[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10651-H10656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      THE INCREASE IN ILLEGAL DRUG USE AMONG TEENAGERS IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take a few minutes to 
talk about the drug crisis in America, the problem we are faced with, 
some of the reasons for it, and at least one very good idea to address 
the problem.
  I have devoted a lot of my time and my staff's time over the last 
year and a half on this issue, because I am convinced that our national 
leaders must take tangible steps to help communities across our country 
to send a clear and consistent message at every level that drugs are 
wrong and that they are dangerous. If we do not, I believe our society 
will be in real trouble.
  It is not just about drug abuse, as I will explain later with the 
chart, because drug abuse impacts a whole host of other social problems 
we face in this country. I am actually encouraged by the recent press 
attention we see on this issue. This chart shows that in fact the 
headlines are starting to appear, people are starting to pay attention 
to the fact that we do, once again, have what is becoming a drug 
epidemic in this country. Though politics are certainly playing a role 
in it, I am glad the President is finally talking about this issue. I 
am glad that he has appointed a real leader, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, to 
be his new drug czar.
  But so much more needs to be done. I have three children of my own. I 
know that what influences their decisions, what shapes their attitudes, 
is what my wife and I say, what we do, what their teachers tell them, 
what they hear in church, what they see on television, what they hear 
on the radio, what their friends tell them. We need to work together to 
fashion innovative solutions to this terrible drug problem in this 
country that will actually make a difference in the lives of my kids 
and all of our children.
  This is why I have spent the last year and a half working with people 
in the field, those who have devoted literally decades to this issue, 
to reducing substance abuse, activists back home like Jackie Butler, 
Hope Taft, Tammy Sullivan; people at the State level, including my 
Governor, George Voinovich and his director of Alcohol and Drug 
Addiction Services, Lucille Fleming; people at the national level like 
Jim Burke, Tom Hedrick, with the Partnership for a Drug Free America, 
Jim Koppel of CADCA, Bill Oliver, Doug Hall of PRIDE, and many others.
  We have also spent a lot of time talking to kids and parents, 
teachers and coaches, religious leaders, business people, and many 
others about the problem at the local level, and what we should do 
about it.
  Two clear things have emerged. First, national leadership is 
important. It is critical. It keeps the issue on the agenda, it keeps 
it in the media, as we see here, and helps send a clear and consistent 
message that has a direct impact on the use of drugs.
  The research could not be clearer on this issue. As important as 
national leadership, of course, is sustained national leadership, not 
on again-off again.
  The second thing we have learned is that leadership must recognize 
that this problem is probably best addressed at the community level, at 
the local level. We need everyone who influences the decision of a 
child to be involved: The parents, the coaches, the teachers, our 
President, Members of Congress, community leaders, kids themselves. 
Until we understand that leadership has to be used to mobilize at each 
of these levels, I do not think we will ever adequately address the 
problem.

  Mr. Speaker, the community anti-drug coalition initiative that we 
have started here in the Congress, that has been spreading around the 
country for the last few years, is one attempt to bring sustained 
national leadership where we will have the most impact.
  Alex de Tocqueville, when he visited this country over a century ago, 
he tried to describe America to people in Europe. One thing he said 
was, ``All of the efforts and resources of the citizens'', the citizens 
of America, ``are turned to the eternal well-being of the community.''
  I think that is a pretty good observation. I think it continues to be 
true today, the recognition that people's energies are often devoted 
primarily at their neighborhoods and at their communities, where they 
feel they can have the most direct impact. I think that tells us a lot 
where we as Members of Congress ought to be devoting some of our 
energies, at the community level.
  Drugs are a serious concern among all Americans. If you look at the 
most recent Gallup Poll results, or you look at the most recent Wall 
Street Journal NBC Poll, it is clear drugs and crimes are the number 
one issue most Americans believe we must address. It is also 
interesting when you ask parents what the most serious problem is 
facing our youth, they say drug abuse.
  As interesting, when you ask kids themselves, when you ask our young 
people, what is the most serious concern you face, and this is 
teenagers, they do not say it is getting a job, they do not say it is 
their education. What do they say? Drugs. So kids themselves and their 
parents have recognized that. Frankly, I think they are far out in 
front of their elected leaders.
  Just how big is this problem? to try to put it in some perspective, I 
will say that in just over a generation, the use of illegal drugs in 
this country has increased 40-fold, 40-fold. It is a huge problem. As I 
said earlier, it is not just about drug abuse, because drug abuse 
affects so many other things in this country.
  Let me give the Members just a few examples on this chart. Crime and 
violence; over half of the violent crime

[[Page H10652]]

committed in America today is directly related to illegal drug use. 
School dropouts; kids that use drugs are 2 to 5 times more likely to 
drop out of school. Health care costs; fully a quarter of our trillion 
dollar health care cost in this country is directly related to 
substance abuse. More than half of the new HIV cases are illegal drug 
related. Spousal and child abuse; again, data will show us that about 
half of the family abuse in this country is directly related to 
substance abuse.
  Finally, productivity. Yes, it affects American businesses. Because 
of absenteeism, increased medical claims, businesses in America take a 
$60 billion hit every year, $60 billion, just because of illegal drugs. 
If you add alcohol abuse to that, it is another $80 billion a year.

                              {time}  1545

  This is an issue that affects all of us.
  This next chart I want to show is actually a hopeful one because it 
shows that we are not powerless to solve this problem. In fact, from 
1979 until 1992, we saw a substantial decrease in the use of drugs. 
This chart will show that, among teenagers, we saw over a 70-percent 
decrease during that period.
  Folks love to ridicule the Just Say No campaign. This is when it was 
in its heyday. It works. It works in concert with a lot of other 
things. A clear and consistent message from the White House on down is 
effective in reducing drug abuse.
  The chart also shows, of course, that since 1992, there has been a 
sharp increase. Unfortunately, everything we know leads us to believe 
that that line, if anything, is increasing even more sharply. The 
tragedy is that it is among our younger and younger kids, too.
  We have found, particularly with regard to marijuana use, the most 
dramatic increases are among our young people. Look at this. Among 8th 
graders, we see a 167-percent increase from 1991 to 1995. That means in 
a typical 8th grade class in America, 25 kids, 5 of them in the 8th 
grade have used marijuana.
  All of the other drugs are also increasing, whether it is inhalants, 
whether it is stimulants, and here is a chart on stimulants which would 
be cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamine. Look at these increases, 
8th, 10th and 12th graders, the use of cocaine and other stimulants.
  Some people who grew up in the 1960's might say, ``Well, what's the 
big deal about some of these drugs increasing?'' Well, look at this. 
LSD is now at record levels. This is record levels of LSD used in this 
country, again, 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
  Some people will say, ``Marijuana is not that big a deal. Yes, these 
other drugs concern me.'' Well, marijuana today is about 2 to 5 times 
stronger than it was back in the 1970's. Also, we know a lot more today 
about marijuana. We know, for example, that marijuana does in fact 
impair judgment, it does impair learning, it does keep kids from 
reaching their potential. It is also a powerful gateway to other drugs.
  So you might ask, there is the problem; why is it occurring? Well, it 
is a complicated issue in some respects, but in other ways, it is not 
at all. This is very good research, well documented by the University 
of Michigan. Lloyd Johnson, every year with Monitoring the Future, does 
this study and it is widely accepted in the field as being very 
accurate and helpful. What does it show?

  It shows, among other things, that drug use is not related so much to 
how much somebody makes, how much their parents make, what their race 
is, where they live, suburbs or urban areas. What it really relates to 
is their attitudes about drugs.
  Look at the incredible correlation here between social disapproval, a 
sense that a teenager has of social disapproval and the use of drugs. 
As disapproval goes up, and you can see, between 1979 and 1992, it did 
go up, the sense of disapproval, use goes down dramatically. As the 
sense of social disapproval goes down, what happens? Use shoots up.
  It is about attitudes. It is about society sending kids the right 
message, that it is not OK to use drugs.
  The other important factor, other than the sense of social 
disapproval, is the sense of risk. Not only is it wrong to use drugs, 
it is harmful. When kids are told that, again use is reduced 
dramatically.
  Look at this chart. This shows the sense out there that there is a 
risk, a danger in using drugs. Again between 1979 and 1992, we see an 
increase in the sense of risk, the perception of risk. At the same 
time, what happens to use? It goes down dramatically. When that sense 
of risk or danger begins to go down after 1992, again what do we see? 
Use shooting up.
  It is a question of attitudes.
  I think we know enough about it now to know that we have got to get 
to kids and get this message to them clearly, again at every level, 
from the White House right down to our communities.
  The next question I often get asked back home is, Well, why are these 
antidrug attitudes weakening? What is going on out there?
  The first thing I would say is that opinion leaders from the White 
House on down, including the U.S. Congress, have not until very 
recently been speaking out on this issue. There has also been declining 
media attention. This can be shown quantitatively.
  In 1989, during the height of the so-called drug war, there were over 
500 network news stories, not public service announcements--news 
stories--on the drug issue and the drug problem in this country. Over 
the last 4 years, there have been on average fewer than 100 stories. As 
public opinion leaders speak out, there is more media attention, and 
that is important to changing those attitudes we talked about earlier, 
baby boomer parents being conflicted. We talked about people's 
attitudes toward marijuana. We saw last week with the results from the 
CASA survey, Joe Califano's group, that in fact a lot of parents who 
used drugs are conflicted about whether their kids are going to use 
drugs or not. The expectations, in fact, are very low for their kids. 
As long as that is true, parents are not doing their job.

  Finally, more pro-drug information out there, including 
reglamorization, whether it is MTV, whether it is Hollywood, whether it 
is our rock stars, our sports figures. We have seen a lot more 
reglamorization of drugs.
  Finally, legalization discussion, whether it is Jocelyn Elders or 
whether it is Bill Buckley, that has an impact on kids.
  How do we go about reversing this trend? How do we go about changing 
our policies and actually making a difference in the lives of our kids? 
Here are the four traditional approaches that we have taken: 
interdiction, criminal justice, treatment, and prevention.
  At the Federal level, just to put this in some perspective, we spend 
about $1.5 billion a year on interdiction. In our criminal justice 
system for incarcerating and prosecuting drug offenders, we spend about 
$6.5 billion; treatment, about $2.6 billion; and prevention and 
education, about $1.4 billion.
  In my view, we need to do all of these things. We need to increase 
interdiction, we need to lock up drug criminals, we need to increase 
treatment. But I think most of our effort should be devoted toward 
improving the education and the prevention side of this, because, 
again, it is a matter of attitudes. That is where I think we can get 
the most bang for the buck, frankly.
  We need all of the other things, including a tough criminal justice 
system, but in my view, until we go back to the grassroots, go back to 
the community level and deal with this in terms of prevention and 
education, we will not ultimately be successful.
  The idea I have is to do these community coalitions around the 
country. Let me give you a great story. This is about the Miami 
coalition. At one time Miami had the worst drug problem in America. In 
fact, Miami's drug rates were the highest, I think, among the top six 
cities in America. Once their coalition got going and they attacked it 
on a concerted basis, Miami's drug problem decreased significantly, so 
much so that by 1994, Miami not only saw its drug use going down 
dramatically, it was significantly less than the national average.

  Community coalitions work. There are now several thousand community 
coalitions around the country. In our case, in greater Cincinnati, we 
have brought together business leaders; the media, very important; the 
faith community, nothing is more effective in

[[Page H10653]]

my view, especially in terms of prevention, than faith-based prevention 
programs; parents, of course, which is a critical part we talked about 
before; youth themselves; law enforcement.
  No one is more eager to attack this problem than our law enforcement. 
No one is more frustrated. Our educators, teachers, coaches and so on, 
people who have been at this for a long time at the grassroots, and of 
course again national and State help which we have had.
  Our mission in Cincinnati is quite simple. It is, to develop and 
implement a comprehensive. long-term strategy to reduce and treat 
substance abuse one person at a time.
  I would like to focus on three points in there. One is comprehensive, 
another is long-term; this is not going to be solved overnight. And 
finally one person at a time. This is not a Washington ``one size fits 
all,'' top-down solution. This is trying to affect again all of those 
decisions that our kids make by affecting the various people that 
influence them.
  In Cincinnati, we have divided our work into five task forces. One is 
the media task force. We now have one of the most aggressive antidrug 
media campaigns in the country. All of our major TV stations, all of 
our radio stations are playing public service announcements, talking 
about the issue.
  We have done some local radio spots, as an example, with a rock and 
roll band, a local band that kids know, and that has the ability, I 
think, to get to kids a lot better than having parents or adults 
talking to them.
  The workplace task force: Here for the first time ever, we have got 
health insurance companies being able and willing to offer discounts to 
companies that offer drug-free workplace plans.

  Why is this so important? Well, most people who abuse drugs go to 
work every day. Second, that is where the parents are. So if we can get 
companies, particularly smaller companies and mid-size companies that 
up to now do not have a drug-free workplace plan in place, to do that, 
we will be able to affect this problem.
  Why should insurance companies give a discount? Because it is a 
bottom line concern. It actually is in their interest to give a 
discount. Because if you have a drug-free workplace, you are going to 
have fewer accidents, fewer medical claims. We have convinced, again, 
major health care providers in our area to do that, and I think that 
can be done around the country.
  We also have convinced our Bureau of Workers Compensation, an entity 
that is not looked upon with favor by a lot of our small businesses, to 
offer the same kinds of discounts to companies that, again, have drug-
free workplace plans. We are working with these companies to develop 
these plans and giving them a bottom line incentive to do so.
  It works. One quick story on that. One of the members of our 
coalition recently put a drug-free workplace program in place which 
included drug testing, and one day a young man came to his office, sat 
down and said, ``I understand there's going to be random drug testing 
as part of this program.'' And the manager said, ``Yes, there will.''
  He said, ``Well, I would like to tell you something,'' and the man 
broke down. He said, ``I'm a cocaine addict, have been for over a 
decade. I have had six different jobs. I have been able to hide it at 
every one of those places where I have worked. You're now giving me the 
opportunity to come forward.''
  That manager did not fire the guy. He got the guy in a treatment 
program. The guy is now more productive at work, of course, but much 
more importantly, his life has been changed in a fundamental way.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. You talk about the drug-free workplace. I 
would like to make a couple of comments about that, if I may, because 
it started in my area back in the 1980's. It was very involved with 
Tropicana. I said, ``We have a drug problem.''
  So they developed a program with the Florida Chamber of Commerce, 
with the Manatee Chamber of Commerce and developed a program that small 
businesses could do that. I am a small businessman. I put it into all 
my businesses, and I pretest for drugs.
  It was an amazing thing. When Tropicana put a sign at their entrance 
to their employment office saying, Don't apply unless you are willing 
to be tested for drugs, they would have people walk to the door, see 
the sign, make a U-turn and leave.
  Nowadays you have a sign that says, ``If you don't want to be tested 
for drugs, don't apply here, go to the White House and apply,'' 
something like that. It is a dramatic change, especially for small 
businesses. So if a big business can make it available through their 
local chambers, because the question is getting the money and finding 
the facilities to have the testing done. That is what a task force can 
do.
  We did it successfully many years ago back in Florida. It took our 
biggest employer, Tropicana, to take that lead. They made a 
contribution, put a part-time person on our staff at our Manatee 
Chamber, gave the Florida Chamber a $100,000 grant to help other 
chambers around.
  That is what a group can do to help business. Because if you stop 
people from getting a job because of drugs, it starts sending that 
message to everybody.
  Mr. PORTMAN. It sends a strong signal. In our area, Procter & Gamble 
has taken the lead in helping our smaller and mid-size companies 
because they have the resources, the staff, the expertise to help these 
smaller businesses. But imagine what would happen if across America, 
health care insurers were to say to those small- and mid-size 
companies, we will give you a discount, say 5 percent, on your health 
care if you have a drug-free workplace plan in place. Of if the Bureau 
of Workers' Comp in Florida, I think Florida is not yet there but 
perhaps you are working on it, that that too will help to get these 
companies to do so and will help to solve this problem.
  Let me just finish with the final two task forces, then I would like 
to open it up to some of my colleagues who have arrived. But after the 
workplace task force, I want to talk a little about the parent task 
force, what we did there, because as I said earlier, parents are key to 
this problem. The greatest social service agency in America is our 
parents. They are open at 11 on Saturday night, among other things, and 
if you can get our parents reengaged in this issue, we know it can make 
a difference.
  PRIDE [Parent Resource Institute for Drug Education] has a good 
survey out which shows that if parents would simply talk to their kids 
about the issue of drug abuse, we could see drug abuse rates among our 
kids decrease by as much as 30 percent, just talking to their kids 
about it.
  What have we done? Well, PRIDE has come into our district, and they 
have done a pilot program where they have trained parents, who then go 
out and train other parents. We started with 15 parents, went through 
an intensive couple of weeks training session; they are now out 
training an additional 600 parents. We are trying to do it in every 
school district in my area.
  Again, I think it is very important that we get the parents back, 
engaged in this problem. The final two task forces are the community 
task force, and there I think some of the potential is in the religious 
community. Our faith-based programs work, and frankly, on a Sunday or 
on a Saturday in a church, in a temple, a synagogue, people I think are 
in a more reflective moment and willing to hear about this issue. I 
think it is incumbent upon our religious leaders to get the message 
out.

                              {time}  1600

  We have a commitment from a number of the churches, synagogues, and 
temples in our area to get that drug-free message out at least once a 
year and maybe twice a year on a concerted basis to complement all the 
other efforts we talked about.
  The final task force we have is criminal justice. As I said earlier, 
no group is more desperate to find a solution to this problem than our 
law enforcement community. What we have done is, we have organized sort 
of a broad DARE Program. The DARE Program works very well in my area, 
as it does around the country, but there were some gaps in it. So our 
law enforcement, county by county, have sent out flyers to our schools, 
community centers, churches,

[[Page H10654]]

and so on to offer educated speakers who can come in and talk about 
this issue and relate to the kids, to supplement the DARE Program.
  We also have an innovative program to enlist citizens to close down 
crack houses in our inner city in Cincinnati. This is being led 
primarily by our city councilman Charlie Winburn in Cincinnati. And 
that will be effective, we think, in not only closing down crack houses 
and patrolling street corners, but getting the community involved in 
this effort because it is a community outreach effort.
  Again, I will just say that I think Members of Congress can play a 
very effective role. It is not a traditional role. It is not about 
passing new laws. It is not about more Federal money, frankly. It is 
about acting as a facilitator back home to try to solve this problem, 
where I think it can be most effectively solved, which is at the 
community level.
  Speaker Gingrich has been supportive of this; Gen. Barry McCaffrey 
has been in our area, he has been supportive of it; and Senator Dole 
has been supportive of it. Each has come and spent time with our 
coalition and helped us in our efforts.
  The initiative recognizes that the problem is not going to be solved 
solely by looking to Washington. It is going to be solved one kid at a 
time in our families and in our communities. And for the sake of our 
kids and our communities, I would urge all Members of Congress to 
engage in this.
  We have about 20 to 25 Members of Congress who have already either 
established a coalition or are supporting existing coalitions. The goal 
is nothing short of getting every single Member of Congress involved in 
this effort. There is no reason we should not all be involved. We can 
blanket the country, all 435 districts.
  The facts are in. Drug use is skyrocketing. Community coalitions work 
to address this problem. I think it is time we roll up our sleeves and 
get to work.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman 
for taking the lead in this role. It takes leadership. And as leaders 
of our country, as elected members of the government, we have to take 
on a responsibility here. This is not just passing legislation, as the 
gentleman said.
  I really commend the gentleman for taking the lead within this 
Congress, because it is a problem and it is a glaring problem. It does 
not take a lot of chart experts, Ross Perot people, to see that drug 
use had gone down for 11 years and then, when Bill Clinton gets 
elected, it goes up.
  Now, there has to be some correlation to that. It is a complex issue 
and it is not one person's fault, there are a lot of reasons, but it 
has to start at the top. It is the moral leadership of our country.

  When we have the President of the United States asked on MTV, and the 
question is, ``If you had to do it all over again, would you inhale?'' 
And the President laughs and says, ``Sure, if I could, I tried it 
before,'' well, that is not the type of leadership we should have on 
this very serious issue dealing with crimes and such.
  So we need to start at the top, using that bully pulpit. And Nancy 
Reagan used it so effectively by using the ``just say no.'' And so I 
think all of us, whether it be as Members of Congress, State 
legislators, Senators, mayors, we should work together and do exactly 
as the gentleman is doing and learning from his experience in putting 
this together.
  I remember back in the 1980's, when I was very involved in our 
Chamber of Commerce, I worked putting a task force together. I had two 
teenagers back home, and, fortunately, they were good kids, but we were 
concerned about the problem. So we got together with a group organizing 
things and through the Chamber trying to get businesses aware of it.
  Because when we talk about businesses, businesses save money by 
having a drug treatment program, by keeping people off drugs. Workmen's 
comp rates will go down. It saves money. The turnover of employees, 
turnover costs money to a business. They do not want people to change 
jobs. Hiring a bad employee is bad business.
  So I think whether it is business taking the leadership or Members of 
Congress or politicians, we all need to jump in and get involved in 
this. And Bob Dole, I know, has that commitment, and that is what makes 
me feel good, that he will continue the tradition that Ronald Reagan 
started and George Bush started.
  So I commend the gentleman for taking that leadership and we need 
more people doing that. And I will be getting back active in that issue 
in my hometown of Bradenton.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield to the other gentleman 
from Florida who has arrived.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take just a minute to also express 
my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for his 
leadership on this issue. He has brought the issue to the Republican 
Conference, he has brought it to the Congress and to the attention of 
the American people and to his community, and he has tried to take 
steps in a positive way to bring people together to solve this problem.
  It is a problem that we have to address from the White House to the 
courthouse, and it is a problem that is destroying our young people. 
Unless we act we will not have a future generation that is drug free. 
And until we act, we will continue to see juvenile crime and problems 
across this great land.
  Seventy percent of the crimes in America, ask our police chiefs, ask 
our sheriffs, ask our State law enforcement and Federal officials, 70 
percent of all the crimes in this Nation are, in fact, drug related. 
And people serving behind bars, there are 1.6 million Americans 
incarcerated, and about 70 percent of them are there because of drug 
use or abuse or some criminal activity that has led from crime.
  Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will yield back for a moment on that 
briefly.
  Mr. MICA. Certainly.
  Mr. PORTMAN. We talked about the impact of illegal drug use on 
violent crime, and the gentleman is right. When we ask police chiefs 
around the country what the best way would be to reduce violent crime, 
guess what they say?
  Mr. MICA. What is that?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reducing drug abuse. They do not talk, frankly, about 
gun control, they do not talk about the death penalty, they do not talk 
about a lot of other issues that are ones we might naturally think 
would be the best way to reduce violent crimes. The No. 1 issue by far, 
for them, is illegal drug use. By far the No. 1 way to reduce violent 
crime in this country. These are the police chiefs, who are on the 
line.
  Mr. MICA. Absolutely. If the gentleman will yield again.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Certainly.
  Mr. MICA. I come from central Florida. I have a wonderful area in 
east central Florida, from Orlando to Daytona Beach. Our blaring 
headlines are that teenage heroin use is at record epidemic levels.
  In the last few weeks, just in the last weekend, we had one of these 
home invasions where a gentleman tried to defend someone. These people 
were out trying to get drug money and they shot in cold-blooded murder 
a young person in our peaceful community.
  Another incident in my community just the week before. I admire hard 
work. I was raised to work from the time I was just a young person. And 
here in my community was a gentleman at 5 o'clock in the morning who 
was out filling newspaper racks in Orlando and trying to make a living 
and taking the change from his newspaper rack. He was a little vendor, 
again working in the early dawn, and these drug crazed individuals came 
up and blew him away. Just destroyed his life. Here is a man working, 
dogging, trying to make it.
  I have thousands of senior citizens, but I met a young lady in K-Mart 
in my community, and I asked her how things were going and was she 
working and making it, and she is trying to go to school. But she says, 
Mr. Mica, I have to take the bus to get to work, and I can only work 
during the day, and it is difficult for me to get to class because I am 
afraid to be at a bus stop. I am afraid to go out at night. Here is a 
young lady trying to make it into community college.
  So these are the problems. When we have 70 percent of the criminals 
behind

[[Page H10655]]

bars and involved in this, and then we have a President that says just 
say maybe.
  I have had two teenagers, just like the other gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Miller], in the last 4 years in my house, and I say just say no as 
a dad, just say no as a caring parent, just say no as a citizen of the 
community, and my wife joins me in that. And then we have the highest 
elected officer in the Nation, everyone we have always looked up to, 
just say, ``Ha-ha-ha, I'd try it if I had the opportunity again.'' Now, 
what message does that send?
  The other things that disturbs me, and one reason I came out tonight, 
is again I see the President on television saying that Republicans have 
cut drug programs. And nothing can be further from the truth. Nothing 
can be further from the facts. Let me, in fact, give my colleagues the 
facts.
  I serve on the committee that oversees our drug war and have been 
working on this with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] since we 
both got elected some 3 years ago, when we called for hearings and they 
ignored us. When we said this is not going to work, putting all the 
money into treatment and ignoring the other parts, interdiction, 
enforcement, and education.
  They gutted these programs. Now they have the nerve to say that we 
cut these. Let me talk about the safe and drug-free school program. 
Republicans never cut the safe and drug-free schools.
  First, I want everyone to understand that the Republicans did not 
take control of the Congress until just the last 18 or 20 months. The 
first 24 months, from 1992, with the election in the fall and taking 
office in January, the President in fact controlled the executive 
branch. As I recall, there were over 250 Democrats in the House of 
Representatives, a great majority, greater than we ever had, and they 
controlled the other body by a majority. They had control of all three 
bodies.
  They never held the hearings. In fact, in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 
the Democrats controlled the Congress and cut the programs, safe and 
drug-free schools. President Clinton, in 1994, requested $598.2 million 
for the program; the Democrats in Congress cut this to $187 million. 
$187.2 million, to be exact. His own party cut $174 million from his 
request in 1995. Again, when we did not control this. They did that. 
They should be held responsible for it.
  Now, what are we trying to do to restore it? Let me tell my 
colleagues. First of all, the drug czar's office. The President says he 
has downsized Government. Well, he started in the drug czar's office 
and he cut the staff of 150 positions down to about 25 positions. This 
Congress, through the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Portman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, the gentleman 
from Illinois, Mr. Hastert, Denny Hastert, the gentleman from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Zeliff, and others who worked so hard on trying to put 
this back together, we have put in the Treasury, Postal Service, and 
general government appropriations bill an increase in the budget of 
$7.9 million over last year, and we have restored from 25 to 154 
positions in the drug czar's office.
  So they dismantled it. It did not work. And we restored it and we 
took action when we controlled the House of Representatives and the 
other body.
  In the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and related agencies appropriations, in the drug enforcement budget, we 
have increased the budget. We have added 75 new agents for source 
country programs.
  They killed the interdiction program. They gutted the interdiction 
program. They put all the money in treatments; sort of treating the 
wounded in the battle and forgetting the rest of the battle.
  We have been there, our subcommittee, and not one Member of the 
minority went to South America, to Columbia, to Bolivia, to Peru. They 
boycotted the visit. They did not go with us to any of those countries 
and meet with the leaders, meet with out DEA agents.
  In fact, they tried to sabotage the trip and told the press we were 
taking too many staff when we included DEA agents and Customs officials 
and others to go down with us and see what we could do at first look at 
the situation: Was it as bad as the reports were; that this 
interdiction program, the cuts in it were a disaster by this 
administration? They did not want us to go and see firsthand.
  We went and they tried to sabotage the trip and did not participate 
in the trip. An offense to the Congress and to our subcommittee.
  So, then, they cut the military participation in the drug war and we 
have restored them. In military and drug interdiction and counter drug 
activities we are $132 million higher than the President's request.
  In fact, when I was in the jungles of Bolivia, I was told by one of 
our agents that they took $40 million out of their program and sent it 
up to Haiti for their nation building program.

                              {time}  1615

  Our agents, which were left in the jungle with a shoestring budget, 
actually some of them were even taking money out of their own pockets 
to make sure that some of these programs went forward, and what were 
the results? We had a hearing in our Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice. The result was that there 
are 10,000 hectares, expansive areas of heroin growing in Colombia. We 
even found in Peru heroin growing. When you cut the interdiction, when 
you cut these programs to stop drugs at their source, these cost-
effective programs, you see the results. Heroin, the hearing that we 
held this morning, is flooding this country, in fact.
  So we have restored money for all of these programs. We did not cut 
these. I take great offense at the President's comments that we cut 
them. We did not have control of the Congress at that time.
  Mr. Speaker, then again you get back to the point of the leadership. 
When you appoint the chief health officer of our great Nation, a high 
office of respect, a chief health officer, and that health officer, 
Joycelyn Elders, says just say maybe, what message did that send? How 
did that echo across our land to our children, to our schools, and then 
have the President make a joke of inhaling on MTV as my colleague from 
Florida had just commented.
  So, Republicans have again restored these programs. We have held 
hearings on the problem. We are not trying to politicize it. Some 
people say, oh, we are just making political commentary. This is not 
political commentary. This is the future of our next generation. This 
is the root of the problem of crime in this country. This is the root 
of many of the social ills that we see.
  This is why we have the wrong people behind bars. In my State and 
here in Washington, DC, you have to live behind bars because you fear 
for your own life. You fear for going out at night if you are trying to 
make a living or go to school or be a productive citizen or student in 
this society.
  So, again, I believe that you cannot cut interdiction, you cannot cut 
enforcement. You cannot cut the education programs, and we cannot cut 
the treatment programs.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say one thing about the treatment programs that 
concerns me. We have put a great deal of money into the treatment 
programs. I am really concerned that the information we have gotten 
back, it is repeated information, studies. I know General McCaffrey got 
a report from the Department of Defense and has squashed that report. 
But those treatment programs have not been effective, 90 percent of 
those programs are a failure.

  We find, in fact, that sometimes even some of the private sector 
programs, the church-related programs, the community programs that have 
been established are much more effective and should have our support. 
So yes, we have to attack drugs on four prongs: on education, 
interdiction, and we have got to look at treatment and enforcement. We 
cannot let any of those four legs of that stool be broken or damaged.
  So we have done our part. When I was a Member in the minority and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] signed with me and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller] signed with me, we called for hearings. Over 119 
of us, I believe, signed petitions calling for hearings, and our pleas 
were ignored.

[[Page H10656]]

  The last day of the session, a hearing was held for a very brief 
period of time. The meeting was adjourned when I tried to ask 
questions. It was a farcical charade, and now we see the result of it. 
The results are very clear, and someone has to take the responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, the leadership is not just Mr. Portman from Ohio, Mr. 
Miller from Florida, Mr. Zeliff from New Hampshire, Mr. Clinger from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Mica from Florida. The leadership starts at the White 
House, the highest level.
  Tomorrow I have to do something that I wish I did not have to do, but 
as chairman of the House Civil Service Subcommittee that overseas our 
Federal employees and our Federal work force, I have to hold hearings 
tomorrow on the question of the employment of individuals to the 
highest office of the land, the White House.
  We are not talking about some little remote Arkansas community or 
some Third World country. We are talking about the White House, the 
highest office in this land. I am holding hearings tomorrow to find out 
why our chief law enforcement agencies, the FBI and the Secret Service, 
became so concerned about people who were coming into this 
administration, who were not taking background checks, who could have 
access to national security, who could be advising the Chief Executive 
of the land who makes the decisions about what we do on an 
instantaneous basis, what prompted them when they testified before us 
that these folks that were coming in had recent histories of not just--
we are not talking about marijuana 20 years ago. We are talking about 
hallucinogenic drugs. We are talking about cocaine. We are talking 
about hard narcotics and subverting the process. Do we need a law to 
protect us from this type of situation?

  So I will chair that hearing, but it is with great dismay that I have 
to examine the highest office of our land in this fashion and bring 
this into question but provide in fact, as my responsibility as chair 
of this committee, as part of the oversight responsibility of this 
Congress, to see what is going on in the highest office of our land, 
and to see that our national security is protected and to see that 
future White Houses have the respect of this Congress and of every 
citizen. If our highest office sets our lowest standards, what have we 
come to in this Nation?
  So, again, I commend the gentleman. He has been outspoken. He has 
been persistent. He has been productive because he has helped get the 
attention of the Congress, of the leadership. He has helped us put 
Humpty Dumpty back on the wall and back together again; and, hopefully, 
hopefully, my children and children of people around this country will 
have a safe street; will have safe schools, where we are not employing 
another law enforcement officer at the school and following the arts 
teacher and the music teacher and the teachers that we need; where we 
can walk our streets as free Americans; where seniors do not have to 
fear walking outside in their own streets and neighborhoods and only go 
out in daylight.
  So I thank you for shedding light and for the leadership of the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman]. I thank my colleague, my dear friend 
from Florida [Mr. Miller], for his leadership and I yield back.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Mica] for putting this in perspective for us and also for all the time 
and effort that he has put into this issue. He has become a true expert 
on it. He is one of our leading policy makers on this issue now, and I 
wish him luck in his hearing tomorrow in getting some answers.
  We have a little time left, and I would like to yield to the other 
gentleman from Florida who has joined us.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida was 
talking about the tie-in between crime and drugs and the need for the 
leadership at the top. When the President of the United States, as we 
have said, laughs about whether he would do it again, he says, sure if 
I could, I tried it before. When the spokesman for the White House 
says, when asked about marijuana, quote: I was a kid in the 1970's, did 
I spoke a joint from time to time? Of course, I did.
  They do not say it is wrong. They do not say it was a mistake. They 
do not apologize for it. They just kind of laugh it off.
  Starting with marijuana is where we have to attack the problem, and 
that is where moral leadership is so important. There was a study out 
by Joseph Califano, the head of the center on addiction and substance 
abuse. He was Secretary of HHS under Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. A 
teenager who uses marijuana is 85 times more likely to graduate to 
cocaine than those who abstain. The percentage of children who are 
using marijuana that graduated from high school in 1992, 22 percent of 
graduating seniors had used marijuana during the past year. Last year, 
in 1995, that increased to 35 percent, going from 22 to 35 percent in 4 
short years.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read what Joseph Califano said, quote: The jump 
in marijuana use among America's children from 1992 to 1994 signals 
that 820,000 more of these children will try cocaine in their lifetime. 
Of that number, about 58,000 will become regular users and cocaine 
addicts.
  It is terrible what is happening. I wish the President would put as 
much focus on drugs as he does on tobacco. Tobacco is wrong. I oppose 
some of the programs in tobacco, too, but focus on drugs that are 
killing people at the youngest age and that is cruel to the kids and 
the families and the communities today.
  I thank my colleague for having this special order. I appreciate the 
possibility to have been able to join with you.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Let me add, Mr. Miller, what I view as a hopeful 
statistic to those that you have mentioned. That is, if you can keep a 
kid drug-free until that kid is 19 years old, then he or she has a 90-
percent chance of being drug-free for the rest of his or her life.
  Those are those critical years, those teenage years. This is why, as 
I said earlier, it is tragic that this drug use is occurring at an 
earlier and earlier age. We talked about the eighth graders. In a 
typical class of eighth graders, five kids have now tried marijuana. 
What we have got to do is address this problem at every level. Mr. Mica 
talked about it in terms of interdiction, source country, treatment, 
our criminal justice system, and finally prevention and education.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again like to close by saying that it is my view 
that part of what we need to do is to increase our efforts at the 
community level, the grassroots level. It is a philosophy that I think 
is very consistent with where this Congress is headed in terms of 
giving people more a sense of personal responsibility, the sense that 
our communities are where we are going to solve a lot of our problems.
  Certainly, the drug problem is one of those. I urge all of my 
colleagues to do whatever they can, not only at the national level 
where it is very important but also in their communities, in their 
homes, in their neighborhoods, in the school districts they represent, 
to attack this problem. We know it can help. We know it can begin to 
reduce the dramatic increase in drug use that we have seen since 1992. 
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________