[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 24 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1792-S1793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the drug czar released the national drug 
control strategy recently, as he is required to do. The President held 
a press conference to announce the strategy and his budget for fiscal 
1998 to combat drug use in this country. This strategy now includes a 
request for almost $16 billion. That is about a 5.4-percent increase, 
which is just about average for recent drug budgets. While I welcome 
the strategy and the increase, I am concerned that it does not live up 
to the requirements set out in the law. I am even more concerned that 
the strategy seems to walk away from the war on drugs. This strategy 
would seem to have us believe that we can combat the problem of rising 
teenage drug abuse by simply treating the wounded. It is walking away 
from a war on drugs to talking about fighting a cancer.
  I have heard Mr. McCaffrey on this issue before. The view seems to be 
that a ``war'' is the wrong metaphor for our efforts. It seems that we 
must act as if our problem is more akin to therapy. We must treat the 
problem of illegal drugs and not combat it. In this view, it is time to 
trade in our old car for a sleek new model. I appreciate the drug 
czar's sensitivities on this issue, but quite frankly, this trade-in is 
going to buy us a lemon.
  This walking away from years of efforts to combat drug abuse and 
instead substituting ``phrases about treating a condition'' is simply 
waving a white flag. It sends the signal that instead of combating 
illegal drugs we must accept them like we would a disease. While I 
agree that the problem of illegal drug use and smuggling are deeply 
imbedded in our society, I do not buy the idea that we need to tolerate 
this situation.
  I do not think we gain much by blurring the language we use. I do not 
believe that we gain ground with our efforts to keep kids off drugs by 
sending weaker signals about our efforts. This is even more true at a 
time when kids are using more drugs.
  I am concerned that the present strategy simply doesn't have the 
juice needed to get us moving. The real story about the present 
situation of drug use in this country today is that we are losing. By 
the only standard that matters, whether more kids are deciding to use 
more drugs, our efforts are failing. In every reporting mechanism that 
we have, it is clear that in the last 5 years, more kids are using more 
drugs.

[[Page S1793]]

  It is clear that fewer kids are seeing drug use as dangerous. It is 
clear that drug use is increasingly glorified in our popular culture, 
in movies, music, and on TV. It is clear that legalization themes are 
gaining a wider circulation among our elite media and cultural leaders. 
With all of these things happening under our very noses, it is clear 
that we have a crisis on our hands.
  Today, there are some 3 million hardcore addicts in this country. 
Reflect for a moment on how we got this population. Most of these 
individuals decided to use drugs the last time this country flirted 
with idea that drugs were OK. Their decision in the 1960's, 1970's, and 
early 1980's left us with a major abuse problem. We were making 
progress, however, in keeping new generations from making the same 
mistake. That is now changing. And it is changing rapidly. We face a 
problem of major dimensions. In that context, we need to have a clear 
idea of what we need to be doing. We need to know how we are going to 
make a difference.
  Unfortunately, as I read the present strategy, I do not come away 
with a sense that we have a plan that comes to grips with the problem.
  According to section 1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the 
drug czar is required to submit to Congress each year a strategy that 
includes ``long-range goals for reducing drug abuse in the United 
States,'' and short-term objectives which the Director determines may 
be realistically achieved in the 2-year period beginning on the date of 
the submission of the Strategy.'' It was the intent of Congress that 
this strategy include standards of measurement so that we could see 
what was being achieved. Last year, I wrote Mr. McCaffrey on this issue 
and made it clear that Congress expected to see clear, straightforward 
language on measurable standards. The House communicated a similar 
message.
  What we find, however, is a series of goals and objectives that 
contain no measurable standards. What we find is the promise that at 
some future date we will see an effort to have such standards. What we 
find is a watering down of our drug control efforts by trying to 
present vague guidelines in a 10-year strategy that does not address 
our present crisis in teenage drug use.
  We know from every survey on drug use done in this country that teen 
use of drugs is increasing dramatically. We know that increasingly kids 
see fewer dangers in using drugs. We know that kids at younger ages are 
starting to use drugs. We know that the legalization movement in this 
country is working overtime to get dangerous drugs accepted as part of 
normal life.
  In my view, when we are failing in our goal to keep kids off drugs, 
we are failing in our job. The present strategy does not tell us how we 
are going to reverse this trend. Certainly, vague goals and objectives 
and the effort to bury the need for decisive action in a 10-year 
approach falls short of the mark.
  This strategy is disappointing and it seeks to avoid accountability. 
We are in the midst of a crisis of teenage drug abuse and increasing 
legalization talk. Yet, the strategy avoids addressing this crisis in a 
clear and straightforward way. It tries to bury this crisis in tables 
and charts that talk about progress made in reducing drug use in the 
1980's and early 1990's. This is a sandwich without the beef.

                          ____________________