[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 56 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4278-S4286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DRUG USE IN AMERICA

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, over the last several months we have 
heard a growing crescendo, so to speak, about a new national epidemic. 
And make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the United States is once 
again revisiting a drug epidemic.
  This epidemic took hold of our Nation in the 1960's and 1970's. By 
1979, Mr. President, somewhere in the neighborhood of 55 percent of our 
youth--importantly here--age 17 to 21, were involved in drugs, an 
alarming crisis for the Nation. From 1979 to 1992, this usage was cut 
in half.
  For all the naysayers that said you could not do anything about 
drugs--wrong. This Nation did. It cut drug use in half. It took it down 
to 24, 26, 27 percent. But in 1992, as I am sure will be alluded to 
here repeatedly on the floor, something went wrong, something changed. 
Policies changed, and drug use took off like a rocket. It is now 
approaching the 40 percent level.
  Over the weekend there was a lot of discussion about drug abuse 
because the President had a much heralded press conference in Miami 
this morning. But, Mr. President, this is one we cannot win with press 
conferences. This is one that will be exceedingly difficult to turn 
into some political gambit for the 1996 Presidential campaign.
  Somebody will have to be responsible for what happened between 1992 
and 1996. And what happened is a very ugly picture.
  Over the various talk shows this quote surfaced. ``This President is 
silent on the matter. He has failed to speak.'' That was Senator Joseph 
Biden, Jr., of Delaware. Or we have Mr. Rangel, Congressman Rangel, who 
has previously said, he has never seen a President care less about 
drugs. That is Congressman Rangel. These are Members of the President's 
own leadership, party.
  The point is, that there are ramifications for the policies we have 
set, Mr. President. In his first 3 years in office, President Clinton 
abandoned the war on drugs. He slashed the staff of his drug office 83 
percent, he decreased the number of Drug Enforcement Agency agents, cut 
funding for drug interdiction efforts and abandoned the bully pulpit. I 
will mention this again. But out of 1,680 statements by the President, 
the word ``drugs'' was only used 13 times in the first 3 years. We 
turned away from the message that drugs are very harmful.

  You know, Mr. President, President Reagan and President Bush deserve 
a lot of credit. They engaged this war as the Nation would expect them 
to, and indeed they contributed to saving millions of lives and harm to 
millions of families all across the land because they engaged the 
battle.
  Yes, she was made fun of at the time, but Nancy Reagan, our First 
Lady, when she said, ``Just say no,'' it made a difference. Who knows 
the number of families that were spared the devastation of drugs just 
because she led the way. She is going to be remembered very favorably 
for the role she played in our drug dispute.
  I see, Mr. President, I have been joined by the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan, who has been a leading advocate in the drug war. I now 
yield up to 10 minutes of my time.
  Is that enough, I ask the Senator?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. That would be fine.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 10 minutes of my time to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I first thank the Senator from Georgia for having come here today to 
help lead this discussion. I think the role he is playing in trying to 
focus public attention on problems in the area of crime and drugs is to 
be commended. We are grateful to have leadership like that on these 
issues because we have not had enough of it, either in the Congress or 
particularly in the administration.
  So today I will talk a little bit more specifically about some of the 
problems we are contending with as a society as they relate to the 
broadly defined topic of drug use in America.
  After steadily declining for a number of years, through the 
administrations of Presidents Reagan and Bush, drug use has been 
skyrocketing in recent years. It is increasing at a very alarming rate. 
According to the 1994 ``Monitor of the Future'' study, drug use in 
three separate categories--use over lifetime, use in past year, use in 
past month--has shown a remarkable surge during the last 2 years, for 
young people in particular.
  Lifetime drug use went from a high in 1981 of about 65 percent to a 
low of just over 30 percent in 1992. Recently, though, the trend has 
been in a different direction. In both 1993, and again in 1994, after 
over a decade of uneven, but steady, decline, drug use has shot up 
again. It has shot up not just among high school seniors either, Mr. 
President.
  According to the 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, drug 
use among children from as young as the age of 12 through 17 years of 
age, went up by 28 percent from 1993 to 1994. That is not just 
percentages we are talking about. It is human lives, Mr. President.
  To make it a little more specific, and to really, I think, dramatize 
the alarming changes we are talking about, these statistics indicate 
that in 1994, 1 million more children between the ages of 12 and 17 
were using drugs than had been the case in 1993.
  Mr. President, I would like to state very clearly that the decisions 
people make to abuse drugs or any other similarly abused substance of 
any type is an individual decision. This is not a partisan decision. 
This is a not a decision that can be blamed on any one individual in 
Washington.

  I think what is critical and what we need to assess is the response 
that we, as Government leaders, are making to this alarming increase. I 
think that is where we have to take focus here

[[Page S4279]]

today. I think we should specifically look at what this administration 
has done, because I think in examining it we will get a feel for the 
different types of priorities that can be established and give the 
American people a chance to decide which priorities they prefer.
  In terms of the Clinton administration, the first thing that we 
should note is the dramatic drop in drug prosecutions, both in 1993 and 
again in 1994. Despite the country's increasing drug problem in those 
years, Federal drug prosecutions fell from a high of over 25,000 
prosecutions in 1992 to fewer than 22,000 in 1994. It just 2 years, 
Federal drug prosecutions dropped 12 percent. In addition, this 
administration made the decision to dramatically reduce the budget of 
the drug czar's office. The war on drugs conducted through the drug 
czar's office, has been cut by approximately 83 percent.
  Mr. President, reducing the number of prosecutions and reducing the 
size of the budget of the drug czar's office, in my mind, at least, is 
the wrong set of priorities to deal with an increasing rate of drug 
abuse, particularly when much of the increase can be found among young 
people.
  Third, I think the administration has changed priorities in terms of 
the message it is sending, particularly the message young people are 
hearing. The Senator from Georgia has already identified, and I think 
accurately, and very positively talked about the impact of the ``just 
say no'' program. Mr. President, for the better part of a decade, the 
words ``just say no'' meant the same thing pretty much to everybody in 
America, and especially young people. It meant ``say no to drugs.'' 
With a theme like that resonating whether through the airwaves or in 
speeches of the public officials and the leadership of the First Lady, 
Nancy Reagan, young people heard clearly one continuous message. I 
think that that pervasive message helped to change the direction of 
drug use in this country. I think that message has been blurred a lot 
in recent years.
  Indeed, unfortunately, I think mixed signals have been sent 
inadvertently that have at least suggested a certain condoning of the 
use of drugs. I do not think that those are the kind of signals we want 
to send. For example, I note the Department of Health and Human 
Services has sponsored commercials on MTV proclaiming, ``If you use 
drugs, don't share a needle.''
  Now, I realize that ``just say no'' may have sounded hackneyed to 
some, but it works and it is true. In my judgment, sending any kind of 
signal to our children that suggests that any form of drug use is 
preferable to other forms, rather than as a society we are opposed to 
all drug use, will confuse, and I think contribute to their reluctance 
to follow the message to avoid the use of drugs altogether.
  In addition, I think we have sent a mixed message in terms of what 
the leading messengers of the administration have been saying about 
drugs. As we know, Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders talked at length 
about even going so far as to legalize drug use in this country. It 
just seems to me, Mr. President, if young people reach the conclusion 
that an administration or Washington or public officials think that 
drug legalization is an acceptable alternative, their willingness to 
begin experimenting or to use drugs will increase. Indeed, Mr. 
President, those seem to have been the results.
  Again, according to the former ``drug czar'' in my State of Michigan, 
just a few weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control jointly sponsored 
a conference in Atlanta with one of the country's leading pro-drug 
legalization organizations, the Drug Policy Foundation. The conference 
agenda was to promote needle exchanges and healthy drug use messages.
  These kinds of mixed messages, combined with a drop in prosecutions 
and a reduction in spending on the drug czar's office, I think, Mr. 
President, demonstrate the wrong priorities. I think we should have a 
healthy debate this year over this country's priorities. I happen to 
think that the investment of funds in the drug czar's office, the 
increased prosecution of drug offenders, and the sending of one clear 
unmistakable message that we should say no to drugs is the only way to 
seriously and effectively deal with the drug abuse problems we face in 
this country, and particularly with youthful drug offenders. I think to 
divert resources from that approach is to invite increases in drug use.
  I think the American people should understand that there are two very 
different courses, a course that was followed with great success for 
over a decade, and a new course that has blurred the message, invested 
fewer dollars and generated fewer prosecutions. That clear choice, I 
think, is one that we in Congress now should effectively try to 
address. I will be working hard to do that in my State, to try to make 
sure at least in Michigan we send an unequivocal message to just say no 
to drugs and I will do my best here to support efforts to beef up the 
forces that will crack down on drug abuse, those in both prosecutorial 
ranks and providing the drug czar's office and others with the adequate 
resources they need to combat this on the front lines.
  Last year, Mr. President, I was involved in sponsoring a bill which 
ultimately became law and was signed into law to try to make sure we 
did not liberalize the sentences that crack cocaine dealers would 
receive. We have to remain vigilant and tough. I think the sentences 
for those who use powder cocaine should be tougher as well. We have to 
make clear that young people in this country, and really to all 
Americans, that the war on drugs has not been won. Progress that was 
made in the 1980's can be reversed if we are not vigilant.
  I intend to come to the floor often, joining my colleague from 
Georgia and others, to make sure those are the messages we send. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Michigan. As I said, he has been a stalwart on this kind of work, on 
crime in general, and the United States and his State are all 
benefactors of his good work. I appreciate his coming to the floor.
  Just to mention again or reinforce a comment I made, when I began in 
1993 and 1994, President Clinton made seven addresses to the Nation. 
None mentioned illegal drugs--none. The President's official 1993 
Presidential papers reveal 13 references to illegal drugs as a total, 
in a total of 1,628 Presidential statements, addresses, and interviews.
  Of course, no wonder, Mr. President, if the bully pulpit is not used 
in whatever form it is chosen, I do not think you have to replicate 
what First Lady Reagan said, but you do have to use that pulpit. It got 
turned off.
  Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my colleague from Arizona, 
also a Senator who has come here with enthusiasm and energy on the 
topic of making American citizens safer. I yield to the Senator from 
Arizona.

  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his work on this issue 
and for yielding the time to me relative to the comments that he just 
made.
  I note as recently as yesterday on the ``Meet the Press'' television 
program, Senator Joseph Biden said: ``The President is silent on the 
matter. He has failed to speak.'' Of course, we are talking about the 
matter of drug abuse and, more broadly, the war on drugs.
  Actually, I am very heartened that the President has rediscovered his 
enthusiasm to fight this war on drugs. When he campaigned for the 
Presidency in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton said, ``President Bush 
hasn't fought a real war on crime and drugs. I will.'' During the first 
3 years in office, the President virtually ignored the drug problem. 
The moving trucks had barely arrived from Little Rock when the 
President slashed the office, the so-called drug czar's office, by 80 
percent. The drug problem received little attention thereafter from his 
administration.
  Whatever the motivation, some might say election year politics, I 
assume it is an obvious realization that the policy has not worked and 
has had a disastrous effect. The President has now reversed course and 
is exercising very needed leadership in our efforts to combat drugs.
  During his State of the Union Address, the President announced the 
appointment of General McCaffrey as the next drug czar, a welcome 
appointment, because General McCaffrey has a very fine reputation, and, 
of course, the energy and enthusiasm to deal with this problem.


                clinton's abdication on the war on drugs

                       a. slashing ondcp's budget

  As mentioned before, one of the first official acts by President 
Clinton was

[[Page S4280]]

to slash the drug czar's staff by more than 80 percent. The number of 
workers fell from 146 to just 25--half of the size of the White's 
House's communication staff. The President also cut the budget from 
$185.8 to $5.8 million--a 90-percent cut.
  After drastically reducing the size of the drug czar's office, the 
President took nearly a year to select a drug czar, finally settling on 
Lee Brown.
  Lee Brown was not an effective drug czar. Instead of focusing efforts 
on getting cocaine and other drugs off of our streets, Mr. Brown 
launched an effort to have ``Big League Chew'' bubble-gum removed from 
convenience store chains. The drug czar's office was concerned that the 
packaging resembled some chewing tobacco products, although its Deputy 
Director admitted that the agency didn't have any hard data to show 
look-alikes lead to use of the real thing.


     b. appointing a surgeon general who proposed legalizing drugs

  Lee Brown was not the only Clinton administration official to set 
back efforts to combat drug use. While serving as the Nation's top 
health official, Jocelyn Elders commented that, ``[I] do feel that we 
would markedly reduce our crime rate if drugs were legalized.''


              c. dramatically reduced interdiction efforts

  Under President Clinton, interdiction has been dramatically scaled 
back.
  Keeping drugs out of the country was an important and successful 
element of the Reagan-Bush drug war. Successful interdiction leads to 
less drugs reaching our streets, and poisoning our children. 
Interdiction raises the price of drugs, and lowers their purity, which 
translates into less people using drugs, and those who do, ingesting 
drugs of lower potency. As a candidate for the Presidency, Clinton 
recognized the importance of interdiction:

       [W]e need an effective, coordinated drug interdiction 
     program that stops the endless flow of drugs entering our 
     schools, our streets, and our communities. A Clinton-Gore 
     Administration will provide cities and states with the help 
     they need.

  The President's fiscal year 1996 request represented a 37-percent cut 
from 1991 interdiction funding levels. And in Clinton's first year in 
office, the National Security Council downgraded the drug war from one 
of three top priorities to number 29 on a list of 29.
  Between 1993 and the first half of 1995, the transit zone disruption 
rate--which measures the ability of the United States to seize or turn 
back drug shipments--dropped 53 percent. The President has cut the 
interdiction budgets of the U.S. Customs Service, the Department of 
Defense, and the Coast Guard. Not surprisingly, these agencies are 
showing a downturn in statistical measures of interdiction.
  The administration's cuts to the Customs Service interdiction budget 
coincided with a 70-percent decline in Customs-supported cocaine 
seizure in the transit zone.
  Between fiscal years 1992 and 1995, the Defense interdiction budgets 
were reduced by more than half.
  The Coast Guard operating budget for drug missions fell from $449.2 
million in fiscal year 1991 to a projected $314.2 million in fiscal 
year 1996. Cutter and aircraft resource hours for drug missions are 
projected to fall 23 and 34 percent, over the same period.


                 d. reduced emphasis on law enforcement

  The President has also reduced the emphasis on law enforcement.
  If the President's fiscal year 1995 budget proposal had been passed, 
the DEA, FBI, INS, U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard would 
have lost a total of 621 drug enforcement agents.
  While Congress reversed many of the Clinton cuts, the DEA has lost 
over 200 agents during the President's tenure. No DEA special agents 
were trained in 1993, nor were any budgeted to be trained in either 
1994, or 1995.
  Although drug use is going up, the number of individuals prosecuted 
for Federal drug violations is going down. Between 1992 and 1994 drug 
prosecutions dropped 12 percent.


                       e. abandoned bully pulpit

  President Clinton has failed to use the bully pulpit.
  Criticism of the President's lack of leadership on the drug issue is 
bipartisan. Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, 
said: ``I've been in Congress for over two decades, and I have never, 
never, never seen a President who cares less about this issue.''
  And yesterday on ``Meet the Press,'' Senator Biden said: ``This 
President is silent on the matter. He has failed to speak.''


                         f. treatment strategy

  The de facto strategy of the Clinton administration in fighting drugs 
was to deemphasize interdiction, law enforcement, and prevention, and 
concentrate on treatment.
  But even though Federal treatment spending was 230 percent greater in 
1995 than in 1989, the number of persons served in treatment decreased 
144,000.
  The President has continued to pursue his treatment strategy, even 
though reducing hard-core drug use through treatment is generally 
futile. A 1994 study by the Rand Corp. prepared for the drug czar's 
office studied the effects of treatment of hard-core cocaine users. The 
study found that 27 percent of hard-core drug users continued hard core 
use while undergoing treatment. And 88 percent of hard-core users 
returned to hard-core use immediately after treatment.


               results of president's lack of leadership

                           a. drug use is up

  As a measure of President Clinton's lack of leadership, drug use is 
up.
  The Clinton administration's abdication of the war on drugs has 
already had a devastating effect on all Americans--especially our 
Nation's children.
  Last year, the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research 
found that, after a decade of steady decline, drug use by students in 
grades 8, 10, and 12 rose in 1993.
  More bad news: In September 1995, the Department of HHS released the 
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, which showed that marijuana 
use had increased by an average of 50 percent among young people.
  One in three high school seniors now smokes marijuana. We are 
approaching the point where a student is just as likely to drink a soft 
drink than use an illicit substance
  The increase in marijuana use among young people is frightening, not 
only because so many of our young people are using this dangerous 
narcotic, but also because, according to surveys by the Center on 
Addiction and Substance Abuse, 12- to 17-year-olds who use marijuana 
are 85 times more likely to graduate to cocaine than those who do not 
use marijuana.
  Hard-core drug use is also up.
  The treatment strategy is failing. Far from decreasing the number of 
hard-core uses as Clinton predicted, the number is increasing.
  The Drug Abuse Warning Network [DAWN], which monitors the number and 
pattern of drug-related emergencies and deaths in 21 major metropolitan 
areas across the country is used as a bellwether of hard-core use 
because so many emergency room cases involve hard-core addicts. The 
most recent DAWN results: Cocaine-related episodes hit their highest 
level in history in 1995. Marijuana-related episodes increased 39 
percent, and methamphetamine cases rose 256 percent over the 1991 
level.
  Clearly, it makes far more sense to spend resources that will prevent 
people from using drugs in the first place. Once people are damaged by 
drugs, at most, treatment can prevent further harm. As some have said, 
you can't fight a war by focusing only on the treatment of the wounded.


                     B. WHAT THESE STATISTICS MEAN

  These statistics show that more kids are becoming hooked on dope. 
Promising young lives are being derailed.
  It is tough to imagine that American children will be equipped to 
compete with foreign competitors when one-third of high school seniors 
are smoking pot. The President can talk about education and all of the 
programs he wants, but if we don't work to keep kids off drugs, all 
the rhetoric and good intentions will be worthless.

  Drug abuse is a major contributing factor to child abuse and 
homelessness. All Americans bear the costs of the abuse--through 
increased crime and increased taxes to pay for welfare and other social 
programs. According to the drug czar's office, the social cost of drug 
use is $67 billion annually.


what can be done to return to the successes achieved during the reagan-
                                bush era

  President Clinton needs to do many things to recapture the advance 
made during the Reagan-Bush years.

[[Page S4281]]

  First, it needs to be recognized that the war on drugs can be won. It 
is not just the President who has waived a white flag--at least before 
his welcome change of heart--some prominent conservatives have also 
surrendered.
  According to statistics compiled by the National Household Survey on 
Drug Abuse, between 1979 and 1992, overall drug use declined about 50 
percent. Between 1985 and 1992, monthly cocaine use dropped by 78 
percent.
  If we turn from overall narcotics use to the crucial 14- to 18-age 
bracket, we see that the results of the Reagan-Bush efforts were just 
as encouraging. According to the monitoring the future study, illicit 
drug use by high school seniors dropped from 54.2 percent in 1979 to 
27.1 percent in 1992, and cocaine use fell from an annual rate of 13.1 
percent in 1985 to 3.4 percent in 1992.
  I believe that we should return to the strategies that were proven 
effective during the Reagan-Bush administrations. These include:
  Interdiction: Renewed efforts by the Federal agencies responsible for 
fighting drugs to spend greater resources identifying sources, 
methods, and individuals involved in trafficking.

  Enforcement: As I mentioned before, drug prosecutions under the 
Clinton administration have significantly decreased. Those violating 
our drug laws must be prosecuted. Additionally, we must make sure that 
those who are profiting from the drug trade are severely punished.
  Bully Pulpit: the intellectual elite laughed at the Reagan 
administration's ``Just Say No'' campaign. But it was clearly an 
important part of its successful efforts to reduce drug use. The ``Just 
Say Nothing'' approach of the Clinton administration has softened the 
attitudes of students toward marijuana. Peer disapproval of marijuana 
has dropped from 70 percent in 1992 to 58 percent in 1994.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I would like to say that efforts to 
fight drugs can and should be bipartisan. For example, earlier this 
year, Senator Feinstein introduced a bill--which I have cosponsored--to 
make it more difficult to peddle the ingredients use to make 
methamphetamine. Senator Feinstein recognized that further controls 
were necessary to stop a drug which is currently ravaging the Southwest 
from turning into the next crack epidemic.
  I am glad that the President is finally putting some energy into 
fighting the Nation's drug problem. His recent actions are appreciated, 
and should be at least somewhat helpful. It is time to resume the drug 
war. America's future is at stake.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
his remarks and contribution to this effort.
  I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator 
Coverdell, from Georgia and also Senator Kyl from Arizona. I want to 
echo the comments of the Senator because they are right on target. I 
hope the American people have had a chance to listen to what the 
Senator from Arizona said.
  Whatever happened to the war on drugs?
  In 1981, Americans were calling the drug epidemic the gravest 
internal problem facing our society. So Ronald Reagan issued a clarion 
call. He said, ``The United States has taken down the surrender flag 
and run up the battle flag. And we are going to win the war on drugs.'' 
That was in 1982.
  In 1992, candidate Clinton sounded out an all-out drug war charge. It 
is now 1996, an election year.
  Today, more than 3 years into his term, President Clinton is 
announcing his drug policy. Maybe it is better late than never. But to 
this Senator it sounds a lot like an election conversion.
  Under the Clinton administration, drug use amongst teenagers is up 
sharply, and drugs are more readily available and more cheaply 
available than at any time in our Nation's history. The surrender flag 
has been run up the pole once again.
  This is not a partisan point of view. Look at what some leading 
Democrats said about Clinton's lack of leadership in combating drug 
use.
  ``The President is silent on the matter. He has failed to speak.''
  That was not made by Don Nickles or Paul Coverdell. It was made by 
Joe Biden on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' on the 28th of April, yesterday.
  Here is another quote:
  ``I have never seen a President care less about drugs.'' Again, not 
by a partisan Republican but by Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York.
  Many Americans, I think, are startled to realize these facts. ``What 
happened to the war on drugs? I thought we were winning.'' Well, we 
were.
  Between 1979 and 1992 the number of Americans using illicit drugs 
plunged from 24.7 million to 11.4 million. The so-called casual use of 
cocaine fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 1992, and monthly cocaine 
use fell by 55 percent between 1988 and 1992 alone; an enormous 
decline.
  We were winning the war. We were on the way. The war was not over, to 
be sure, but we had won a lot of battles, and significant progress had 
been made. So what has happened?
  Part of the answer must lie in the fact that the bully pulpit used so 
often and so forcefully by President Reagan and President Bush, and by 
their appointee, Bill Bennett, our former drug czar, and Nancy Reagan 
and Barbara Bush, has been vacated by this administration.
  The strategy of ``just say no'' that Nancy Reagan used was laughed at 
by many of the persons in this administration. But it has turned into a 
policy not of ``just say no'' but ``just say nothing'' by this 
administration.
  It could be that the administration's silence has been by design 
created by a need to cover up the backsliding that has resulted from 
the administration's failed policies.
  Whatever happened to the war on drugs?
  The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Orrin Hatch, issued a 
report in December of last year, and it provides several good clues.
  Clue No. 1: President Clinton slashes the Office of Drug Control 
Policy.
  President Clinton had been in office almost a year before he finally 
appointed his drug czar, and that was Lee Brown.
  After receiving his appointment, Mr. Brown was not greeted with the 
support one would expect from a President who is dedicated to an all-
out war on drugs.
  While reminding America that drug abuse is ``as serious a problem as 
we have in America,'' President Clinton greeted his Cabinet-level drug 
czar with a decimated budget and radically reduced staff. Staff size at 
the Office of Drug Control Policy was reduced from 146 employees to 25 
under President Clinton. That is less than one-half the size of the 
White House communications staff. That is about one-sixth. He did not 
cut it in half. He did not cut it by a third. He cut from 146 
individuals to 25.
  He cut the budget from $185.8 million to only $5.8 million. It does 
not even show up. He cut it from $185 million to less than $6 million.
  That was the President's war on drugs. That looks like a surrender to 
me. It looks like he gave up.
  Clue No. 2: President Clinton downplays the domestic law enforcement 
efforts.
  President Clinton's budgets have resulted in a loss of 227 agents 
from the Drug Enforcement Administration between September 1992 and 
September 1995.
  The number of individuals prosecuted for Federal drug violations 
dropped 12 percent over this same period of time; no big surprise. If 
you cut the number of agents by 227 in 3 years, you are going to have a 
significant number of individuals prosecuted.
  Clue No. 3: President Clinton scales back efforts for drug 
trafficking prevention.
  The overall proportion of the Customs Service budget devoted to drug 
control fell from 45.5 percent in 1991 to projected 33.9 percent in 
1996, again a significant reduction in Custom's budget.
  Department of Defense airborne detection and monitoring assets were 
cut back from 3,400 to 1,850 hours between 1992 and 1995--again almost 
half.
  The use of Navy vessels measured in so-called steaming days was cut 
from 420 to 170--less than half.
  We are doing a lot less interdiction.
  The Coast Guard operating expense budget for drug missions fell from 
$449 million in fiscal year 1991 to projected $314 million in 1996.

[[Page S4282]]

  What is the result of these actions? Between 1993 and the first 6 
months of 1995, the transit zone ``disruption rate''--which measures 
the ability of the United States to seize or otherwise turn back drug 
shipments--dropped 53 percent.
  The number of drug trafficking aircraft seized by Customs in the 
transit zone fell from 37 to 10 between 1993 and 1995.
  The Coast Guard cocaine seizures remain 73 percent below the peak of 
1991.
  Marijuana seizures fell even more drastically--more than 90 percent 
over the same period.
  Mr. President, I look at many of the things that President Clinton 
has done, and I see a real lack of leadership--almost a surrender on 
the war on drugs. Maybe this is best exemplified by the some of his 
appointees.
  I think of Dr. Elders, who was President Clinton's first Surgeon 
General, a candidate whom many of us opposed because of her positions 
on a lot of issues. After she was confirmed, she made a couple of 
statements of note. One, she said ``I think we should consider 
legalizing drugs.'' This was not anybody. This was the Surgeon General, 
the No. 1 public health officer appointed by this administration who 
said that we should ``consider legalizing drugs.''
  What did President Clinton do? He said, ``Well, I am not sure I agree 
with her.'' He asked her not to say it again. A couple of months later 
she said it again. ``I think we should seriously consider legalizing 
drug use.''
  This is not a war on drugs. This is a capitulation. This is 
surrender. This is not using the bully pulpit to combat drug use. This 
is saying maybe top officials in Government think we should legalize 
drugs. Maybe drugs are not so bad after all.
  She was wrong. Was she removed for those statements? No, she was not. 
She might have been reprimanded for the first.
  The second statement she made was almost ignored, and, frankly, she 
was removed from office for other statements she made talking about 
teaching kids things on sexual tendencies and so on in the classroom. 
She was not removed for her discussion before the press that we should 
legalize drugs. Again, this is the Nation's No. 1 health officer. Is 
not drug use unhealthy? Certainly.
  Again, what about example? President Clinton's own admission that he 
has used drugs--and then he came back and said, ``Well, I never broke 
the laws of this country.'' Well, it was in some other country. But he 
said he did not inhale. What kind of example is that?

  Again, we want to discourage the use of drugs, and when we talk about 
statistics and we see drug use is up sharply amongst teenagers, what 
kind of example do we have by the President himself?
  Sadly, like so many other things, the war on drugs fell victim to a 
President who lacks conviction to back up his promises.
  I am glad the President made a speech today talking about we need to 
stand up and fight the war on drugs. Again, it sounds to this Senator 
like an election conversion. For 3 years where has his leadership been? 
It has been actually vacant. It has been silent. It has not existed. It 
is surrender.
  Now we have an election, and I think pollsters informed the 
President, ``Hey, this is an important issue, and drug use is up 
amongst teenagers.'' So, finally, we have a speech 6 months before 
election time.
  So what now? On December 13, Majority Leader Bob Dole and Speaker of 
the House Newt Gingrich convened a bicameral Leadership Task Force on 
National Drug Policy. The task force was chaired by Senators Grassley 
and Orrin Hatch, as well as House Members William Zeliff and Henry 
Hyde.
  They were asked to develop principles for coherent, national 
counterdrug policy as well as supporting strategy for future actions. 
On March 28 of this year, the task force released a five-point national 
drug strategy.
  Sound interdiction strategy. We must stop the enemies' attack by 
protecting our borders from the pestilence of drugs. On land, air, and 
sea, our Nation's enforcement officers must have the commitment and the 
resources from our Nation's leader's so they can do their job.
  Serious international commitment to the full range of counter-
narcotics activities. We must support renewed efforts by the U.S. 
Customs Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, Department of Defense, and Coast Guard to 
identify sources, methods, and individuals involved in drug 
trafficking.

  Effective enforcement of the Nation's drug laws. The Clinton 
administration's revolving door justice is making innocent Americans 
prisoners in their own communities. Our policy must be simply: If you 
commit the crime, you do the time.
  We must also commit to nominating and confirming judges who are tough 
on crime, unlike President Clinton's judicial nominees --and primarily 
I think of Judge Baer, who basically said, no, we will not use the 
evidence of pounds and pounds of cocaine; it was seized illegally. 
Under pressure, President Clinton pressured the judge and the judge 
changed his mind. Maybe that is good. But the better aspect of that 
would have been not to have Judge Baer a Federal judge. He was 
President Clinton's nominee and, unfortunately, has lifetime tenure.
  We need a united commitment toward prevention and education. A key 
component of any coherent, sustained drug program must be a public 
education program. This means ensuring that the bully pulpit is not 
empty and that national leadership is not AWOL. The antidrug message 
must be clear, consistent, and repeated often, not just in election 
years.
  Mr. President, we need treatment returning to a proper balance. We 
must realize that emphasizing treatment alone addresses the wrong end 
of the problem. Treatment is most effective for those who are motivated 
and face substantial penalty if they do not achieve and maintain 
sobriety.
  Mr. President, I thank again my colleague, Senator Coverdell, and 
Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, and others for their work on combating 
drugs. We need to do this every year. It needs to be done by the White 
House, through the bully pulpit, appointees--appointment of good 
judges--and we need a consistent effort, not just in an election year. 
Unfortunately, I think we have not had that from this administration.
  I urge my colleagues to be forceful. I urge my colleagues to speak 
out because the war on drugs needs to be fought, and for the sake of 
our children the war on drugs needs to be won.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his important 
remarks and observations made about the situation on the drug war.
  Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the senior Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we are talking basically today about crime, 
though I heard Senator Gorton speak on another subject, and obviously 
an important one. He mentioned Pericles of Athens and, I would only 
add, O that the Lord would send us a Pericles now that we really need 
one. But we are here today basically talking about crime, and I want to 
touch on three issues. I want to express frustration about two of them. 
For the last 6 years, as we have debated crime bills, I have offered 
two amendments that have passed the Senate with overwhelming votes. 
They both relate to mandatory minimum sentencing.
  The first amendment addresses the same issue the President addressed 
this morning in Florida, and that is the problem we have with children 
and drugs. The amendment I have offered recognizes the fact that there 
is a drug pusher almost literally standing at the doorway of every 
junior high school in America. In addition, increasingly drug pushers 
use children to deliver the drug and to take the cash, because it is at 
that point of transaction, where the exchange between money and drugs 
actually occurs, that you have the strongest possibility of 
prosecution. And so, what is increasingly happening in our country is 
not only are drug pushers exploiting our children by selling drugs 
outside the doorway--and sometimes inside the doorway--of what would 
seem to be every junior high school in America, but increasingly our 
children are being used in drug conspiracies to actually transfer the 
drug and take the money.

[[Page S4283]]

  Recognizing this incredible tragedy, I have repeatedly offered an 
amendment to require 10 years in prison without parole for selling 
drugs to a minor or for using a minor in drug trafficking or a drug 
conspiracy. Two years ago I strengthened that amendment to add life 
imprisonment without parole on a repeat offense.
  The thing I think would be most stunning for people to know is that 
while we have adopted my amendment on minimum mandatory sentencing for 
selling drugs to children or using our children in drug sales, every 
time we have debated a crime bill this decade, that amendment has been 
adopted, and yet it has never become the law of the land. In fact, in 
President Clinton's so-called crime bill, in 1994, Congress overturned 
minimum mandatory sentencing for drug felons and, by giving discretion 
to judges, in essence, guaranteed that the minimum sentencing 
provisions we had, were largely eliminated.
  This spring and summer we are going to debate crime again. I want to 
put my colleagues on notice. I am going to offer this amendment again: 
10 years in prison without parole for selling drugs to a minor or using 
a minor in drug trafficking; life imprisonment without parole on the 
second offense. I am not going to stop until, this year, we make that 
amendment the law of the land.
  The second provision, which I have offered now for the better part of 
a decade--and it normally gets an overwhelming majority in the Senate, 
but it never becomes law--is 10 years in prison without parole for 
possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or a drug 
felony; 20 years for discharging the firearm; life imprisonment without 
parole for killing somebody, and, in aggravated cases, the death 
penalty. That provision has consistently been adopted, but what always 
happens is in the conference committee, where we work out the 
differences between the Senate bill and the House bill, it ends up 
being dropped. I do not intend to see that happen this year.
  We have proven in the District of Columbia and all over the planet 
that gun control does not work. But if we add 10 years in prison 
without parole for simply possessing a firearm during a violent crime 
or drug felony, in addition to the penalty for the violent crime and 
drug felony, if we add 20 years for discharging the firearm, if we had 
the death penalty for killing somebody, we could begin to do something 
about gun violence in America. I am ready. The Senate has been ready, 
at least in terms of the public votes we cast. But in the private 
votes, in conference committee, this provision, year after year after 
year, has been dropped. It is time for that to stop.
  Finally, I want to put prisoners to work in America. It seems that 
every year somebody offers an amendment--normally, our dear colleague 
from North Carolina, Senator Helms--to ban trade with some country that 
uses prison labor, and every year I wonder why we cannot use prison 
labor. We have 1.1 million people in prison in America, yet we have 
three Federal statutes, all arising out of the Depression era, that 
criminalize prison labor in America: the Hawes-Cooper Act, the Sumners-
Ashurst Act, and the Walsh-Healey Public Contracting Act. Each 
effectively limits our ability to have people work in prison to produce 
goods for sale.
  One bill says it is a felony if you produce something in prison and 
send it across State lines; another bill limits the transport of such 
goods; another limits the use of prison labor in regard to Federal 
contracts. Converted into English, what that says it that it is illegal 
to make prisoners work. I do not understand that.
  I want to repeal these three statutes. I want to turn our prisons 
into industrial parks. I want to make prisoners work 10 hours a day, 6 
days a week, and I want to make them go to school at night. We spent 
$22,000 a year last year to keep somebody in the Federal penitentiary. 
If we stop building prisons like Holiday Inns, if we make prisoners 
work, I believe we could cut that cost by 50 percent in 5 years, and 
cut it by three-quarters in 10 years, and I think that ought to be our 
objective.
  So I think it is time to stop talking about the crime problem and 
start doing something about it.
  I remind my colleagues that last year in the Commerce, State, Justice 
appropriations bill, the committee adopted an amendment that I authored 
that would repeal these three laws. But guess what happened? It was not 
in the final version of the bill. The same thing that has happened on 
minimum mandatory sentencing for selling drugs to children, the same 
thing that has happened on minimum mandatory sentencing for gun 
violence. We cast votes in the Senate--in public everybody says, 
``Great,'' they are really serious about this problem--and then some of 
our most senior Members meet in the dark, dingy corners of some room 
here in this magnificent building and these great proposals die.
  I believe the time has come for that to stop. I think these are three 
changes that need to be made, and I intend to continue to fight for 
them. It is our Republican agenda. I want to make it happen.
  I thank our colleague from Georgia for his great leadership, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Texas, 
and I wish him well on the efforts to secure the adoption of his 
amendments.
  We have been joined by the Senator from New Mexico. I yield, if he is 
prepared, up to 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the distinguished 
junior Senator from Georgia, a Republican, for arranging this floor 
time, to give us an opportunity to talk to the issue of drugs and 
crime.
  The remarks that the President made in Miami today concerning the 
administration's new drug control strategy--and I underline the word 
``new''--come as a great surprise to me. Accompanying the President was 
the new drug czar, General McCaffrey. He has been a rather outstanding 
American general, and while he has only been on this job a little more 
than a month, he is already having an impact on the policies of this 
administration.
  But in the past 3 years, since the President took office, drug use by 
children between the ages of 12 and 17 has increased 50 percent. 
Cocaine used by high school students has increased 36 percent during 
that same period of time. Juvenile crimes have increased dramatically 
during this same period, and studies show that drug use is closely 
linked to juvenile crime. According to the Justice Department, in 1994, 
one out of three juvenile offenders was under the influence of drugs at 
the time of their arrest.
  There are several aspects to the drug and crime problem that I would 
like to touch upon today. They include drug use, interdiction, and 
juvenile crime as it relates to drugs.
  As you know, Mr. President, my home State is in the southwestern part 
of America. In fact, New Mexico and Mexico share 175 miles of common 
border. I say that looking directly at the Senator from Georgia, 
because some Olympic organizers got confused and did not think there 
was a border. They thought New Mexico was Mexico. We have straightened 
that out, at least temporarily.
  But to show that, seriously, we understand this issue, we have 175 
miles of common border, and without an effective drug control 
interdiction strategy involving help from the Mexican Government, that 
175 miles can and, I might say does, serve as a huge segment of the 
pipeline through which illegal drugs flow to these United States.
  It is not uncommon for contra-bandistas to cross the border at El 
Paso or Santa Teresa into New Mexico. Incidentally, some of these 
individuals are human mules. Others are actually accompanied by donkeys 
or other animals that have been fit with packets of illegal drugs and, 
in many cases, have been fed the illegal drugs--literally ingested 
them.
  Mexican drug gangs also are responsible for large quantities of 
methamphetamine, or speed, as we commonly know it, as well as other 
drugs which have begun to pose particularly difficult problems in the 
Western States.

  When the FBI and the DEA appeared before the Senate Banking Committee 
in March, their prepared statements included the following information:

       Of three dominant Mexican drug gangs, one is located in 
     Juarez, just an hour by car

[[Page S4284]]

     from a city in New Mexico called Las Cruces. This Juarez 
     cartel is headed by Amado Carillo Fuentes, the most powerful 
     figure in the Mexican drug trade. He is known as ``the lord 
     of the skies'' because he owns several airplanes and, indeed, 
     several airline companies which enable him to fly 727 jet 
     airplanes from Colombia into Juarez.
       We used to wonder about interdicting twin engine Piper Cubs 
     and Cessnas and single engines. We cannot catch this fellow, 
     this ``lord of the skies,'' because he is so big, strong and 
     rich that he has his own airlines. His group is directly 
     associated with the Rodriguez Orejuela drug mafia in Cali, 
     Colombia, and through a cousin to the Ochoa brothers of the 
     Medellin cartel as well.
       This Juarez cartel acts as the transportation agent for the 
     Colombia-based distribution organizations, and the cartel's 
     operations include the use of 18-wheelers to transport money. 
     Murders in Juarez have increased and have been associated 
     with Carillo Fuentes. For instance, in July of 1995, the 
     leader of the juvenile gang Carillo Fuentes used to smuggle 
     drugs across the border, was found shot 23 times in the head.
       These Mexican transportation organizations are full 
     partners with the Colombians in the drug trade. They are full 
     and total partners--it is customary for them to split 50-50 
     the drug profits.

  I was shocked by this information, but it is accurate. As I said, it 
was excerpted from the testimony of the FBI and the DEA before the 
Senate Banking Committee on Mexican-American cooperation with reference 
to stopping the flow of drugs into this country.

  My State, because of its proximity, has been particularly affected by 
the inability of the Republic of Mexico to deal with the illegal trade. 
A group, which I helped establish, called New Mexico First, recently 
published a report on crime in New Mexico. The results of the report 
show that there is a direct link between drug use and crime in my 
State. The report notes, and I quote, ``A common and reoccurring 
characteristic [of those committing crime in New Mexico] is substance 
abuse.''
  According to the report, 75 percent of those arrested in 1994 and 
1995 admitted to using illegal drugs. Sixty percent of the criminals in 
New Mexico tested positive for at least one illegal drug at the time of 
their arrest, and 18 percent of females arrested were under the 
influence of three or more illegal substances.
  New Mexico first, in its report, also notes that the use of cocaine 
by criminals has doubled from 1992 to 1994. Amphetamine use was up 
fourfold during the same period.
  In his speech today, the President asked Congress to increase funding 
for the drug war by 9.3 percent to give schools, hospitals, and 
communities the tools they need to fight the war on drugs, however, he 
offered few specific details on how this money was to be used.

  The President is correct to emphasize the methamphetamine threat, 
which is growing every day. Nationwide that threat has risen 256 
percent over the 1991 level. We are seeing it as a growing problem in 
New Mexico schools, and much of it is manufactured in Mexico.
  Not too long ago 700 pounds of speed was intercepted in Las Cruces, 
NM. I just told you that is 1 hour from the Juarez headquarters of the 
very major gang that I described. That drug, which causes 
hallucinations, paranoia, and wrecks a lot of lives, is in abundance in 
my State. And it is becoming more abundant in America, not just in the 
border States.
  In the city of Albuquerque, we saw a group of young girls aged 10 to 
13 breaking into homes to steal jewelry, that they would sell to kids 
doing drugs. The kids doing drugs would sell the stolen property to pay 
for their drug habits. Several of the young girls have been charged 
with as many as 30 felonies. It is a real problem.
  But, actions speak louder than words. The day after taking office the 
Clinton administration cut the Office of National Drug Policy staff by 
more than 80 percent. Soon after taking office the Attorney General 
announced that she wanted to reduce the mandatory sentences for drug 
trafficking and related Federal crimes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, can I have 3 additional minutes?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Consequently, Federal drug prosecutions dropped 12 
percent in the first 2 years of the Clinton administration. From 1992 
to 1995, 227 agent positions were eliminated from the DEA. And 
President Clinton's 1995 budget proposed cutting 621 enforcement 
positions for DEA, FBI, INS, and Customs.
  Fortunately, in the Subcommittee of Appropriations which I was 
privileged to serve on, we restored most of these positions. The 
Clinton administration also has shifted funding priorities away from 
drug interdiction to treatment of hardcore users.
  The President asked for an increase, but gave no specifics about what 
to do with the money. I have some specifics. Reintroduce the drug 
education program for our youth that was developed in the 1980's. 
Programs like ``just say no'' had a visible impact on reducing drug 
use.
  Adopt a policy of treating violent juvenile offenders in the same 
manner as we treat violent adult offenders. The current system fosters 
a lack of respect for law and the courts and encourages the commission 
of more crimes by more juveniles. We are reluctant to hold them 
accountable. As a matter of fact, we wait until they have been arrested 
innumerable times, incarcerated innumerable times, before we decide 
that they must truly be held accountable.
  A survey of judges showed that 93 percent thought that juvenile 
offenders should be fingerprinted, which they are not. And 85 percent 
said that juvenile arrest records should be available to adult 
authorities. They are not. I believe both should become a part of 
common practice. While the State's business is the State's business, I 
believe that if we are going to supply more and more aid to fight 
crime, we ought to begin to ask States to do these kinds of things.
  The judges want to fingerprint juveniles so we have permanent records 
of their criminal acts. They want the arrest records to be available, 
just as adult records. Perhaps there should be a time limit, maybe not 
13 years of age, but starting maybe at 12. But essentially we must act 
and act quickly in this regard.
  So I come to the floor of the Senate to say that the President's 
speech today was long past due. It is almost too late for the President 
to have credibility on this issue. Actually, if the distinguished 
general that recently was hired after the drug policy office was 
rendered a nullity, if the office would have been funded and had 
somebody like the general in charge 3 years ago, just look at the 
results we might be expecting today. For he has already taken charge 
and is doing some very positive things.
  Let me say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, I welcome the 
opportunity to speak on this subject and again thank him for arranging 
the time. I hope it is educational. I hope the people of our country 
learn from it, as the Senator expects them to. Most of all, I hope we 
do some very constructive things with reference to this issue. I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I would remind 
him, as he spoke of what has not happened over the past 3 years, that 
there are consequences of that, the most specific of which is that 
where we had 1.5 million teenagers caught up in this vicious cycle, we 
now have 3 years later 3 million. So 1.5 million teenagers have been 
steered to this problem because of our lack of attention, each one of 
those a personal tragedy in and of itself.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his eloquent remarks on this 
subject. I now yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I come to the floor to echo the words of the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, as well as Georgia. We just heard the statistics on 
teenagers and drug abuse, misuse. I had the pleasure this morning of 
sitting around the breakfast table with my youngest son, who is now 9 
years of age, and had the opportunity to wish him happy birthday. And 
across the table at breakfast this morning, I was thinking about what 
to say and how to express it, and I looked in the eyes of my 12-year-
old son, whose birthday is in 8 days, and he will be 13 years of age.
  We just heard the statistics. But the backdrop of what I had to say, 
as I looked at my children, who are a part of that generation, sitting 
around the breakfast table, was that survey done by the Department of 
Health and

[[Page S4285]]

Human Services, where drug use among teenagers rose from 2.4 million 4 
years ago to 3.8 million in 1994. Marijuana use increased 137 percent 
among 12- to 13-year-olds--the exact age of my son--since 1992. 
Marijuana use increased 200 percent among 14- to 15-year-olds during 
this same period.
  This, I might add, sharply contrasts with the Reagan-Bush record 
where between 1979 and 1992, overall drug use declined more than 50 
percent.
  So that is the backdrop. It is the concern for the current young 
generation, the generation of our children.
  President Clinton referred to action over the last 3 years, as we 
heard his words this morning, but the action has not been there. Ever 
since the start of 1996, President Clinton has been shouting about law 
and order. He capped his efforts today by unveiling in Miami a new drug 
strategy. But what you are seeing now, I am afraid, is no more than yet 
another demonstration of President Clinton's lack of candor with the 
American people. And all you have to do is go back and look at what has 
happened over the last 3 years.
  President Clinton, in spite of his rhetoric, has been soft on crime. 
He has appointed judges who favor the rights of criminals over law-
abiding citizens. He abandoned, as we have heard, the war on drugs. 
Only now in this election year does he rediscover the crime and drug 
issue.

  As the old saying goes, ``Shame on you for fooling me once, but shame 
on me for being fooled twice.'' So, before we are fooled once again by 
President Clinton's law and order rhetoric, we should take a closer 
look at the actual--I call it ``dismal'' --record of law enforcement 
and drug policy over the past 3 years.
  Going back to 1992, when Clinton claimed, in an effort to win the war 
on drugs, he would put a premium on drug interdiction, at that time he 
stated: ``We need an effective, coordinated drug interdiction program 
that stops the endless flow of drugs entering our schools, our streets, 
and our communities.'' He further stated he would provide cities and 
States with the help they need. It sounds good. Who could possibly 
disagree with this strategy?
  If you look at the actual record of President Clinton, once he was 
elected, not only did he not pursue new efforts to stop drugs from 
entering this country, he gutted existing drug interdiction efforts.
  First, the newly elected President Clinton cut--cut--his drug policy 
office staff by 83 percent. He cut the staff from 146 employees to 25 
employees. Then he had his National Security Council drop the drug war 
from one of its top three priorities to No. 29, and there were only 29 
priorities on the list.
  In 1993, President Clinton stopped the training of new DEA agents. 
What a contrast this was to the drug interdiction record of President 
Bush, who trained 347 DEA agents in 1992 alone.
  Does President Clinton's commitment to fighting drugs sound bad? 
Unfortunately, there is more when we look at the record. President 
Clinton cut Federal spending on drug interdiction by 14 percent during 
his first 2 years as President. Now, in the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request, he wants to cut drug interdiction spending by 37 percent from 
1991 levels. His misguided efforts to gut drug interdiction programs 
have resulted in America losing its war on drugs.
  With fewer DEA agents, there have been fewer drug prosecutions and 
fewer convictions. Between 1992 and 1994, Federal drug prosecutions 
dropped by 12.5 percent. Furthermore, fewer drugs are being stopped at 
the border. From 1993 to the 6 months of 1995, the transit zone so-
called ``disruption rate'' --that is the ability of U.S. forces to 
seize or turn back drug shipments--dropped 53 percent from 435 
kilograms per day to 205 kilograms. This means that in all probability, 
approximately 84 metric tons of additional illegal drugs may be 
arriving on the streets of America.

  With fewer drugs being stopped at the border, drugs are more readily 
available. Under President Clinton, the supply of drugs has increased 
so much that between February 1993 and February 1995, the price of 
cocaine fell by 20 percent and the price of heroin fell by 37 percent.
  Clinton's soft-on-crime approach to drug interdiction has paralleled 
the increase that I opened with, drug abuse among our children, with 
those children who, at the age of my 12- to 13-year-old Harrison, 
marijuana use has increased 137 percent.
  We should resume, not desert, the war on drugs. So, face it, we have 
to look at the actions. The actions do speak louder than words. I 
commend President Clinton for coming forward today, but we should look 
at what he has done those last 3 years. While President Clinton plays 
lip service to the rights of law-abiding citizens, his abandonment of 
drug interdiction efforts has left children all over America vulnerable 
to drug-dealing thugs. To make matters worse, President Clinton has 
sprinkled his judicial appointments with judges who go out of their way 
to put criminals back on the streets.
  Mr. President, in closing, after looking at President Clinton's crime 
record over the past 3 years, there is only one conclusion that anyone 
with common sense can have about it: President Clinton has been soft on 
crime and drugs, and he is trying to conceal this fact through rhetoric 
during this election year. It is time to be tough on crime for the 
future of our children.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee. I 
will ask unanimous consent--we negotiated with the other side--for an 
additional 5 minutes on our time, and then I will yield up to 5 minutes 
to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. COVERDELL). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding and in 
assuming the Chair so I could speak for a few moments on this very 
important issue.
  I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for relating, I think, the 
kind of concerns that all of us have today about the future of our 
young people and the kind of environment in which they live and survive 
in. I use the word ``survive'' because I think when the Presiding 
Officer and I were growing up, the kinds of stresses in the 
communities, the kind of peer pressure we had, was so significantly 
different than it is today. There is no doubt that access to drugs, the 
availability of drugs, the kind of statistics that we have heard quoted 
here in the last little while prey heavily upon young people and 
provide them not only with unique opportunities, but with tremendous 
courses toward disaster if they choose to make themselves available to 
these drugs.

  I must say that when I look at the statistics today, when I see there 
was an effort begun in this country in 1979 and early 1980 and 
throughout the 1980's by Members of the Senate and Members of the 
House, the administrations of that time, to focus Federal law 
enforcement and dollars to the interdiction of drugs coming into our 
communities and into our economy, and in doing so, we found out that it 
was working. We found out that illicit drugs plummeted in their usage 
from 24 million in 1979 to about 11.4 million by 1992. The so-called 
casual use of cocaine fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 1990, while 
monthly cocaine use fell 55 percent between 1988 and 1992.
  It was not by accident, Mr. President, that that was happening. It 
was happening because this country, its Government and its law 
enforcement community, was focused. We recognized the crisis in urban 
America and the crisis on the streets that was dragging our young 
people into it. It was a drug crisis. That is why Americans told us, 
``Something has to be done. We are concerned about the future of our 
country and the future of our young people.''
  As recently as December of this past year, in a Gallup poll, an issue 
that had begun to slide on the polling of Americans as to a No. 1 issue 
was up again, to show that 94 percent of Americans viewed illegal drug 
use, again, as a crisis and a very serious problem for our society, and 
that something must be done about it.
  That is what was going on out there. Of course, you have heard 
speakers here on the floor today speak of the President's initiatives 
announced today in a backdrop of something or nothing having been done 
for the first 3 years of his administration--or, I should say, a great 
deal being done, but none of it right: a near collapse of the drug 
program in this Government, the laying off of employees and personnel 
in the area of drug enforcement, and

[[Page S4286]]

the focus of this administration largely disappearing from a high 
priority to a very low priority, showing very clearly that when you 
focus and when you direct resources on a problem of this nature, you 
can have a substantial impact. We were beginning to show the real 
results of the availability of these drugs on the streets, and, of 
course, if they are on the streets, then there is an opportunity for 
our young people to have access to them.
  Perhaps 820,000 of the new crop of youthful marijuana smokers will 
eventually try cocaine. That is a statistic that has just come from a 
study done by the Senate Judiciary Committee, published by the 
chairman, Orrin Hatch--a horrible statistic, in light of the fact that 
we are now being told by the criminologists of our country, ``Get 
braced, America, for the greatest juvenile crime wave in the history of 
our country.'' What is it driven by? In part, it is driven by drugs, or 
the desire to have access to them and, therefore, the willingness to 
commit crimes to have the resources to pay for them. These are horrible 
statistics that we must become aware of.
  I am so pleased today that the Senator from Georgia has taken this 
special order to speak to this issue. I say, Mr. President, thank you 
for waking up. But shame on you for turning your back, in the last 3 
years, on an initiative that was working well and removing drugs from 
our streets and was creating a better environment for our youth.
  Better late than never? I hope so, because I think the American 
people want it, and I certainly hope this President will focus the 
resources of our Government, once again, toward aggressive interdiction 
and a program worthy of this country in getting drugs off of our 
streets and making the environment in which our children live a safer 
place. I yield the remainder of my time.
  (Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Idaho for his remarks on this terribly important issue. If we can just 
step back for a moment and try to put this situation into perspective, 
it began with the inauguration of President Clinton. The first sign 
from the White House was the suspension of the preemployment drug 
testing program at the White House of the United States. From that 
moment on, the message became clearer and clearer. We have heard all 
the statistics that have emanated since--a shutting down of the policy 
of interdiction, law enforcement, and education saying to America's 
youth that drugs are harmful.
  The result of these changed policies are these: America's youth today 
no longer think drugs are dangerous. That statistic has plummeted. So 
it should come as no surprise to any of us that usage has skyrocketed. 
They no longer are afraid because of signals like no more drug testing 
or, ``Let us legalize drugs,'' or, ``Let us shut the drug czar's office 
down,'' or do not mention drugs at all in 3 years. So that pulpit is 
shut off, the resources are shut off, our youngsters no longer think it 
is a problem, and they start exploring drugs. The result is that we 
have gone from just under 2 million using them to almost 4 million. So 
that means that 2 million American families and 2 million teenagers' 
lives are stunted or put at risk as a result of these policies that 
have been changed.

  Mr. President, in closing, the ripple effect of this is stunning. I 
was with President Zedillo of Mexico a couple of weeks ago, and he said 
that the drug lords' attack on his country is the single greatest 
threat of national security to that nation. I say, further, Mr. 
President, that drugs in the narco operations are the single greatest 
threat to the security of the democracies in our hemisphere.
  Mr. President, in closing, I say that this is the first time a war 
has ever been declared on children age 8 to 12 years old. What a 
disgusting, evil force we stand against. This is a war we cannot afford 
to lose.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk continued calling the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________