[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11288-S11289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NET EFFECT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Congress is now engaged in the
business of passing a budget to fund this Government for another year.
This process is one of the most important pieces of business that this
body engages in. In discussing where and how and for what we spend the
public's money on public business in the public interest is one of the
most compelling stories of government. I wish that more of our fellow
citizens watched the debates on this floor as we argue among ourselves
on their behalf how best to spend their hard earned dollars. It is an
important lesson in civics. It is a course in practical politics, on
how real differences on important matters of substance are resolved. It
is sometimes not an elegant process but it is one of the critical
features of democratic government.
One of the most inelegant parts of the process, is the fact that
legislating budgets is not coherent in the sum of its parts. We divide
our budget consideration into many pieces. It's the only practical way
to deal with the problem of how to spend money. This means, however,
that money and the politics that it is spent on is similarly considered
in its many parts, not as a whole.
Rarely, legislatively, does a program receive strategic or
comprehensive consideration that combines all the elements. Doing that
is typically one of the responsibilities of the executive branch. We
look to the administration to present the comprehensive plan, to
integrate all the pieces into meaningful policy. It is Congress' role
to ensure that the net results are what is intended. That the money is
buying what it is meant for.
We may not always agree with how things are put together, but a
dialog on our disagreements is how a democracy makes up its mind. This
process, however, does not lend itself to central direction. Congress
may, through the oversight process, seek to encourage cohesiveness. It
may, through legislation, require strategic thinking. But, while you
can lead an administration to water, you cannot necessarily make it
take the plunge. You cannot give it coherence. You cannot supply a
vision that is wanting, a conviction that is simply not there. You
cannot enforce wisdom. When these are lacking, Congress is not always
the best body to provide uniform direction. It is, however, bound to
try.
That is the situation we face now is so many areas of our
international policy. Things are drifting. There is no coherence, no
vision. And, sometimes, I wonder about the wisdom behind what passes
for policy. This is painfully clear in looking at our drug policy.
I have spoken a number of times about the incoherence in our present
efforts. I have documented, recently, the consequences of these failed
policies for drug use in this country. Unless we simply do not expect
our policies to make any difference. Unless we are committed to the
idea that we spend the public's money for the heck of it. Unless we
believe that words are meant to substitute for results. Then, we cannot
look at our current efforts and the trend in youthful drug use and
conclude that what we are doing is working.
Simply put, the present strategy from this administration on drugs is
a failure. It has been a failure from the beginning. The most recent
effort at a written strategy, while an admirable attempt by the new
drug czar, is thin. It lacks substance. It has no measurable standards
of performance. It contains little new. It has few measures of success.
Even more disappointing, the administration has been noticeably
invisible on the Hill in defending its own programs. This, also, is not
new. Even in the Democratic-controlled Congress, the administration
largely left the drug program to fend for itself.
This under-supported policy was also the program that the
administration took to the public. Its most remembered hallmarks are
``I didn't inhale'', and the Surgeon General's call for serious
consideration of legalization. Hardly substitutes for ``Just Say No.''
The consequences were vanishing interest
[[Page S11289]]
in serious counter-drug efforts and renewed calls for legalization--
given encouragement by this administration's Surgeon General. The
results of that indifference and incoherence are clear for anyone who
wants to take a look at the recent reporting on youthful drug use in
this country over the past 3\1/2\ years. The picture is sobering. The
results are dramatic increases of drug use among kids. All the recent
surveys confirm this. In addition, the forthcoming annual PRIDE survey
will add further weight to the body of evidence.
In response to this fact, the congressional leadership, led by Bob
Dole, commissioned a joint House-Senate task force last year to do what
the administration has not done: develop a coherent view of what needs
to be done. The task force report, which came out earlier this year,
provides us with guidance on where we need to be going with our drug
policy. In particular, as Congress now considers the international drug
budget in its many parts, the report indicates the direction that we
need to be taking to give us more coherence and sense of purpose in our
efforts.
In the absence of meaningful policies from the administration, we
have a responsibility to the public to make up for the deficit. As we
construct our separate drug budgets, we must take this need into our
deliberations.
In essence, our overall drug programs are an effort to build a
fisherman's net--a web of programs, efforts, and policies that will
catch and hold the school of drug problems. We must construct a
balanced weave. One without gaping holes. One that is suited to the
circumstances of our needs and our capabilities. The budget process is
our net. It is here that we must ensure that we bring more consistency
to our deliberations over the various parts of our drug budget to
ensure that the result is more than the sum of its parts.
We need to ensure, as we balance the many conflicting needs
represented in our budgets, that our drug program is adequately funded
in its constituent elements. We must ensure that DOD bears
responsibility for doing something more than it has recently in
supporting drug operations. We must see that Customs programs along the
Southwest border, in Puerto Rico, and in support of interdiction
operations are adequately supported, after years of neglect. We need to
refurbish DEA's international effort. We need to support Coast Guard's
drug enforcement mission. We need to provide support to the efforts to
develop a Midwest high intensity drug trafficking area to stem the flow
of methamphetamine.
These things we can do more immediately. In the longer term, we in
Congress need to exercise more vigorous oversight over present programs
to ensure that the public is getting a proper return on its investment.
We need more accountability. In the next days and weeks, as we work to
do the people's business, we must keep in mind our responsibility to
provide adequate, consistent support to drug programs. In doing so, we
help to put our drug policy back on track. We engaged a problem that we
cannot afford to ignore or wish away. In responding, we must consider
the net effect. I urge my colleagues to support funding for the
programs I have mentioned above as we work on the appropriations bills
before us.
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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________