[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.

                          ____________________