[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 113 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9027-S9030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CULTIVATING THE FUTURE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a wise man once said that what is 
honored in a society is cultivated there. In other words, what a 
society believes is important and respects, it will teach its children 
and demand in its public life. I have been concerned in the last few 
days by what it seems to me that we are honoring in our society. And I 
am concerned because of that about what we may be cultivating for the 
future.
  I am concerned about what we have learned in the past few days and 
weeks about the attitudes the Clinton White House has about security 
clearances and security procedures in general. I am also concerned 
about drug use, respect for privacy, and regard for simple facts 
straightforwardly presented. I am concerned about what attitudes on 
these issues, coming from the Nation's first household, are 
communicating to the public. I am particularly troubled about the White 
House's seemingly cavalier attitude about drug use and about the 
message that this careless viewpoint is sending.
  Based on reporting in the Washington Post, ``The Secret Service in 
1993 balked at granting permanent passes to about a dozen people in the 
Clinton White House because of concerns about recent use of illegal 
drugs that in some instances included crack cocaine or hallucinogens. . 
. .'' But this is not all. The problem was evidently so serious as to 
require the unprecedented step of establishing a special drug-testing 
program in the White House. We have heard that this involves only a few 
people. But then we also heard from the same White House that there 
were only a few unauthorized FBI files. That story had to be revised 
several times as the numbers grew. Perhaps that will not happen here, 
but the numbers are not really the issue.
  What is of concern is the principle. In the files case, one file 
improperly obtained, illegally reviewed, and carelessly kept was too 
many. In any normal operation, the person responsible for this chain of 
slipshod management would be identified, fired, and, if a crime was 
committed, prosecuted. In the present case, however, the White House 
not only does not know who was responsible, they cannot or will not 
figure out who hired him. Based on this White House's public assertions 
about hiring practices in the world's most important household, Rosy 
the Bag Lady could have moved locations from Lafayette Park into the 
West Wing, gotten a White House pass, and set up shop with no one the 
wiser.
  As in the files case, it is the principle that matters in the White 
House's attitude about drug use. It is what actions there say publicly 
about what is honored and what should be cultivated. Perhaps it should 
come as no surprise that a President who did not inhale should see no 
problem in hiring known drug users to sit on the world's most visible 
front porch. But what is of more concern than this peculiar tolerance 
is the response of the President's spokesman to the issue. Let me quote 
his remarks. ``I was a kid in the 1970's,'' he said. ``You know, did I 
smoke a joint from time to time?
  Of course, I did.'' Of course? There is a lot of consequence in that 
``of course.'' As Mr. Bennett, the country's first drug czar noted, 
that ``of course'' is very disturbing. Mr. Bennett asks a very 
important question: ``What exactly did Mr. McCurry mean by `of course'? 
That every young person used drugs in the 1970's? Or that it was no big 
deal?'' In either case, as Mr. Bennett notes, the President's spokesman 
is wrong. He not only has the facts wrong, he has now put the White 
House behind the notion that drugs are no big deal.
  Mr. McCurry's words are very revealing. They are dismissive of the 
idea that drug use is of any serious concern. They indicate an 
indifference to the realities of drug use. And, for a White House whose 
clearest competency is in message management, it shows a remarkable 
ignorance of the importance of using the bully pulpit of Presidency to 
send a clear, antidrug message. We need to remind ourselves that Mr. 
McCurry did not make these remarks in private. He is no babe in the 
woods. He did not get trapped. He did not speak out thinking that the 
microphones were turned off. Mr. McCurry made these remarks to the 
press as the chief spokesman for the President of the United States. 
Say what you will, his remarks are now an indelible part of the public 
record. So too, are the White House's attitudes to drug use revealed 
here.
  I am sure that in the next few days we will have more clarifications 
about the position. I am sure that these clarifications will include 
the typical accusations that discussion of the issue at all is just 
partisan politics. But, what remains is a public demonstration about 
how this White House thinks about drugs. It reflects a casualness about 
the drug problem that is communicated to the public. It is a 
communication that, frankly, concerns me a great deal.
  On a number of occasions I have raised my concern on this floor about 
the dramatic rise in teenage drug abuse. If there are any of my 
colleagues who have not acquainted themselves with the realities of 
what is happening with kids and drugs today, I urge them to take a look 
at the facts. I think that what they will find will disturb them. In 
brief, by whatever standard you use or reporting system that we 
currently have to tell us about drug use, teenage use is on the rise.
  In the last several years, after more than a decade of decline, we 
are seeing returning drug use that is wiping out all the gains that we 
had made. What is just as alarming, teenage attitudes about the dangers 
of drug use are also changing for the worse. Today's kids see drugs as 
far less of a problem than did kids just a few years ago. Even worse, 
drug use today is starting even earlier. We are now seeing the problem 
affect 11 and 12 year olds. Unless you believe that drug legalization 
for kids is a realistic option or a responsible policy, then you cannot 
ignore what is happening under our very noses, in our homes, schools, 
backyards, and front porches.
  In this context, do you think that remarks like the President's or 
Mr. McCurry's do not matter? Let us not kid ourselves about kids. What 
the White House says publicly is one of the ways we communicate lessons 
about what we honor and should cultivate. That the White House 
understands this is clear from what it has to say on other issues. On 
this issue, however, the message is anything but clear.
  In March of this year, I co-chaired a Senate-House Task Force on 
National Drug Policy. Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich established the task 
force to take a look at the problem and recommend solutions. The report 
from that effort documents not only the present trend in drug use among 
kids, but the policies or lack of policies by the Clinton 
administration to deal with the problem. I invite all of my colleagues, 
the press, and the public to take a look at what the task force 
learned. It is sobering.
  One of the essential findings of the report, which is hardly new, was 
that the bully pulpit for sending messages about what is right and 
wrong, good and bad, must be central to any drug policy. As the report 
notes, we must be consistent in our message. We must have words and 
deeds that are complementary not contradictory.
  Democrats and Republicans over the last several years, however, have 
repeatedly noted that the administration, and particularly the 
President, have been virtually silent on the drug issue. The only 
serious pronouncements that anyone here or elsewhere likely remembers 
about this administration's drug policy was the President's remark that 
he didn't inhale. That and the repeated public statements by the 
Surgeon General of the United States calling for consideration of drug 
legalization. Except for these less than inspiring remarks, the drug 
issue simply disappeared in the first

[[Page S9028]]

3 years of the administration. Like the drug czar's office, it was 
benched. For this administration, drug policy was not just the least 
valued player. It was traded to a farm team and hustled out of town 
under a blanket of silence.
  Now, in an election year, when the drug use numbers are bad and 
getting worse, we have seen a new public posture by the administration 
on drugs. We have a new drug czar--more power to him--and we have had a 
few presidential sound bites and backdrops. I am sure that none of 
these actions have anything to do with politics. But, we have seen also 
other things that leave a more lasting impression, particularly in 
young minds. Particularly, what we have seen disseminated to the public 
is the knowledge that ``of course, I used drugs'' and ``I didn't 
inhale'' are the hallmarks of this White House. As Mr. Bennett noted, 
policy follows attitude. It is not hard to understand the 
administration's policies with attitudes like those coming from the 
White House.
  Recently, a music group with the unlikely name of Smashing Pumpkins 
lost one of its lead performers to a drug overdose. In recent years, 
such deaths of celebrities have become a common occurrence, another 
reminder of the 1960's culture born again. So serious has the problem 
become that record companies and managers are looking to institute drug 
programs to help prevent these losses. In the case of Smashing 
Pumpkins, they fired one of the band members who was involved in drugs 
along with the young man who died. Evidently, drug use in this case was 
grounds for dismissal. I wish that this White House understood the 
message here. That tolerating drug use, even former drug use, sends a 
dangerous message.
  If we learn from the bully pulpit of the Presidency about what we 
should honor and cultivate in our national life, then I am concerned 
about what recent events tell us. I am concerned that we seem to have 
replaced ``Just Say No'' with a muddled message. I am concerned that 
this garbled text is sending the wrong signals, is reinforcing the 
wrong attitudes. Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that calls for 
legalization of drugs are now more vocal and well-financed than at any 
time since the 1960's. It is perhaps why, we see initiatives on the 
ballot in California and Arizona that would legalize marijuana. It is 
perhaps why one of the largest financiers of drug legalization is a 
White House confidante. It is perhaps not just coincidence that the 
drugs-are-good-for-you message is back in movies, music, and on TV. It 
is perhaps why we see a White House where the Colombian drug lords can 
number employees as some of their former clients.
  I worry about what we seem to be honoring and what we may cultivate 
as a consequence.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I certainly will be more than pleased to yield to the 
Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. It seems to me, Mr. President--and I ask for the comments 
of the Senator from Georgia on this--that during the course of this 
last half-hour or so, there have been perhaps five different, but 
related, themes. I wonder if my understanding is accurate.
  The first, and in a sense the most immediate, is the way in which the 
White House responds to any kind of criticism, very frequently with 
nasty personal attack.
  The second, which is one step above that and perhaps triggers the 
first, is the indifference in the administration itself to the question 
of drugs and of security and the like, you know, by the people who 
serve the administration.
  The third, it seems to me, is the drug policy of the administration. 
I think the Senator from Georgia has already spoken to that question--
less money, fewer people, less attention.
  The fourth is as the Senator from Arizona just said, the use or 
nonuse of the magnificent platform that any President of the United 
States has to speak to matters which are of deep concern to the 
American people or which create grave social problems or challenges to 
the American people. And the question as to whether or not any 
particular President pays any attention to that subject.
  But I think each of those, in my view at least, leads to the final 
question. And that is, what impact is the plague of drugs imposing on 
the American people? Is the use of illegal substances rising or falling 
at any given level? And particularly, is this use rising or falling 
among young people, first becoming conscious of the world around them? 
And is that increase in use--quite clearly that is the case at the 
present time--attributable at least in part to what society, through 
its leaders, through its President, says or does not say, says or 
implies by an action or nonaction in connection with this drug use?
  I think if you start from No. 1, attacking anyone who attacks them, 
second, an indifference to personal health, security or drug use, 
third, the amount of money and attention paid in budgets, fourth, the 
use or more particularly the nonuse of that bully pulpit in the 
Presidency, that fifth and most important consequence is almost an 
inevitable consequence, is it not? Is it not very difficult to make the 
case that these are unrelated phenomena, with the fact of increased 
drug use, the fact of a more serious problem in society today? Is it 
not connected with this indifference in money, in attitude, and the 
like on the part of the executive leaders of our Nation?
  Mr. COVERDELL. First, I commend the Senator from Washington in his 
usual fashion of framing issues so well. But I think there is no 
conclusion one could reach but that these five points you allude to are 
inextricably connected and have resulted in a new drug epidemic in the 
United States, period.
  I say to the Senator from Washington, from my own point of view, I 
have been surprised that a change in public policy, which occurred when 
this administration took office, could result in these kinds of changes 
so quickly. I would have thought these changes might have taken a 
decade to have the impact. It has been a revelation to me that within 
months you began to see a trend of less use of drugs turn completely 
around and now turn into something that is a devastating phenomenon in 
our country.
  I will say one other thing and then go back to the Senator from 
Washington. On your fourth point, the use of the pulpit, so to speak, I 
would say that is even more serious than has been characterized. Not 
only has it not been used, but to the extent it has been used, it is 
the wrong message.
  First of all, there is too much silence. Second, we had an Attorney 
General arguing for legalization in this administration. Third, we had 
statements, like press secretary McCurry and the President himself when 
he said, ``Well, I didn't inhale.'' These are all cavalier tones that 
suggest a lack of seriousness about the issue. That is why I believe it 
is not just the trend lines have reversed, but they have dramatically 
reversed. And the damage is of epidemic proportions. And 12 years have 
virtually been cashiered because of the link between these five points, 
but particularly Nos. 4 and 5.
  Mr. GORTON. I think the Senator from Georgia makes a good point. I 
would like to share this reflection with him and hear his views on the 
subject. I believe sometimes we have these problems by a misuse of 
terms. And in this connection, a few years back, when drug policy was a 
higher order of priority, we had what was, I think, misnamed as a ``war 
on drugs,'' sincerely carried out by men and women who felt that drugs 
were a plague on our society creating a tremendous amount of crime, 
social dislocation, wasted lives. But the implication, when they used 
that term, was that it somehow or other could have been won permanently 
and decisively.
  I believe that we made the same mistake a generation ago when we 
began a war against poverty with the same implications. Just set up a 
few programs and you will get rid of the circumstance. Perhaps, it has 
occurred to me, that this began because we have had truly wars where 
they have a beginning, middle, and an end, whether it was World War II, 
at one level, or even a half-a-century-long cold war. It is over. We 
have had a definitive triumph.

  When one Presidential administration starts a war on poverty or, more 
particularly in this case, a war on drugs, and then the next 
administration discovers the real truth, that this is a struggle that 
begins over again in the minds of every young person in the

[[Page S9029]]

first, second, third, or eighth grade and, in fact, has never 
definitively been won in the minds of an individual who may have 
started on some form of drug and then gotten off but is a life-long 
process in the lives of every single individual, then that 
administration tends to lose its sense of focus or even its sense of 
caring, because each administration wants something else that it can be 
definitively responsible for.
  Do we not have a situation here in which we had a significant degree 
of success over a period of 4, 8, or 12 years, which one other 
administration by diligent effort could continue, could lose no ground, 
maybe by tremendous effort could maybe even make a few gains, but knew 
it could not win the way you win World War II, so the administration 
just lost interest in it. There were just a lot of other things it 
wanted to do.
  Have we all not suffered? And this is the most important part of the 
question, have we not all suffered as a result, because the implication 
made that we have gotten this far, we do not have to do anything to at 
least keep it the status quo. But as the Senator from Georgia pointed 
out, in 4 years you can lose all the ground you gained in 12. Is that 
not essentially what we have done as a result of this administration's 
indifference to the problem?
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator has raised several very, very crucial 
questions and sort of a constructive criticism which I might need to 
take to heart. First, we have not lost all the ground; we have just 
lost a lot of it. If unchecked, we will lose it all.
  I do not know that I agree that it was strictly a function of 
interest level. I believe there are people in our country, and some of 
them are in this administration, like former Surgeon General Elders, 
who believes the construction of the struggle was wrong. I believe that 
they believed rehabilitation is more important that interdiction, so 
there are some philosophical differences here.
  We now have the results of the interdiction law enforcement and 
education. It cut it in half. The new idea, empirically, has failed, 
because it has doubled, but we still have people in this administration 
who do not agree with the war on drugs.
  Now, the last point I make, the war on drugs, I think the Senator 
makes a very valid point that it is not something to ever be won or 
lost. I have called it a war on drugs, of late, because of the level, 
separate from usage in the United States.
  The fact is, we have come into an era where drug cartels with their 
enormous capacity of resources and sophistication, in my judgment, have 
put democracies in the hemisphere at stake. When the President of 
Mexico turns to me and says, ``The single greatest threat to my public 
are the drug cartels,'' that raises it to a new level. I think there is 
a war in the hemisphere to gain control of this circumstance so that it 
does not threaten fragile and small democracies--some of them rather 
large. I draw that distinction and separate the two.
  The Senator is absolutely correct, this is an issue for which society 
has always and will always struggle. Maybe it is improper to 
characterize it as a war. That is a duty. It is a duty of one 
civilization to those that follow. From time to time, I argue, there 
are incidents--and we are in one--where there is a configuration where 
we really are in a very adversarial struggle with a force that is 
capable of undoing society. I do believe the hemisphere is confronted 
with that at this point.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Georgia for the clarity of his 
thought and for his dedication to a cause which is of vital importance 
to the future of our country and society.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I appreciate very much the thoughts of the Senator 
from Washington. As always, the Senator brings great clarity and 
poignancy to issues of importance to our Nation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a statement by former drug czar William Bennett.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Bennett Criticizes McCurry and White House Drug Policy

       Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.--Today, Empower America co-
     director and former Bush ``drug czar'' William J. Bennett 
     released the following statement:
       Yesterday we learned from interviews with Secret Service 
     agents (released by a House committee) that background 
     investigations on White House employees found that more than 
     40 had used drugs; a few dozen showed drug usage had been 
     within the last five years; and that among those few dozen 
     people were individuals who had used cocaine, crack cocaine 
     and hallucinogens. We learned, too, that the Secret Service 
     initially rejected White House passes to an unspecified 
     number of White House employees because they were considered 
     a security risk--a recommendation which apparently was 
     unacceptable to the Clinton administration. Instead, the 
     administration opted for a far more lenient policy--a twice-
     per-year surprise drug test. These are very disturbing 
     revelations--but ones which do not seem to trouble the 
     Clinton administration at all.
       I have also read the transcripts of Mike McCurry's July 
     17th press briefing in which he stated that ``of course'' he 
     used illegal drugs during the 1970s. What exactly did Mr. 
     McCurry mean by ``of course''? That every young person used 
     drugs in the 1970s? Or that it was no big deal? Why didn't 
     Mr. McCurry show any regret for having used illegal drugs? 
     Mr. McCurry is wrong on all counts--and he should admit that 
     he was wrong.
       These revelations by Secret Service agents, combined with 
     Mr. McCurry's comments are, I think, emblematic of the 
     Clinton administration's cavalier and indifferent attitude 
     toward illegal drug use. The Clinton administration doesn't 
     seem to care about this issue. They seem unwilling to take a 
     strong and unambiguous stand against drug use. And this 
     nation is now paying a very heavy price for the Clinton 
     administration's indifference, in terms of wrecked and lost 
     lives.
       Mr. McCurry's comments are of course not helpful. But 
     neither are they surprising. After all, President Clinton's 
     record on fighting illegal drug use is abysmal. It is worth 
     pointing out that this is not a partisan opinion. Democratic 
     Senator Joe Biden has been a strong critic of the 
     administration's anti-drug efforts. And it was Democratic 
     Congressman Charles Rangel who said this about the 
     Clinton administration: ``I've been in Congress over two 
     decades, and I have never, never, never found any 
     administration that's been so silent on this great 
     challenge [illegal drug use] to the American people.''
       Consider the record under Bill Clinton's watch: drug use 
     among high school seniors has risen steadily since he took 
     office. The number of 12- to 17-year-olds using marijuana has 
     almost doubled. Methamphetamine emergency room cases are up 
     over 300 percent. LSD use has reached the highest rate since 
     record-keeping started in 1975. Drug-related emergency room 
     admissions are at record levels. And these trends have 
     occurred after real progress was made against drug use in the 
     mid-1980s and early 1990s.
       But there is more involved here than a failure of public 
     policy. The Clinton administration suffers from moral 
     diffidence on this issue. Policy follows attitude. In 1991, 
     when asked about his past drug use, Mr. Clinton declared that 
     he had never ``broken any drug law.'' A year later, he 
     admitted that when he was in England, he had experimented 
     with marijuana but he said, ``I didn't like it. I didn't 
     inhale it, and never tried it again.'' Later, when asked 
     whether he would inhale if he had to do it over again, he 
     answered, to laughter: ``Sure, if I could. I tried before.''
       Then there is President Clinton's former Surgeon General 
     Joycelyn Elders, who had been one of this administration's 
     most vocal voices on drugs and who had favorable words about 
     drug legalization. And of course now we have Mr. McCurry's 
     comments.
       During the 1980s, Nancy Reagan was ridiculed for her ``Just 
     Say No'' campaign. But it turns out that ``Just Say No'' is 
     far more effective than ``I didn't inhale'' or an attitude of 
     ``of course I used illegal drugs.''
       I realize that Mr. McCurry, a skilled press secretary, was 
     simply reflecting the attitude of the President and his 
     administration. But I would be interested in the answer to 
     two questions: first, what does General Barry McCaffrey think 
     about Mr. McCurry's comments and the underlying attitude they 
     expressed? And second, does President Clinton have any 
     objection if a person who has used cocaine, crack cocaine or 
     hallucinogenic drugs during the past five years is working in 
     his administration? Is there any kind of recent (pre-White 
     House) drug use or drug activity that would disqualify 
     somebody from joining the Clinton administration? Perhaps the 
     president could clarify what his policy is on these matters.
       On the issue of fighting illegal drugs--like so many other 
     issues of national importance--the American people deserve 
     better from their president.

  Mr. COVERDELL. I will take just a minute to read from this statement 
from William Bennett:

       Yesterday we learned from interviews with Secret Service 
     agents that background investigations on White House 
     employees found that more than 40 had used drugs; a few dozen 
     showed drug usage--

  I have always wondered what that remark means; what is ``a few 
dozen''? It sounds an awful lot like 40.

       . . . a few dozen showed drug usage has been within the 
     last 5 years; and that among those few dozen people were 
     individuals who

[[Page S9030]]

     had used cocaine, crack cocaine and hallucinogens.

  It goes on: ``These revelations by Secret Service agents, combined 
with Mr. McCurry's comments,'' which we have all talked about earlier, 
``are, I think, emblematic of the Clinton administration's cavalier and 
indifferent attitude toward illegal drug use. The Clinton 
administration does not seem to care about this issue. They seem 
unwilling to take a strong and unambiguous stand against drug use. And 
this Nation is now paying a very heavy price for the Clinton 
administration's indifference in terms of wrecked and lost lives.''
  This is the point I want to underscore over and over. We are not 
talking about just reciting numbers of increase, et cetera. We are 
talking about some kid in your family, somebody that lives next door, 
somebody you work with, that you know and care about. Every one of 
these 2 million new families that are experiencing drug use in their 
family are just like somebody we know, or they may be somebody we know.
  It is time for the White House to put the bully pulpit to work, 
calling on our youth across this land to be knowledgeable and 
understanding of the fact that drugs will ruin their lives and forever 
change their futures.

                          ____________________