[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               DRUG ABUSE

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I take the floor today to discuss one of the 
most pressing issues facing us in this Nation today: Our country, our 
communities, and our families. I raise my very serious concern about 
the Clinton administration's lack of leadership in combating a real 
source of crime, disruption and dangers in American society, a scourge, 
if you will. I am here to talk about the great and growing problem of 
drug abuse.
  According to a poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 7 in 10 
Americans see drug abuse as a greater problem now than it was 5 years 
ago. Only 5 percent believe elected officials are doing everything 
possible to solve the problem.
  Now, on other issues, I have watched the President, assisted by his 
pollster, Stan Greenberg, eagerly respond to citizens' concerns. That 
is why I am so surprised, at a time when the President has been very 
vocal about the dangers of misusing guns, there has been no comparable 
rhetoric on the equally, if not more, deadly misuse of drugs.
  President Clinton's deafening silence on the death issue is, most 
unfortunately, consistent with his administration's abdication of its 
responsibility to fight at the front lines in the war against drugs.
  Since taking office, the President has slashed the Drug Czar's office 
by 84 percent and slashed the State Department's international 
narcotics matters budget by 32 percent over the last 2 years.
  In its current budget, the administration seeks to eliminate drug 
enforcement grants to State and local governments. These enforcement 
funds support many important drug fighting initiatives including 
multijurisdictional drug teams that have disrupted State and regional 
trafficking networks across the country, street-level enforcement teams 
that shut down neighborhood drug dens, police in the community, drug 
courts, prosecution programs, drug crime laboratories, and treatment 
for drug offenders.
  I also read in an op-ed piece by Lally Weymouth in the Washington 
Post last Friday that the Clinton administration has stopped providing 
real time information on potential drug flights in Latin American 
countries which we, in the past, have worked out as a means of 
assisting those countries which are dedicated to helping eradicate drug 
production and export from their countries. At a time when the 
administration says that we are going to work with source countries, it 
makes no sense for us to stop providing the real time information that 
has been so vital in helping combat those dangers.
  Now, all of these efforts which have gone on in the past and which 
are being restricted or eliminated now cannot be replaced simply by 
having cops walk the beat in major cities. It is simply not fair to ask 
law enforcement to fight a war on drugs at the local level even as we 
take away some of their effective weapons against interstate and 
international drug operations and cartels.
  Last month, I had the opportunity to address an outstanding group of 
law enforcement officers, local, State, and Federal, who have worked 
together in the last several years to combat the scourge of drug crime 
in southeast Missouri. I told these law enforcement officers it had 
been suggested that we cut the Federal law enforcement activities and 
use some of those moneys to provide local law enforcement support, 
maybe providing them enough funds for another cop on the beat.
  All of these officers--and this is State and local as well as 
Federal--said that it was impossible for them to carry on the battle 
against drugs if they did not have the strong interdiction efforts that 
the Federal Government puts forth, along with the coordinated 
assistance of all of the Federal agencies given a responsibility to 
deal with drugs, from the Customs Service with their interdiction 
activities and their ability to identify drug runners at the border and 
follow them to the sources.
  They said that they could not achieve any kind of success in the 
battle on drugs if we took away the assistance that the Federal 
Government provides in dealing with interstate and international drug 
conspiracies.
  I received a letter in response to my request, authored by the chief 
of the Cape Girardeau Police Department and Sheriff Norman Copeland, a 
30-year veteran of the Missouri Highway Patrol and well respected 
officer and now the elected sheriff of Scott County. It is signed by 
sheriffs, by county, by city police chiefs, and by a member of the 
State highway patrol.
  They state in that letter that they:

       * * * voice our concerns about what appears to be a casual 
     and unconcerned attitude toward the drug problem among 
     leaders in Federal Government. As frontline observers, we can 
     state unequivocally that the alarming rise in domestic crime 
     across the United States, both violent and nonviolent, is 
     primarily due to illegal drugs, their distribution, use, and 
     addiction to drugs. We believe with passion that no one can 
     calculate what the enormity of the drug problem would be 
     today if no drug interdiction or education programs had been 
     in place for the last 5 years. Further, there is a dire need 
     to maintain and fine tune the programs that are now in place. 
     The so-called war on drugs has only been waged seriously for 
     the last 5 years, although it has taken us approximately 30 
     years to reach such epidemic proportions --and it may take 
     that long to remedy it. Our belief is that it doesn't matter 
     if we win or lose this war, but is it right or wrong to fight 
     it? We believe it is right to want to live in a community 
     that is drug free, in a home in which we feel safe, and be 
     able to tell our children it is wrong to abuse their bodies 
     with illegal drugs. Winning the war is not as important as 
     fighting the war. We support these beliefs as a group and 
     they are shared by all of law enforcement in southeast 
     Missouri.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record, along with an article, endorsed by many of the law 
enforcement officers, by Alan Foust, Coordinator of the Southeast 
Missouri Task Force which appeared in the Trooper Association Magazine 
entitled ``Legalized Drugs.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Police Department,

                                   Cape Girardeau, March 30, 1994.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I would like to express my appreciation 
     for being invited to discuss concerns among law enforcement 
     officials with you on Tuesday, March 29. I have followed your 
     career throughout your public life and have nothing but the 
     greatest admiration for you and your efforts on the part of 
     the citizens of Missouri.
       I would like to briefly summarize some of the thoughts that 
     I shared with you yesterday. Myself and Lt. Jim McNiell of 
     the Missouri State Highway Patrol were invited to Key West 
     Florida as guests of the Assistant Secretary of Defense to 
     tour military installations utilizing reserve components. As 
     a part of the briefing we were given an opportunity to talk 
     to Commander Joint Task Force Four personnel who have the 
     counter drug mission responsibility for tracking couriers 
     into the United States, as well as U.S. Coast Guard personnel 
     that do the actual High Seas interdiction, search and 
     seizure. All of the people we spoke with are dismayed at the 
     impending cuts to these efforts and the negative impact it 
     will have on counter drug operations.
       I am also concerned about the amount of money being taken 
     from law enforcement efforts and being funneled into drug 
     treatment programs. My personal belief and the thoughts 
     shared by many of my contemporaries is that drug 
     rehabilitation is a naturally occurring process and no amount 
     of federal dollars can speed up the process.
       We also would like to take this opportunity to voice our 
     concerns about what appears to be a casual and unconcerned 
     attitude toward the drug problem among leaders in federal 
     government. As front line observers, we can state 
     unequivocally that the alarming rise in domestic crime across 
     the United States, both violent and non-violent, is primarily 
     due to illegal drugs, their distribution, use, and addiction 
     to the drugs. We believe with passion that no one can 
     calculate what the enormity of the drug problem would be 
     today if no drug interdiction or education programs had been 
     in place for the last five years. Further there is a dire 
     need to maintain and fine tune the programs that are now in 
     place. The so called war on drugs has only been waged 
     seriously for the last five years, although it has taken us 
     approximately thirty years to reach such epidemic 
     proportions--and it may take that long to remedy it. Our 
     relief is that it doesn't matter if we win or lose this war, 
     but is it right or wrong to fight it. We believe it is right 
     to want to live in a community that is drug free, in a home 
     in which we feel safe, and be able to tell our children it is 
     wrong to abuse their bodies with illegal drugs. Winning the 
     war is not as important as fighting the war. We support these 
     beliefs as a group and they are shared by all of law 
     enforcement in Southeast Missouri.
       We want to personally thank you for your support of law 
     enforcement--specifically the support you have given to the 
     Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force--the establishing of the 
     United States Attorney's Office in Cape Girardeau, and the 
     recent opportunity you gave us to speak to you to in Cape 
     Girardeau.
           Sincerely,
     Norman Copeland,
                         President, Cape Girardeau County Sheriff.
     Chief James W. Leist,
        Secretary/Treasurer, Sikeston Department of Public Safety.
     Sheriff Gary Schaaf,
                               Board Member, Perry County Sheriff.
     Chief Bill Adams,
                     Board Member, Poplar Bluff Police Department.
     William F. Ferrell,
                             Vice-President, Scott County Sheriff.
     Chief Howard H. Boyd, Jr.,
                   Board Member, Cape Girardeau Police Department.
     Chief Robert Ritchey,
             Board Member, Charleston Department of Public Safety.
     Sergeant A.W. Foust,
                       Coordinator, Missouri State Highway Patrol.

                [From the Trooper Association Magazine]

                            Legalize Drugs?

                            (By Alan Foust)

       I have been a state narcotic investigator for eight years, 
     assigned for over two years to deep-cover narcotics and 
     afterwards to several short term undercover investigations in 
     which I was directly exposed to the drug culture. For the 
     last four years I have supervised a narcotics unit and been a 
     trainer to others in narcotics investigation. I have 
     experienced the drug problem in every conceivable fashion 
     except as an addict, and I have uniquely experienced their 
     pain as well. I guess you could say I am a front line 
     observer that has a unique perspective and insight into the 
     drug culture and related social problems. I have developed 
     some hardened ideals about the drug problem that are in stark 
     contrast to the ideals of some editorialists and others who 
     advocate the decriminalization and legalization of drugs.
       I hear the arguments that the drug war is like the Vietnam 
     war and unwinnable; that the problem is too overwhelming; 
     that drugs are no worse than alcohol and should be legalized; 
     that decriminalizing drugs ``would cut street crime by 75 
     percent''; that drug interdiction and education efforts are a 
     total failure.
       And I have to ask, if we did legalize drugs, would we 
     legalize all drugs in any purity and sell them to any 
     individual? Or would we have restrictions on youth, pregnant 
     mothers and professionals such as doctors, police officers, 
     airline pilots, et cetera? Would we sell pure heroin and pure 
     cocaine? Would we legally sell crack cocaine? Or would we 
     just sell the cocaine and let the street dealers convert it 
     to the smokable form of crack as they do now? How do you 
     establish an acceptable, legitimate source of harmful drugs 
     in a society as complex as ours without restrictions? Can an 
     acceptable system be set up without black markets controlled 
     by the criminal element who have traditionally taken 
     advantage and made money from society's weaknesses?
       Is the drug problem similar to the alcohol abuse problem 
     and the related failure to prohibit alcohol consumption? I 
     have met many functional alcoholics, people who have drank 
     for years, but I have never met a functional drug addict. 
     Drugs are an acid that eat the mind, and in a very short time 
     consume the user's life until nothing else exists. I have 
     intimately known many individuals that have met this monster 
     and according to their own testimonials, they have all lost 
     the battle.
       Is it even a drug problem? Could it simply be a crime 
     problem, an economic problem or is there an underlying cause 
     that we fail or refuse to recognize? In 1991, 707,502 babies 
     were born to single white women, representing 22 percent of 
     births. Sixty-eight percent of all black births and often 
     some 80 percent of all births in inner-cities are born to 
     unmarried mothers. Illegitimacy is probably the single most 
     important social problem of our time--more important than 
     drugs, poverty, illiteracy, welfare or homelessness--
     because it drives everything else. In the next decade I 
     believe we will lose large portions of some of our major 
     inner-cities, not due to drugs, which is a side note, but 
     because of a larger social problem consisting of a large 
     culture of unsocialized male adolescents where physical 
     violence and immediate gratification is common place. If 
     we continue to support illegitimacy through social welfare 
     programs this condition will worsen and consequently so 
     will the drug problem.
       As Americans we are part of an impatient, quick-fix 
     society. We traditionally become intensely interested in 
     short-term problems and causes. But in longer relationships 
     we become bored turning our attention to newer and more 
     pressing issues. In 1962 only one-half of one percent of the 
     U.S. population used an illicit drug and that included 
     marijuana. Though it varies according to the statistics you 
     use, we now have about 35 million drug users. It has taken us 
     30 years to reach this epidemic level of drug abuse and we 
     have only recognized and decided to fight a limited war 
     against drug abuse for the last ten years. Five years ago 
     there were no television commercials telling us that cocaine 
     can kill and the seriousness of marijuana use is still not 
     shared with the public by the media even though there have 
     been over 3000 separate scientific studies documenting its 
     devastating effect on the body (far more research has been 
     done on cannabis than any other illegal drug). And where is 
     the empirical evidence that the drug interdiction efforts 
     have failed? Who can accurately answer the question of how 
     big and how bad would the drug problem be if we had not 
     developed and maintained our interdictions efforts to this 
     date? Is thirty-five billion dollars a year too much to spend 
     on law enforcement (we spend more than that on personal 
     toiletries each year)?
       Instead of making a vain attempt to parallel the drug war 
     with a fighting war that ended almost 20 years ago, one that 
     we still, for some reason, use for validation, we must 
     instead maintain our moral imperative and ask the question, 
     what is right? Is it right to tell our children one day that 
     it is wrong to use drugs and to tell them the next day that 
     we were wrong and it is alright to abuse and violate their 
     bodies with drugs? Is it right to give up because we might 
     lose the war or is it more important to fight the war no 
     matter if we win or lose, no matter if it take another thirty 
     years to win? We all have the responsibility to do all that 
     we can about the situation we have allowed to happen. If 
     every affected element of our society--parents, schools, 
     business, law-enforcement, the judiciary, legislative bodies, 
     public health, the military, the media and entertainment 
     industry--made a determined decision that drug abuse was 
     absolutely unacceptable in our society and worked together in 
     searching for the roots to the problem and relentlessly 
     provided solutions for those problem areas, we would win this 
     war. And I ask, what is the alternative?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to arguments that a 
comprehensive drug policy requires drug treatment on demand, and I am 
committed to finding ways to help those who have the courage to kick 
their addiction, but I would point out that these law enforcement 
officers have shared their belief that ``drug rehabilitation is a 
naturally occurring process and no amount of Federal dollars can speed 
up the process.''
  It is certainly not scientifically accurate, but I would just state 
to my colleagues that in the hearings in the Labor, HHS Appropriations 
Subcommittee, when we had before us the Commissioner of Social 
Security, we inquired about the effectiveness of the SSI, supplemental 
security income payments to drug and alcohol abusers. We asked if they 
knew what the rate of success in treating them had been under that 
particular program. As I understand it, the example that they cited was 
a study of 197 people who had been on the program.
  As I recall the statistics, they said that of the 197 people that had 
been on for 3 years, 20 percent had actually left the program; 10 
percent died; 10 percent went to prison; and 1 person was cured. That 
raises a real question in my mind about the efficacy of our current 
programs to deal with the problem of drug abuse by rehabilitation 
alone.
  I cannot stand by and watch the Clinton administration cut funding 
for drug-related crime fighting and interdiction by nearly 2 percent 
below its 1993 levels. Such cuts merely send a clear signal to drug 
cartels that we are backing off the fight, in order to treat the 
wounded.

  Drug interdiction and other supply initiatives are vital parts of 
helping our country become drug-free. Representative Charles Rangel, 
former chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics, and 
Representative Benjamin Gilman, former vice chairman of the committee, 
argue persuasively that if interdiction is allowed to lag, the result 
inevitably will be more and cheaper drugs on the street. Exclusive 
reliance on demand-side measures ignores the relationship between drug 
availability and drug use.
  And hard numbers demonstrate that drug interdiction is working. 
Between 1987 and 1991, 552 metric tons of cocaine were seized in Latin 
America alone; during the same period, the percentage of cocaine users 
in the United States dropped by more than half. Less easily quantified, 
but no less important, is the deterrent effect of interdiction. The 
threat of drug seizures by U.S. authorities deters importation or 
manufacture of an indeterminate but by no means insignificant amount of 
drugs. Similarly, interdiction imposes added costs of traffickers for 
the shipments they do make, and results in drugs on the street being 
more expensive, and therefore less readily obtainable.
  But I fear that the President's abdication of leadership on the drug 
issue extends far beyond these economic realities and the numbers on a 
budget sheet. President Clinton, who has been willing to use the 
Presidency's bully pulpit in a variety of visible and creative ways, 
has exhibited obvious reluctance to tell our Nation's youth--strongly 
and unequivocally--that drug use is as wrong as it is illegal. And we 
need his leadership now. According to a 1994 Monitoring the Future 
study, the proportion of teenagers who believe that regular marijuana 
use is risky has fallen from 79 percent in 1991 to 73 percent in 1993, 
even as the proportion of eighth graders using marijuana has increased 
by 50 percent in the last 2 years, from 6.2 to 9.2 percent. Using the 
Presidency's bully pulpit is one of the most effective ways to 
counteract the softening social norms against drug use. I suggest that 
the President use his next appearance on MTV to do just that.
  Opponents of the Reagan administration's policy attempted to make fun 
of Mrs. Reagan's program of ``Just Say No To Drugs.'' But, at least, 
Mr. President, somebody was trying to get the message across. Now we 
are not hearing that message.
  I fear President Clinton's credibility in arguing effectively against 
drug use is seriously impaired, as long as he continues to support a 
Surgeon General who has repeatedly advocated drug legalization. His 
continuing expressions of confidence in Dr. Joycelyn Elders must lead 
Americans to wonder just how committed he is to ensuring that drug use 
both remains illegal and frowned upon in pop culture. His influence 
here is immeasurable, and he can make it either a positive force or a 
negative force. This leadership vacuum on the part of the President and 
the Surgeon General becomes all the more deplorable in light of the 
fact that drug use is known, and has been amply demonstrated, to have 
harmful effects on human beings. One need look no farther than the 
tragedy of the crack baby epidemic which rages every day in the 
hospital delivery rooms of America. Far more quickly and to a far 
greater extent than either alcohol or tobacco, illegal drugs like crack 
cocaine form addictions that cripple the drug user--physically, 
mentally, and spiritually. Many of those in the throes of a drug 
addition can think of nothing but how they will satisfy an insatiable 
need for another ``hit'' of their drug of choice. Mothers desert their 
toddlers, children kill their parents, young men and women throw away 
promising futures--all because of a degrading obsession. Indeed, the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy reported this year that the 
crack epidemic tripled the number of New York City's child abuse and 
neglect cases in the late 1980's.

  To make drugs cheaper and more readily available is to promote to the 
social pathology and human tragedy of physical and mental illnesses 
caused by drug usage. This fact alone, in my view, is sufficient 
argument to reject any efforts whatsoever to decriminalize drugs. I 
only wish that the President would step forward and affirm his 
agreement with this conclusion--if indeed he shares my conviction on 
this point.
  In conclusion, contrary to what many would suggest, drug abuse is a 
hardly victimless crime. A 1991 survey of State prisons reveals that 
fully one-third of State prison inmates say that they were under the 
influence of drugs when they committed a crime for which they were in 
prison. One in four women and one in six men actually committed the 
offense for money with which to buy drugs.
  Mr. President, from my own experience as Governor of the State of 
Missouri, we estimated that anywhere between two-thirds and three-
quarters of the inmates of our State prisons were drug users, either 
having committed crimes directly related to drug use, or under the 
influence of or use at a time when they were abusing drugs.
  Clearly, this is a problem that we all face. We must work together 
quickly and vigorously--even as we reach out with compassion to those 
who are addicted--to ensure that we can catch and punish those who 
profit by bringing these illegal drugs into our communities.
  There is no substitute for continuing the effort. Drug rehabilitation 
alone is not going to be the answer. When the President tells us he is 
going to rely on interdiction in the source countries, the activities 
in cutting off the information sharing on airline flights, the failure 
to increase significantly the money spent on drug abuse activities, and 
drug suppression in other countries belies the notion that they truly 
believe that that can have an impact.
  As the men and women who are on the frontline of drug abuse fights 
will tell you, there is no substitute for strong interdiction efforts, 
and a strong Federal partnership with State and local law enforcement 
officials who, without the Federal Government's help, are unable to 
stem the growing menace of drug abuse and drug crime in their 
communities.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________