to be concerned about the type of program

that a person goes on. I think some people would fit better in one

type of program than they will another. So, I think the coordination of it has not been there.

The other part is that an idle mind is the devil’s workshop. If you

have a person that comes off of drugs, and he or she cannot get

58

a job, then I think it enhances their chances of going back on whatever they were on.

So, I think that if we have a hospital or other facilities that are

working along with this particular program, then I think they

could move them into jobs, do all kinds of things to be able to help

them to stay away from drugs.

I just do not feel that it is coordinated. I mean from the moment

a person goes to be detoxified as to what happens to them in terms

of the next steps. So, even the Methadone Program, I do not think

the coordination is there because of the fact that if a person is on

methadone, who is working with them to move them to the next

step?

So, I just think that the coordination—I think we are spending

a lot of money. I think that the money is being wasted. If we have

a facility that we can use after 4 p.m., why go build one?

Mr. GIULIANI. Mr. Towns, I agree with you completely. I think

that there is a lack of coordination. There is a lack of specific purpose. There is a lack of really having thought through how can you

really help somebody?

Then unfortunately, in many of these areas these things become

businesses. There is a methadone business. You make a lot of

money for doing this. You get lots of Federal matching money.

Therefore, the more people that you can be giving the drug to as

quickly as you can give it to them, the more money you are going

to make. You will even see hospitals that have clinics.

They have already projected how much money they are going to

make on their clinic based on Federal and State matching dollars.

So, what I would like to see happen and what I am trying to do,

and I am trying to get the State to turn drug treatment from the

State over to the city, is to put the maximum amount of emphasis,

not every dollar, but reverse the percentages on putting people in

drug-free treatment programs where people work as a part of the

drug therapy.

Good programs require work as a part of the drug therapy. They

require that as soon as the person is detoxified, and as soon as the

person is stabilized, then they should have a job. They should be

working.

Their drug treatment should be coordinated with their being a

part of the work force and developing a work discipline. If you can

do both, get them off drugs and develop a work ethic and a work

discipline in the person, we are going to give them the best defense

to leading a drug-free life.

That is what we are trying to do. The obstacles in terms of State

and Federal mandates, all of the money moves. The money basically moves toward the quickest, easiest form of drug treatment

that can bring in the most dollars, as opposed to understanding the

drug treatment.

It is very difficult. It is very intense. It requires asking a lot of

the person addicted to drugs in a lot of the programs. That is

where we should be putting our emphasis. Then we are going to

have the maximum number of people free of drugs rather than people continue to be dependent, which is a shame. It really is a

shame.

59

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but can

I ask one more question?

Mr. MICA. We are running close, but go right ahead, Mr. Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. I will try to make it short.

We will have law enforcement officers, people involved in interdiction of drugs come before us. They will make a case. We will

learn that the criminals have better resources than they have. By

the time they finish, they almost make you want to cry.

During peace time, how do you feel about the military being involved in the interdiction process? If their boats are faster than our

boats, and their planes are faster than our planes, I mean, you

know at least their planes are not faster than our military planes.

They are not faster than our ships.

Mr. GIULIANI. I do not see any reason why the military should

not be involved in drug interdiction that is taking place beyond the

borders of the United States or even close to the borders of the

United States.

Obviously, the line should be a very strict one. The military

should not be involved in any form of internal law enforcement, at

least not in this kind of area. That would be a terrible mistake.

Beyond the borders of the United States it is perfectly appropriate for the military to be involved. When I used to be involved

in that kind of work as Associate Attorney General, I was constantly encouraging more military involvement, more of their resources being used for this purpose.

I think, obviously, it is very, very good from the point of view of

drug interdiction. They do have sophisticated equipment. They

have trained personnel. At times the Defense Department would

disagree with me when I would make this argument.

I also think it is good for them. I think it keeps them trained.

It helps them. It assists them in a lot of their training functions

as well.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIULIANI. I was corrected on one thing by my very, very capable staff, which is the reason why we were able to do this. That

is that the Needle Exchange Program is funded by the State of

New York. There are no Federal funds. There are no city funds for

it. It is all State-funded.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Mayor, I noticed that also. I did not say something

because I knew your staff would correct you before I had the

chance to.

I have agreed to an additional question from the ranking member.

Mrs. MINK. I will try to be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. I will send my other questions for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

One of the discussions that I have had with others concerns your

statements last summer having to do with the Methadone Treatment Program.

Your description in your testimony today that this program is a

mere substitution of one addiction for another. Therefore, you

60

wanted to see a phase down of this program, and certainly no linkages in establishing the program for eligibility for Federal funding.

I have received from my staff an NIH report of people who have

researched this whole issue who feel very strongly that it is a supportable treatment program and should be continued.

My question, however, does not go to the medical evidence which,

of course, is relevant. I will ask you to submit what medical evidence you have.

What concerns me is a news article that appeared in the New

York Times recently which said that, while New York City has

36,000 heroin addicts, only 6 percent are currently able to be treated under your program in the city hospitals.

I wanted your comment on that. What other efforts your administration is embarking in order to provide services and treatment

in this drug-free context in which you are pursuing for the other

remaining 30,000 addicts who, under the Methadone Program, are

voluntarily admitting to their illness or addiction, and coming to

the government, and to various agencies for some relief so that

they can have a reasonable expectation of returning to a useful life;

one free of addiction?

My concern is that however good the intentions might be to pursue a drug-free, non-addictive type program that there really is not

much evidence of a capability to pursue that. Therefore, a much

more balanced approach toward your view of methadone is really

required.

Mr. GIULIANI. Well, first of all, I should explain to you that New

York City does not do drug treatment. The State does. As a part

of the arrangement between the city and State, the responsibility

for drug treatment is overwhelmingly a State responsibility. So,

when you look at the small number of slots, those happen to be the

small number that we supply at the city hospitals. The overwhelming amount of drug treatment that is done in the city of New

York is done by the New York State Department of Health.

Mrs. MINK. But they are in city hospitals.

Mr. GIULIANI. But that is the contribution that we are making.

The city of New York does not handle drug treatment. We have city

hospitals. So, we make those positions available.

Overall, the jurisdiction for drug treatment is the State of New

York. Roughly, they spend about $155 million to $160 million a

year on drug treatment; largely their funds. Some of it is State

funds.

Unfortunately, the State, which is the one that does drug treatment, and we have a tremendous number of drug treatment slots.

When you just look at the city hospitals, you are looking at a small

contribution to it.

The overwhelming amount of money and positions are spent on

methadone rather than on drug treatment. What I am proposing

is reversing the percentages. I am not saying cut out Methadone

Maintenance Programs.

Although, it would be ideal if at some point we could. What I am

saying is we should not have 70 percent of the slots be for maintaining somebody on chemical dependency and 30 percent being for

drug-free programs.

61

I have asked that the State give those programs to the city so

that the city could run them and then we could reverse the percentages.

We could have 70 percent of the people in drug-free slots and 30

percent in the Methadone Programs, which are maintenance programs. So, I think my position is a little more complicated than

maybe was described in the New York Times.

Mrs. MINK. Of the 2,000 that you do have in the city hospitals

under this treatment program, what is the success rate of actually

getting these addicts off of drugs all together?

Mr. GIULIANI. I cannot tell you just individually what it would

be for the city hospitals because they do not end up getting measured that way. The city hospitals are a part of 35,000 or 40,000

drug slots. They are just a small portion of it.

The success rates of the drug-free programs that are long-term

treatment programs, 50 percent, 60 percent. I mean they are pretty

good. They are good rates of success, but they require long-term

commitment to treatment; 2 years, 3 years.

They require things like work therapy. They are intense efforts.

They are harder to do. So, any bureaucracy, whether it is the city,

the State, or the Federal Government, if you confront it with two

things that it can do, one of which is very hard and one of which

is very easy, but it can give you a lot of money, all of a sudden your

priorities are going to get distorted.

The thing that is going to happen over and over again is the

thing that is very easy and it gets you a lot of money. That is the

unfortunate part of what we do with methadone. It is easy. It

brings a lot of money.

Whatever the help benefits of it, there is not a single thing in

any of that literature you have that does not say the following: that

it is addictive. You must remain on it for the rest of your life.

There are people who are strongly committed to methadone because it is an industry. They make a tremendous amount of money

from it; millions, and millions, and millions of dollars.

If you were to require them to do what the Phoenix House does

or what Detox Village does, which is a 2 year drug treatment program, they would not be getting the money. Somebody else would

be getting the money and the work is much, much harder.

So, a part of the policy direction that the Federal Government

should be not to eliminate methadone, but to try to move more of

the percentage of dollars and funding to the more difficult programs that give people a better chance of leading an independent

life than having them addicted to a chemical substance for the rest

of their lives. That is the point that I am now trying to make.

Do not wipe one out, but see if you can move the percentages toward a much more life-affirming form of therapy.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the news article,

plus the NIH report that I referred to be admitted to the record

at this time.

Mr. MICA. Without objection; so ordered.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Mayor, we want to thank you for being generous

with your time this morning.

62

Mr. GIULIANI. Thank you.

This was very, very instructive. I wish you would take up the invitation to come to the COMSTAT Program. I think you will find

it very interesting.

Mr. MICA. We would like to take you up on that invitation, but

we thank you for your leadership, for your insight into some of the

successes you have had, and also for your candid responses to some

of the problems that you have experienced.

We also look forward to hearing from you. We are particularly

interested in Federal programs that affect our cities and States,

and how we can do a better job in working and coordinating our

efforts with you.

There being no further business to come before this subcommittee this morning, this meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ