[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12483-S12486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WESTERN HEMISPHERE DRUG ELIMINATION ACT

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago we introduced the Western 
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This bipartisan legislation, which now 
has over one-third of the Senate as cosponsors, calls for an additional 
$2.6 billion investment in international counternarcotics efforts over 
the next 3 years. With the additional resources provided in this 
legislation, we can begin to restore a comprehensive eradication, 
interdiction, and crop substitution strategy. I say ``restore.'' I say 
restore because we currently are not making the same kind of effort to 
keep drugs from entering the United States that we used to. Drugs are 
now easy to find and easy to buy. As a result, the amount of drugs sold 
on our streets and the number of people who use drugs, particularly our 
young people, is at an unprecedented high level. The facts demonstrate 
the sobering trends.
  The August 1998 National Survey of Drug Abuse report by the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Administration lists the following disturbing 
facts: One, in 1997, 13.9 million Americans age 12 and over cited 
themselves as ``current users'' of elicit drugs, a 7 percent increase 
over 1996's figure of 13 million Americans. That translates to nearly a 
million new users of drugs each year.
  Second, from 1992 to 1997, the number of children age 12 to 17 who 
were using illegal drugs has more than doubled and has increased by 27 
percent, just from 1996 to 1997 alone.
  For children age 12 to 17, first-time heroin use--which as we all 
know can be fatal--surged an astounding 875 percent, from 1991 to 1996. 
The overall number of past-month heroin users increased 378 percent 
from 1993 to 1997.
  We cannot in good conscience and with a straight face say that our 
drug control strategy is working. It is not. More children are using 
drugs. With an abundant supply, drug traffickers now are seeking to 
increase their sales by targeting children age 10, 11, 12. This is 
nothing less than an assault on the future of our children, on our 
families, and on the future of our country itself. This is nothing less 
than a threat to our national values and, yes, even our national 
security.
  All of this, though, begs the question: What are we doing wrong? 
Clearly there is no one, simple answer. However, one thing is clear: 
our overall drug strategy is no longer balanced; it is imbalanced. To 
be effective, our national drug strategy must have a

[[Page S12484]]

strong commitment in the following three areas. One is demand 
reduction, which consists of prevention, treatment and education 
programs. These are, of course, administered by all levels of 
government: Federal level, State level, and the local community as well 
as nonprofit and other private organizations. The second component is 
domestic law enforcement which, again, has to be provided by all three 
levels of government. And finally, No. 3, international eradication and 
international interdiction efforts, which is the sole responsibility of 
the Federal Government, our sole responsibility.
  These three components are really all interdependent--you need them 
all. A strong investment in each of them is necessary for each to work 
individually and to work collectively. For example, a strong effort to 
destroy or seize drugs at the source or outside the United States, both 
reduces the amount of drugs in the country and drives up the street 
price. As we all know, higher prices will in fact reduce consumption. 
This, in turn, helps our domestic law enforcement and demand reduction 
efforts.
  As any football fan can tell us, a winning team is one that plays 
well at all three phases of the game--offense, defense, and special 
teams.
  The same is true with our antidrug strategy. All three components 
have to be effective if our strategy is going to be a winning effort.
  Mr. President, while I think the current administration has shown a 
clear commitment to demand reduction and domestic law enforcement 
programs, the same, sadly, cannot be said for the international 
eradication and interdiction components. This was not always the case. 
Let me turn to a chart.
  In 1987, a $4.79 billion Federal drug control budget was divided as 
follows: 29 percent for demand reduction programs; 38 percent for 
domestic law enforcement; and 33 percent, one-third, for international 
eradication and interdiction efforts. This balanced approach worked. It 
achieved real success. Limiting drug availability through interdiction 
drove up the street price of drugs, reduced drug purity levels and, 
consequently, reduced overall drug use.
  From 1988 to 1991, total drug use declined by 13 percent, cocaine use 
dropped by 35 percent, and there was a 25-percent reduction in overall 
drug use by adolescent Americans.
  This balanced approach, however, ended in 1993, and by 1995 the $13.3 
billion national drug control budget was divided as follows: 35 percent 
for demand reduction, 53 percent for law enforcement, but only--only--
12 percent--only 12 percent for international interdiction efforts.
  Though the overall antidrug budget increased almost threefold from 
1987 to 1995, the percentage allocated for international eradication 
and interdiction efforts decreased dramatically. This disruption only 
recently has started to change. Unfortunately, the imbalance is still 
there, and the figures still show that.
  In the President's proposed $17 billion drug control budget for 1999, 
34 percent will be allocated for demand reduction, 52 percent for law 
enforcement, and 14 percent for international and interdiction efforts. 
Those are the numbers. But what really matters is what these numbers 
get you, what they buy, in terms of resources. The hard truth is that 
our drug interdiction presence --the ship, the air, and the manpower 
dedicated to keeping drugs from reaching our country--has eroded 
dramatically, and here are just a few examples.
  One, the Department of Defense funding for counternarcotics decreased 
from $504.6 million in 1992 down to $214 million in 1995. That is a 57-
percent decrease in only a period of 3 years. As a result, flight hours 
by our AWACS planes dropped from 38,100 hours in 1992 down to 17,713 
hours by 1996, a 54-percent reduction.
  Another example: At the beginning of the decade, the U.S. Customs 
Service operated counternarcotics activities around the clock. This 
made sense because drug trafficking is a 7-day, 24-hour enterprise. 
Today, the Customs Service does not have the resources to maintain 
these around-the-clock operations. In a recent hearing on our 
legislation, the original piece of legislation we introduced, a 
representative of the U.S. Customs Service testified that the Customs 
Service has 84 boats in the Caribbean in drug apprehension efforts, and 
that is down from 200 vessels in 1990--200 down to 84.
  The Customs Service estimates that they expect to have only half of 
the current fleet of 84 vessels by the year 2000, if present trends and 
projections continue--half again.
  These, I believe, are shocking statistics, and, perhaps more than the 
budget numbers themselves, these statistics demonstrate the imbalance 
in our overall drug strategy. We have to have a balanced strategy. All 
portions are needed.
  I have witnessed the lack of our resources and commitment in the 
region firsthand. This past year, I traveled to the Caribbean several 
times to see our counternarcotics operations there. I met with the 
dedicated people on the front lines of our drug interdiction efforts. I 
witnessed our strategy in action and sat down with the experts, both 
military and civilian--our experts who are charged with carrying out 
the monitoring, the detection, and the interdiction of drugs.
  On one of my recent trips, I saw, in particular, Haiti has become the 
attractive rest stop on the cocaine highway. You can tell, when looking 
at the map, why that would be. It is strategically located about 
halfway between the source country, Colombia, and the United States. As 
the poorest country in the hemisphere, it is extremely vulnerable to 
the kind of bribery and corruption that the drug trade needs in order 
to flourish.
  Not surprisingly, the level of drugs moving through Haiti has 
dramatically increased. A U.S. Government interagency assessment on 
cocaine movement found that the total amount of cocaine coming from the 
United States through Haiti jumped from 5-percent in 1996 now up to 19 
percent by the end of 1997.
  In response to that, we initiated a U.S. law enforcement operation 
called Operation Frontier Lance. Operation Frontier Lance utilized 
Coast Guard cutters, speed boats, and helicopters to detect and capture 
drug dealers on a 24-hour-per-day basis. This operation was modeled 
after another successful interdiction effort that was first done off 
the coast of Puerto Rico, and that operation was called Operation 
Frontier Shield. Both these operations were done in two different time 
periods. Operation Frontier Shield utilized nearly 2 dozen ships and 
aircraft, and Operation Frontier Lance utilized more than a dozen ships 
and helicopters.
  To make Operation Frontier Lance work ultimately required that we 
borrow a few ships and helicopters from operations elsewhere in the 
Caribbean. Because of our scarce resources, frankly, we had to rob 
Peter to pay Paul, as they say. But these operations produced amazing 
results. The 6-month operation in Puerto Rico resulted in the seizure 
of more than 32,000 pounds of cocaine and 120 arrests. The 3-month 
operation in Haiti resulted in 2,990 pounds of cocaine seized and 22 
arrests.
  Mr. President, these operations demonstrate we can make a big 
difference--a big difference--if we provide the right levels of 
material and the right levels of manpower to fight drug trafficking. 
They worked.
  Having had this success, one would think that these operations would 
serve as a model for the entire region, that we would be able to 
duplicate them, replicate them. Instead of maintaining these 
operations, we ended them. This potential roadblock on the cocaine 
highway is no more. Now in Puerto Rico, we only have a combined total 
of six air and sea assets doing maintenance operations.
  So this figure, Mr. President, represented by these helicopters and 
ships has been dramatically changed. That is what has happened. That 
has been the change--down to six in that region.

  In Puerto Rico today, we only have a combined total of six air and 
sea assets doing maintenance operations.
  In Haiti and the Dominican Republic--off the coast of Haiti and the 
Dominican Republic--we only have one ship and one helicopter devoted 
for the drug operation. That is what we are down to here--just one. So 
we can take all of these off at once.
  We should keep in mind also that since refugees remain a major 
problem in this area, these very few vessels are not dedicated solely 
and exclusively to the antidrug effort. Amazingly, no sooner than we 
built an effective wall against drug traffickers we tore it down.

[[Page S12485]]

  While in the region, I was surprised to learn in the eastern Pacific, 
off the coast of Mexico and Central America, the coast is literally 
clear for the drug lords to do their business. This is, without a 
doubt, unacceptable. That whole region--that whole region--is literally 
clear for the drug lords, the entire eastern Pacific.
  Again, we have no presence there because we lack the resources. An 
interdiction plan does exist for the region which would involve the 
deployment of several ships and planes in the region. This operation, 
however, unfortunately, was canceled. It was canceled before it even 
got started because the resources were needed elsewhere. To date, the 
coastal waters in the eastern Pacific remain an open sea expressway for 
drug business.
  Mr. President, through my visits to the region I have seen firsthand 
the dramatic decline in our eradication and interdiction capacity. The 
results of this decline have been a decline in cocaine seizures, a 
decline in the price of cocaine, and an increase in drug use. This has 
to stop. It is a clear and imminent danger to the very heart of our 
society. That is why this legislation is timely. We need to dedicate 
more resources for international efforts to help reverse this trend.
  I want to make it very clear, as I think I have time and time again, 
that I strongly support our continued commitment in demand reduction 
and in law enforcement programs. In the end, I believe that reducing 
demand is the only real way to permanently end illegal drug use. 
However, this is not going to happen overnight. That is why we need a 
comprehensive counterdrug strategy that addresses all components of 
this problem.
  There is another fundamental reason, why the Federal Government must 
do more to stop drugs, either at the source or in transit, as they are 
coming into the United States. If we do not, no one else will. Let me 
remind my colleagues that our antidrug efforts here at home are done in 
cooperation with State and local governments and scores of nonprofit 
and private organizations. However, only the Federal Government has the 
ability and the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing into this 
country. Only the Federal Government has the ability to help deal with 
the problem at the source level. Only the Federal Government has the 
ability to stop drugs in the transit routes. That is our 
responsibility, and the buck should stop here.
  But, it is not just an issue of responsibility. I think it is an 
issue of leadership. The United States has to demonstrate leadership on 
an international level if we expect to get the full cooperation of 
source countries, where the drugs originate, countries such as 
Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as well as countries in the transit zone, 
including Mexico and the Caribbean island governments. There is little 
incentive for these countries to invest their limited resources and 
risk the lives of their law enforcement officers to stop drug 
trafficking unless we provide the leadership and the resources 
necessary to make a serious dent in the drug trade.
  Our bill is designed to provide resources and to demonstrate to our 
friends in the Caribbean and in Central and South America that we 
intend to lead once again. With this legislation, we can once again 
make it difficult for drug lords to bring drugs to our country and make 
drugs far more costly to buy.
  It is clear drug trafficking imposes a heavy toll on law-abiding 
citizens and communities across our great country. It is time we make 
it a dangerous and costly business once again for drug traffickers 
themselves. A renewed investment in international and interdiction 
programs will make a huge difference, both in the flow and the cost of 
illegal drugs. It worked before and we believe it can work again.
  As I said at the beginning, my colleagues and I reintroduced this 
legislation a few weeks ago. Since we introduced our original bill in 
July, we have received a number of suggestions on ways to improve the 
legislation, including several provided in conversations I personally 
had with Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes to 
conclude my remarks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleagues and I thank the Chair.
  Some of these suggestions we incorporated in the House bill first 
introduced by Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida and Congressman 
Dennis Hastert of Illinois. The House passed the McCollum-Hastert bill 
with overwhelming bipartisan support. The final vote was 384-39. 
Clearly, the overwhelming bipartisan show of support for the Western 
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act is a wake-up call--a wake-up call--for 
leadership. It is time the United States once again led the way in a 
comprehensive and balanced strategy to reduce drug use; and the time 
for leadership is now.
  Since House passage of the bill, I have reached out once again to the 
drug czar and to my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle to try to 
determine how we can work together to strengthen our drug interdiction 
efforts and our overall antidrug strategy. Again, we have received very 
constructive suggestions, and I am hopeful this dialogue will yield 
positive results in the future.
  Mr. President, the resources we would provide in our legislation 
should be of no surprise to anyone involved in our drug control 
policies. The vast majority of the items in this bill are the very 
items which the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard and 
Customs Service have been requesting for quite some time. Many of these 
items are detailed, practically item per item and dollar amount, in the 
United States Interdiction Coordinator report, known as USIC, which was 
originally requested by the drug czar.
  The new drug bill that we have introduced represents a good-faith 
effort by the sponsors of this legislation to get something done this 
year. It includes almost all of the changes made in the House-passed 
bill and incorporates virtually every suggestion made by the drug czar. 
Of central concern to the general, as he expressed in his recent 
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was the need 
for greater flexibility. And I agree and I understand.
  Our new bill provides flexibility for the agencies to determine and 
acquire the assets best needed for their respective drug interdiction 
missions. It also provides more flexibility for the administration in 
providing needed resources to Latin American countries.
  Mr. President, thanks to the suggestions we have received, the bill 
is a better bill. It has far more bipartisan support than the first 
version. Again, the growing support for this legislation is not 
surprising. This is not a partisan issue. We need to do more to fight 
drugs outside our borders.
  But let's be frank. In this antidrug effort, Congress is the antidrug 
funder but the agencies represented here--the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Customs, Coast Guard, State and Defense Departments, 
and the Drug Czar's Office--they are the antidrug fighters. They are 
the ones who are doing the job. The dedicated men and women of these 
agencies are working to keep drugs out of the hands of our children. 
And all we are trying to do is to give them the additional resources 
they requested to make that work result in a real reduction in drug 
use. This bill is just the first step in our efforts to work with the 
agencies represented here. I expect to do more in the future.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it clear that while this bill 
is an authorization measure, I have already started the process to 
request the money needed for this bill over 3 years. Even though we 
introduced the bill for the first time in late July, we have already 
secured $143 million through the Senate passed fy 1999 appropriation 
measures. Senators Coverdell, Graham of Florida, Grassley, Bond, 
Faircloth, and myself requested these funds through the various 
appropriation measures.
  Given that it will take some time to dedicate some of our larger 
assets, such as boats, airplanes, and helicopters, we need to start 
investing in these resources as soon as possible.
  I recognize that even as we finally are beginning to balance our 
budget, we still have to exercise fiscal responsibility. I believe 
effective drug interdiction is not only good social policy, it is sound 
fiscal policy as well. It is important to note that seizing or 
destroying a ton of cocaine in source or

[[Page S12486]]

transit areas is more cost-effective than trying to seize the same 
quantity of drugs at the point of sale. But more important, are the 
short and long term costs if we do not act to reverse the tragic rise 
in drug use by our children.
  Let me remind my colleagues that there are more than twice the number 
of children aged 12 to 17 using drugs today than there were 5 years 
ago. With more kids using drugs, we have more of the problems 
associated with youth drug use--violence, criminal activity, and 
delinquency. Children are dying--either from drug use or drug-related 
violence. We will have more of the same unless we take action now to 
restore a balanced drug control strategy. We have to have all the 
components of our drug strategy working effectively again.
  We did it before and we succeeded.
  If we pass the Western Hemisphere drug elimination bill we can take 
the first step toward success. We can provide the resources, and most 
importantly, the leadership to reduce drugs at the source or in 
transit.
  In the end, Mr. President, that is what this bill is about--it is 
about leadership--effective leadership. We have an opportunity with 
this legislation to show and exercise leadership. I hope we can seize 
this opportunity to stop drug trafficking, and more important, to save 
lives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Under the previous order, the 
senior Senator from West Virginia is recognized for up to 5 minutes.

                          ____________________