[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5362-S5364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRUG ABUSE AND ADDICTION
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, when we return a week from Monday, from
the Memorial Day recess, we will revisit the tobacco debate, and at
that point I, along with my colleague from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and my
colleague from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, will offer an amendment to the
tobacco bill that would create a new section. The section we will be
offering as suggested additional legislation for the tobacco bill will
be a section on drug abuse and addiction.
Mr. President, to me it is illogical--and I have been puzzled
throughout the debate--that we would be talking about teenage addiction
in the context of tobacco only. It is not good policy to talk about
teenage addiction and leave out the single, most important crisis that
teenagers face today, which is drug addiction, drug abuse, and the
swirling epidemic that has engulfed our Nation. If we are going to talk
about addiction, we must include a component that deals with the
Nation's No. 1 teenage problem.
Mr. President, in the last 7 years teenage drug abuse has increased
by 135 percent--135 percent. Tobacco usage has increased as well--40
percent. That is significant, and we must attack that but not by being
silent on a new drug epidemic in the United States. In 1979, 14.1
percent of the population age 12 to 17 were involved in drug use--that
is 3.3 million. The Nation got serious and it said we cannot accept
this. And by the year 1992, drug use had been driven down by two-
thirds, from 14.1 percent down to 5.3 percent. This is important on a
couple of points. First, it demonstrates to the Nation that you can do
something about this. There are many in our community who would argue,
well, we have just been fighting this forever and it doesn't do any
good. That is totally wrong.
We have demonstrated as a Nation if we get focused on this problem,
pay attention to it, and if we do the right things, we will keep people
from being entrapped by drug use. We went from 14.1 percent down to 5.3
percent. In other words, instead of 3.3 million children getting caught
up in this, we have taken it down to 1 million--a two-thirds reduction.
And then we got lazy. We quit talking about it. We made light of it.
The interdiction was reduced. The drug czar's office was closed, for
all practical purposes. We mothballed Coast Guard ships in the
Caribbean. We turned our back on this problem. And what happened? Well,
we should not be surprised. We are moving right back to 1979. You quit
talking about it, you reduce the effort on the border, you shrink up
the resources, and our youngsters get the idea that it is not
dangerous. In the meantime, the cartels have become ever more
sophisticated, generating ever more resources. They have as good a
distribution system in this country as some of our most famous brands.
At a hearing recently, we had representation from Customs, from the
Justice Department, and from the FBI. I asked them at the end of the
hearing, ``How recently have you been to a school?'' Well, none of them
had been recently. I said, ``You ought to do it.'' Mr. President, if
you want to know what is going on, go into any school and 12-years-olds
can tell you the whole story. They can tell you how few minutes it
takes to buy them. They can tell you that they are prevalent
everywhere. They can tell you the name brands of all of them. And when
you ask them what the most serious problem is, a few will hold up their
hands on various issues--alcohol, cigarettes--but they all hold up
their hands in unison when you say, ``Are drugs the most serious
problem you face?'' All the hands go up. I challenge anybody to do it.
They will get the same answer.
Those kids, I think, are wondering what we are doing about it, what
is this Nation doing about it? It is time for a bold response. And
throughout this entire debate, there has been silence on this massive
problem. One in four students in high school today in the United States
is using drugs regularly. One in nine in junior high is using drugs
regularly. Eight out of ten prisoners in any jail in America, anywhere
in America, are there on a drug-related charge--direct or indirect.
This is fueling crime in our country, with enormous cost consequences,
and we are taking millions of casualties. If this evil force wore a
uniform, we would have declared war on it.
What else would take down a million kids--a million, and it is
increasing--that would produce 100,000 crack babies every year and
thousands of deaths--14,000 a year?
The silence has been deafening, just deafening. We have been in a
struggle with the administration over this, asking them to step
forward. We are finally just moving on our own. The plan that they have
given us says we are going to have an accountability period in the year
2006. The first measurement would occur in 2002. That is 2 years into
the next Presidency. We need to be aggressive now. My colleague, in a
moment, will describe in his 10-minute period the bold response.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, why have we spent the last 3 days on the
floor talking about tobacco? Nearly everyone who has come to the floor
to talk about tobacco has said we have to get it out of the hands of
teenagers. There are two reasons we are on the floor talking about
tobacco. First of all, it is darn good politics, and, secondly, we are
mad at the tobacco companies and we are going to act in a very punitive
fashion because they lied to us. They withheld information as to the
addictiveness of nicotine, and we are angry as a public, angry as a
governing body. We are going to inflict upon them a very punitive
action, and we are going to do it in the name of teenagers--thousands
of young people every day picking up a cigarette.
I am not belittling it, I am recognizing it. We need to try to get
tobacco and the substance within it, nicotine, out of the hands of our
teenagers. But thousands of teenagers today who start smoking today
will not die tomorrow. Let me repeat that. The thousands of teenagers
that we are all talking about--and, boy, have we heard it on the floor
in the last few days--who pick up a cigarette today will not die
tomorrow.
Mr. President, young people who engage in the use of drugs can die
tomorrow. As my colleague from Georgia said, thousands are dying each
year in violent actions and crimes related to drug use and drug
associations. Yet, we stand silently by. The administration dropped the
ball and walked away, and, finally, my colleague from Georgia rose up
and said, wait a moment here, what in the heck are we doing as a
country and as a policymaking body? If we are going to do all these
great things for kids to get the cigarette out of their hand, why in
the heck don't we get crack cocaine, marijuana, and amphetamines out of
their hands because it kills them--not 30 years down the road.
By the way, if you start smoking today, you have a chance to live,
because you can quit down the road. But if you start crack cocaine
today, you will probably die on the street in a month or two for one
reason or another, because you are stealing the money to get the crap
that is called crack, or you are shot in some transaction that went
bad.
That is how teenagers in America are dying today. The statistics that
were just given by my colleague from Georgia about seventh graders and
eighth
[[Page S5363]]
graders is real. I have done the same thing that Paul Coverdell has
done. I have gone to the schools of Idaho. I go to them regularly
anyway. I spend a lot of time talking with teenagers, kids, and when I
ask the question, ``What is your problem?'' the hands go up with drugs.
Most of the hands go up.
The Senator from Georgia is right. They know who sells it, and where
you can get them. If they had a brand name on them, they would know the
brand. Most importantly, if they had a brand name on them and they were
being trafficked in the market today, we would be here going after the
companies that were selling them because it would be killing our kids.
But today we are angry. We are mad. We are going to be vindictive. We
are after the tobacco companies. We are after their big money to fuel
big government. I am not going to vote for a big tobacco bill. I am
going to vote to get cigarettes out of the hands of teenagers. It is
the right thing to do.
But if we stand silently by and let what is described by my colleague
from Georgia as the most significant epidemic amongst our youngsters go
unspoken to and uncorrected, then we have erred grievously; we have
erred grievously as policymakers.
New polls are out. When you ask parents what they are worried about,
here is what they say: Thirty-nine percent, using illegal drugs.
Thirty-nine percent of the American public say that is the No. 1
problem. Sixteen percent say joining a gang. Nine percent say drinking
alcohol. Why? You get drunk, you get in the car, and you kill somebody,
and you kill yourself.
Why then are we on the floor to spend weeks and millions of dollars
trying to reach out and get billions of dollars out of tobacco? I will
tell you why. Because it is good politics. Yet only 3 percent of the
American people say they worry about it when they worry about their
kids.
It is time we speak out. That is what my colleague from Georgia, my
colleague from Michigan, and I are doing. We will have an amendment on
the tobacco bill that will deal with this issue, or there will be no
tobacco bill.
We must wake up the White House, wake up our Government, and wake up
this policy body to what we are about to do. Here is what we want to
do. We want to attach legislation that deals with this issue in a most
significant way targeting three primary areas: Attacking the supply of
drugs by strengthening our ability to stop them at the border; pull the
mothballed Coast Guard fleet out and put it back in the water. Bill
Clinton put it there. The heck with Bill Clinton. Put the money back
in. Get them out in the water, and stop by interdiction. That is what
our amendment does.
Second, we want to provide additional resources to fight drugs that
reach our neighborhoods. Give the tools to the law enforcement
communities and the schools and the communities at large to join
together to block grant and create their own initiative along with our
directed initiatives to get at the problem at the local level.
Then the third thing is to create disincentives for teen use of
illegal drugs.
Those are the three major areas that will be involved in what we are
about to do. We are going to spend a lot of time on the floor week
after next until this proposal, this amendment, is part of the overall
bill that will move, I believe, out of here.
So what do we have to do? When it comes to the supply side, we have
to go straight at it. We have to deal with interdiction. We have to
strengthen the borders. We have to stop slashing Coast Guard budgets
and put some money back in it.
We talked about a 53-percent decline from 1992 to 1995 in the ability
of the Coast Guard to reach out and interdict. That simply has to stop.
Our amendment does exactly that.
Our amendment also includes the Border-Free Drug Act, which attacks
70 percent of the illegal drugs that enter the United States across the
United States-Mexican border--70 percent of the drugs that are killing
our kids on the street today, not 20 years down the road--today coming
across the border from Mexico to the United States.
So why not put more people on the borders? I think we ought to. We
ought to strengthen the Immigration and Naturalization Service to hire
Border Patrol agents to deal with the trafficking and get at the
business of going at it. For example, our amendment increases the
resources available to DEA and the FBI.
An additional section of our amendment is the Money Laundering
Prevention Act.
Finally, last week this administration announced a major break in
drug laundering with Mexican banks. We have arrested a few people. And
we are trying to get the cooperation of the Mexican Government now
because the money is big. How big? We are trying to get $800 billion
away from the tobacco companies to spend on big government and some
advertising that we think will convince our teenagers to quit smoking.
But $100 billion a year in the drug business kills thousands of
teenagers. And we have not spoken to that. Why don't we go after that?
I hope we can. We should. That is our goal.
While we deal with it in a national and an international way, we have
to turn to our parents and we have to turn to our communities. The kids
know who the drug dealers are. We ought to start asking them and
involving them a little bit and recognizing the importance of that. We
do that. We go after the demand side along with the supply side.
I think the Clinton administration's green light to subsidize needle
exchange and programs like that doesn't make a lot of sense. That is an
encouragement. We want to stop that.
Our legislation is comprehensive. The amendment that we will talk
about over the recess and will offer as soon as we get back is going to
be critical. Pieces of what we are doing have already passed the
Congress in one way or another.
We want to bring them together to create the focus to do the same
thing against drugs as we have done against alcohol. You get caught as
a teenage drunk driver you lose your driver's license. You get caught
using drugs as a teenager you drive on. We will encourage the States to
take the driver's license away.
Let me say in closing, Mr. President, that if we are really worried
about kids, yes. I agree. Let's get the cigarettes out of their hands.
But let's stop them from their access to drugs of all forms. It kills
them tomorrow. It killed thousands last year. It will kill thousands
this year. As a policy-making body, we would be remiss not to deal with
this issue now and force this administration to get out of their
sleepwalk and deal with the issue in cooperation with us.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Wyoming, under
the previous order, is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield so I might ask a question?
Mr. ENZI. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding of the unanimous consent
request made by Senator Coverdell was that he wants to get two on the
majority side to use 10 minutes each. And we thought that was
acceptable. Senator Enzi wanted to introduce a bill. I now understand
that Senator Enzi wishes to consume up to 10 minutes. The difficulty
with that is I must be somewhere downtown at 10:30. If I had understood
that Senator Coverdell was seeking 30 minutes on that side before
anyone was recognized, I would have had a different view, although I
recognize that Senator Enzi came, in fact, before the previous two
speakers this morning. I understand that. But we did it as a matter of
courtesy to say it was acceptable to us to have two Republican speakers
to go for 10 minutes each provided we then be recognized. The Senator
from Wyoming, I understand, wants to introduce a bill.
Does the Senator from Wyoming intend to consume up to 10 minutes?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, my request was both on behalf of myself and
Senator Bingaman. I don't see Senator Bingaman. So we can do it in
considerably less time than that providing, of course, that the
unanimous consent is that all of our statements be in the Record. But I
would like to make a
[[Page S5364]]
few comments on something that is important to worker safety in this
country. That is why I asked it to be in that order.
Mr. DORGAN. I think there has been a misunderstanding. I will, as
matter of courtesy, not object. But I would have objected earlier if
the request was that we had 30 minutes on the majority side
uninterrupted, because Senator Wellstone is here and I was here. The
Senator from Wyoming, I know, was here as well before the other
speakers. As a matter of courtesy I will not object. I regret that
there has been a misunderstanding.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of a
unanimous consent?
Mr. ENZI. Yes.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Wyoming.
____________________