[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15069-S15071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              REVITALIZING AMERICA'S DRUG CONTROL EFFORTS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is time to speak plainly. To borrow a 
phrase, President Clinton has been AWOL--absent without leadership--on 
the drug issue. Our country is badly hurt by his abdication of 
responsibility. This is the opinion of both liberals and conservatives, 
Republicans and Democrats.
  A little more than 1 year ago, President Clinton signed into law the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In doing so he 
stated that ``this is the beginning, not the end, of our effort to 
restore safety and security to the people of our country.''
  To commemorate the 1-year anniversary of that measure's enactment, 
the Clinton administration held several days of media events.
  Unfortunately, while President Clinton and his aides were celebrating 
the year-old crime bill, HHS announced that teen drug use almost 
doubled over the past 2 years. Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, 
the Clinton administration holds media events while seemingly ignoring 
the evidence of a worsening drug crisis.
  Let me take you back a few years, to 1992. As a candidate for 
President, then Mr. Clinton talked tough on drugs, declaring that 
``President Bush hasn't fought a real war on crime and drugs * * * 
[and] I will.''
  On the link between drugs and crime, candidate Clinton said ``We have 
a national problem on our hands that requires a tough national 
response,'' as reported in the New York Times, March 26, 1993, 
referring to previous Clinton statements.
  Since the campaign, however, President Clinton has rarely mentioned 
the drug issue in a substantive way. He has not made the drug issue a 
visible crusade. He simply has not led this country against the scourge 
that is killing our children.
  Not so long ago, Nancy Reagan led the ``Just Say No'' campaign. That 
was just one demonstration of committed leadership at the national 
level. Today, we hear virtually nothing from the White House. We need a 
campaign to get the President to ``Just Say Something''--and say it 
loudly and consistently.
  Through the 1980's and into the early 1990's we saw dramatic 
reductions in casual drug use--reductions that were won through 
increased penalties, strong Presidential leadership, and a clear 
national antidrug message.
  Casual drug use dropped by more than half between 1977 and 1992 
according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
  Casual cocaine use fell by 79 percent, while monthly cocaine use fell 
from 2.9 million users in 1988 to 1.3 million in 1992, again, from the 
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Imagine if we had had a 79-
percent reduction in teen pregnancy, or AIDS transmission. 

[[Page S 15070]]

  The Federal drug control and treatment budget grew from $1.5 to $13 
billion under Presidents Reagan and Bush.
  Beyond the substantial investment of money and materiel, the drug war 
was fought by engaged Commanders in Chief, who used the bully pulpit to 
change attitudes. Presidents Reagan and Bush involved themselves in 
this effort and helped rescue much of a generation.
  It was in the face of these gains that Mr. Clinton, then candidate 
for President, said he would do a better job than they.
  Yet today, after only a few short years, we are rapidly losing 
ground, as illustrated by this chart.
  I might say, rather than aggressively fighting this losing trend, the 
Clinton administration, like a sports franchise on the decline, appears 
content to celebrate past victories with prior leadership rather than 
trying to achieve anything of substance.
  Over the past 2 years, almost every available indicator shows that 
our gains against drug use have either stopped or reversed.
  This chart, ``Trends in High School Marijuana Use,'' from the most 
recent edition of the National High School Survey reported, for the 
second year in a row, sizable increases in drug use among our Nation's 
8th, 10th, and 12th graders. In fact, as this chart illustrates, over 
the past 2 years, past month use of marijuana is up 110 percent for 8th 
graders, from 3.7 to 7.8 percent; up 95 percent for 10th graders, from 
8.1 to 15.8 percent; and up 60 percent among 12th graders, from 11.9 to 
19 percent.
  Other surveys show similar trends. Last month, HHS released alarming 
figures showing that marijuana use is up sharply--up 50 percent--among 
young people. The category of ``recent marijuana use'' was up a 
staggering 192 percent among 14- to 15-year-olds. Among 12- to 13-year-
olds, recent marijuana use was up 137 percent.
  There are trends in youthful drug use between ages 12 and 17. This 
troubling data should come as no surprise. It follows last year's 
discouraging survey, which, as this next chart illustrates, shows the 
number of youthful, past year marijuana users increased by 450,000 
users--up from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.1 million in the space of just 
1 year. As the chart illustrates, in 1994, that number reached 2.9 
million. In other words, nearly 1.3 million more kids are smoking pot 
today than were doing so in 1992. That is astounding.
  More to the point, this sharp increase in drug use comes on the heels 
of consistent declines in drug use dating back to 1979.
  According to substance abuse experts, many of these youthful 
marijuana users will end up cocaine addicts. Joseph Califano, head of 
Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, and 
former Secretary of HEW, estimates that 820,000 of these new youthful 
marijuana users will eventually try cocaine. Of these 820,000 who try 
cocaine, Califano estimates that some 58,000 will end up as regular 
users and addicts.
  This country does not need another 58,000 cocaine addicts.
  Prevention messages are not getting through, either. According to a 
recent survey by Frank Luntz, teens think cigarettes are more dangerous 
than marijuana. The May 1995 survey by Frank Luntz showed that 82 
percent of 12- to 17-year-olds believe cigarettes are either 
``somewhat'' or ``very'' dangerous, as compared with 81 percent for 
marijuana.
  There are other ominous signs as well: According to a story in USA 
Today last month, a pending Government study will show an astounding 
144-percent increase in overdose deaths nationally due to 
methamphetamines over the past 2 years.--USA Today, September 7, 1995.
  Cocaine and heroin prices continue to fall, even as cocaine purity 
reaches record levels. Emergency room admissions for cocaine overdoses 
have never been higher.
  These trends are disastrous. When Senator Dole called attention to 
these trends in a recent op ed, three Clinton Cabinet Members--Brown, 
Shalala, and Reno--wrote back to say that ``teenage marijuana use * * * 
remains far below the record highs of the late 1970's and early 
1980's.''--Washington Times, October 6, 1995.
  In other words, we should not get too upset because today's drug 
problem is not as bad as it was at its worst point in our Nation's 
history.
  Unfortunately, we are sitting on the edge of a major drug 
catastrophe, and President Clinton's lack of visibility and leadership 
has not helped.
  In fact, there have been troubling signs since the earliest days of 
the administration. In early 1993, respected columnist A.M. Rosenthal 
described President Clinton's record in developing and promoting a 
strong antidrug policy as: ``No leadership. No role. No alerting. No 
policy.''--A.M. Rosenthal, New York Times, March 26, 1993.
  Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, the president of the Nation's largest 
residential treatment organization, Phoenix House, said that developing 
drug trends should have been ``a big signal to the President and his 
Cabinet that they've got to pay serious attention to [the drug 
problem].''--New York Times, July 16, 1993.
  Back then, I warned this administration that ``the concept of the war 
against drugs is in danger of being dismantled by its relative 
silence.''
  I warned that certain administration policies were ``tantamount to 
decriminalizing drugs'' and would have the effect of increasing drug 
use. Sadly, we critics are being proven right.
  President Clinton has abandoned many of the drug control efforts 
undertaken by his immediate predecessors. Indeed, he has even abandoned 
the moral leadership of the bully pulpit.
  President Clinton himself rarely speaks out against drug abuse, and 
he offers little, if any, moral support or leadership to those fighting 
the drug war in America or abroad.
  For example, President Clinton has cut Federal interdiction efforts, 
which have helped check the flow of drugs into our cities, and States, 
to our children, and, in the past, made the drug trade a risky 
proposition. Two years ago, he ordered a massive reduction in the 
interdiction budgets of the Defense Department, Customs Service, and 
the Coast Guard. Cocaine seizures plummeted. U.S. Customs cocaine 
seizures in the transit zone dropped 70 percent, while Coast Guard 
cocaine seizures fell by more than 70 percent.
  We have just learned that transit-zone interdiction results for the 
first 6 months of 1995 were even worse than last year. This chart 
illustrates the decline in transit-zone interdictions--down from 440 
kilograms per day in 1992 to 205 kilograms per day in the first 6 
months of 1995, even though drug pushing is up. Over the course of a 
year, the lowered disruption rate, from these figures, in 1992 and even 
1993, means that as much as 85 additional tons of cocaine and marijuana 
could be arriving unimpeded on American streets, and killing our kids.
  The administration also accepted a one-third cut in resources to 
attack the cocaine trade in the source and transit countries of South 
America, and disrupted cooperative efforts with source country 
governments when it ordered the Unite States military to stop providing 
radar tracking of drug-trafficking aircraft to Colombia and Peru.
  The Clinton administration claimed these cuts to interdiction 
represented a so-called controlled shift. But the shift--in my opinion, 
and I think in the opinion of almost everybody who studies this--was 
really a reckless abdication of responsibility.
  Having gutted our Federal efforts to stop drugs from arriving here, 
President Clinton has also weakened efforts to deal effectively with 
them once they hit our streets. Upon taking office, President Clinton 
promoted the drug czar to Cabinet level, but then slashed the drug 
czar's staff by 80 percent.
  The President undercut law enforcement efforts initiated by his 
predecessors, allowing the DEA to lose 198 drug agents over a 2-year 
period. The President also proposed a fiscal year 1995 budget that 
would have cut 621 additional drug enforcement positions from the FBI, 
the DEA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard.
  Those cuts were blocked by congressional Republicans, and many 
Democrats, but they should never have been proposed in the first place.
  Under President Clinton, Federal drug prosecutions have slipped--down 
more than 12 percent since 1992, from 25,033 in 1992 to 21,905 in 1995. 
I have asked, but the Justice Department has no coherent explanation 
for these declines. 

[[Page S 15071]]

  And who could forget President Clinton's Surgeon General, who 
remarked, memorably, on the need to consider drug legalization.
  Perhaps A.M. Rosenthal put it best when he wrote in the August 4, 
1995, New York Times that: ``Mr. Clinton's leadership has sometimes 
seemed to us antidrug types as ranging from absent to lackadaisical.''
  Mr. President, the Federal Government has a unique responsibility in 
attacking the drug trade.
  Only the Federal Government can interdict drugs before they reach our 
streets, make drug trafficking more difficult, operate overseas, and 
mount complex multinational investigations. Every kilogram of cocaine 
or heroin that gets through makes State and local law enforcement's job 
more difficult and more dangerous.
  Today, illicit drugs represent one of the greatest threats to 
America's future. Drugs contribute to a wide range of devastation 
affecting all Americans, particularly our children and youth. Drugs 
directly contribute to violent crime and property crime.
  The break-up of marriages and families can often be linked to drug 
use, as can lower productivity in the workplace, poor education, and 
myriad other societal problems.
  In fact, if drug use returns to the levels of the 1970's in this 
country, our ability to control health care costs, reform welfare, 
improve the academic performance of our school-age children, and reduce 
crime in our housing projects will all be seriously compromised. 
Indeed, we stand little chance of success in these battles if we lose 
further ground in the drug war.
  This Congress must not allow the American people to think that we 
condone President Clinton's abdication of responsibility. We must not 
be complicit through our silence.
  I believe a revitalized war on drugs would include the following 
elements: First, do more in Latin America: Fighting drugs at the source 
just makes sense--we ought to be going after the beehive, not just the 
bees. Foreign programs are cost-effective. For example, our program in 
Peru cost just $16 million to run last year.
  It was very effective in some ways. It would be much more if we put 
some force behind it.
  Second, we need to beef up interdiction. Interdiction programs are 
our first line of defense against smugglers. The administration should 
allow the Department of Defense to spend more than 0.3 percent of its 
budget currently devoted to drugs. That is the fiscal year 1995 level. 
The Coast Guard and Customs interdiction assets need to be restored as 
well.
  Third, we have to encourage whoever is President of the United States 
to use the bully pulpit. President Clinton is our President, and I am 
hopeful that these remarks today will encourage him to use the bully 
pulpit to fight against this matter. Only the President can give the 
drug issue the high profile it deserves. Members of Congress on both 
sides of the aisle should encourage the President to speak out on this 
issue.
  Fourth, we need to adjust our budget priorities. This country needs 
to look more closely at our budget priorities. We should consider 
reprogramming the surplus of the super-secret National Reconnaissance 
Office--estimated at up to $1.7 billion--into the drug war. This 
surplus is more than the combined drug budgets of DEA--the Drug 
Enforcement Administration--and the FBI. The DEA is $801 million and 
the FBI is $540 million, respectively, in fiscal year 1995. It is more 
than the total that we spent on interdiction last year. The fiscal year 
1995 interdiction spending was $1.29 billion.
  But the National Reconnaissance Office has up to $1.7 billion and it 
ought to be redirected into the drug war.
  Fifth, we ought to make drug dealers pay. The most immediate effect 
of drug dealing on our local communities is the degradation of the 
causes in the quality of life.
  Some States have laws forcing drug dealers to contribute to a local 
community impact fund. We need to look into the possibility of doing 
this on the Federal level.
  Sixth, reject efforts to lower crack penalties. This May the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission proposed steep reductions in proposed sentences 
for crack cocaine dealers. It was irresponsible public policy. It had 
to be blocked. It was blocked by the full Senate on September 29. The 
Senate must remain firm to prevent unwarranted reductions in drug 
penalties.
  Seventh, we have to fund drug treatment programs that work. The 
Federal Government permits drug addicts to get disability payments from 
Social Security, known as SSI payments. And in doing so it undercuts 
tough but effective treatment programs like Phoenix House. Roughly 
20,000 addicts were receiving Social Security disability payments in 
1990--payments because of their drug addiction. It should surprise no 
one to hear that 4 years later only 1 percent had recovered and left 
the rolls.
  The Social Security disability system is being reformed, but we need 
to make sure that loopholes like these do not exist in other areas.
  These are just a few of the things that we think we should be doing. 
Later this Congress, I plan to invite Members and policy experts to 
participate in a national drug summit. I want the Congress to examine 
policy options which will reverse these crushing increases in drug use 
in our society. I wish to bring national attention to bear on just how 
bad our situation has become. I want to revitalize the drug war.
  In coming months, I will be calling upon a number of colleagues to 
join in this effort. And by working together, I believe we will be able 
to reclaim lost ground.
  I do not come to this issue as a beginner. I have actually seen the 
ravages of drugs. I have seen them destroy families. I have seen young 
people, with tremendous potential, who literally were geniuses, who 
could have done anything they wanted to do in society completely gone, 
their minds gone because of drugs. I have seen murders and maimings and 
rapes and abuse, children abused because of drugs. I have seen drugs 
fund the Mafia and other organized crime groups in this country.
  We have seen a proliferation of drugs on the streets in the greatest 
city in this world, Washington, DC. It has become a garbage dump of 
drugs and drug abuse and drug use and drug peddling. You can go down on 
some of the streets and see them peddling the drugs. It is pathetic 
that we allow this to continue to exist.
  It is going to take all of us, but I am prodding the President. We 
have been friends. I have helped him in many ways up here, and I intend 
to continue to try to help him when he is right. But I am prodding him 
here today to get serious about this, to do something about it. Worry a 
little bit more about our children. Get out there out front and do the 
things that really the President ought to be doing to let our society 
and our people know that drug abuse is a wrongful thing; that it is a 
harmful thing; that it is a life-destroying thing; that whether the 
life continues or not, it is destroyed, and many lives actually are 
destroyed, not just the living but people have died because of drugs 
and drug overdoses, and it is a health matter. We are paying through 
the nose in emergency rooms across this country in uncompensated care 
because of this particular malady that has affected our affluent 
society, and we have to do something about it.
  There is nobody in our society who should be able to do it better 
than whoever is President of the United States. I believe with 
President Clinton's ability to articulate he could do a very good job, 
and it would help him with the American people if he would. So I am 
encouraging him to do this today by pointing out the deficiencies that 
exist and saying let us quit letting them exist. Let us do something 
about it. And I hope all of us can work together in encouraging him to 
do so.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________