[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 15, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1062-H1063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       CONGRESS NEEDS TO FACE FACTS ABOUT AMERICA'S WAR ON DRUGS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, every day politicians talk about a drug-
free America. Now, the Clinton administration is proposing to spend 
another $1.6 billion for drug eradication in Colombia so that we can 
become ``drug-free America.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us get real. We have already spent $600 million to 
eradicate drugs at their source in Colombia, and what has happened? 
Both cocaine and heroin production in Colombia have skyrocketed. 
Despite eradication efforts, cocaine production in Colombia has more 
than doubled since 1995.
  Colombia is now the source of 80 percent of the cocaine that comes 
into America, 75 percent of the heroin; and there is absolutely no sign 
Colombia's government can stop it or even make a dent in the problem 
any time soon, even with additional American dollars.
  Let us face it. Our supply-side efforts have been a colossal failure. 
When will Congress and the President wake up and face reality?
  Over the last 10 years, the Federal Government has spent over $150 
billion to combat the supply of illegal drugs. Yet, the cocaine market 
is glutted, as always; and heroin is readily available at record-high 
purities. While the number of casual drug users may have declined 
slightly, the number of hard-core addicts has not.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, the war on drugs by the United States 
Government has been a costly failure.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, a soldier in that war is saying just that, telling 
it like it is, and Congress should listen to him. We should listen to 
retired Navy Lieutenant Commander Sylvester Salcedo, who served 3 years 
as a United States intelligence officer working closely with law 
enforcement officers and agencies doing antidrug work. As Lieutenant 
Commander Salcedo put it, quote, ``The $1.6 billion being proposed on 
drug-fighting efforts in Colombia is good money thrown after bad.''
  Lieutenant Commander Salcedo also said recently that the stated goal 
of the aid package that is to disrupt the production and exports of 
drugs into our country is unrealistic and unrealizable. In fact, the 
lieutenant commander was so upset by the proposal, he wanted to return 
a Navy medal he received for his work with the Defense Department's 
Joint Task Force 6.
  Rather than spend more money in Colombia, we should confront the 
issue of demand here at home in the United States, providing treatment 
services to the addicted population.
  Mr. Speaker, this veteran of the drug war is absolutely correct. The 
lieutenant commander's stated goal, to get us to focus on our own drug 
addiction problem here in America, should be our goal as a Congress and 
as a country. As the lieutenant commander put it, quote, ``Washington 
should spend its money not on helicopters and trainers, but on 
prevention programs and treatment for addicts.''
  Mr. Speaker, the cost of helicopters alone for Colombia would provide 
treatment for 200,000 American addicts. We are about to spend almost $2 
billion, with a B, $2 billion on Colombia, while here at home we have 
26 million addicts and alcoholics and most are unable to get into 
treatment.
  When President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971, he 
directed 60 percent of the funding into treatment. Today, we are down 
to 18 percent.
  The evidence is clear. We have had a misguided use of resources to 
put the emphasis on interdiction, crop eradication, border 
surveillance, more helicopters to fly into Colombia. We will never even 
come close, Mr. Speaker, to a drug-free America until we knock down the 
barriers to chemical dependency treatment right now for 26 million 
Americans already addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. That is right, 26 
million addicts in the United States today, most unable to access 
treatment.
  Last year, Mr. Speaker, 150,000 Americans died from the disease of 
addiction. Mr. Speaker, 150,000 of our fellow Americans died. We spent 
$246 billion in economic terms, lost productivity, absenteeism from 
work, more jail cells, social service costs, Ritalin for kids from 
families of addicts. American taxpayers paid over $150 billion for 
criminal and medical costs alone last year. That is more than we spent 
on education, transportation, agriculture, energy, space, and foreign 
aid combined; and 80 percent of our 2 million prisoners are in prison 
tonight because of drugs and/or alcohol.
  How much evidence do we need here in Congress that we have a national 
epidemic of addiction crying out for more treatment, not more of the 
same, not more supply side?
  Mr. Speaker, let us pass substance abuse parity, knock down the 
discriminatory barriers to treatment. Let us get real about addiction.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just another public policy issue; this is a 
life or death issue for 26 million chemically-dependent Americans. If 
we can pass parity legislation, provide the necessary treatment, then 
some day we can honestly talk and realistically talk about a drug-free 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, every day, politicians talk about the goal of a ``drug-
free America.'' and now the Clinton Administration is proposing to 
spend another $1.6 billion for drug eradication in Colombia so we can 
become ``drug-free America.''
  Mr. Speaker, let's get real! We've already spent $600 million to 
eradicate drugs at their source in Colombia and what's happened? Both 
cocaine and heroin production in Colombia have skyrocketed. Despite 
eradication efforts, cocaine production in Colombia has more than 
doubled since 1995.
  Colombia is now the source of 80 percent of the cocaine and 75 
percent of the heroin coming into the United States. And there's 
absolutely no sign Colombia's government can stop it or even make a 
dent in the problem any time soon, even with additional American aid.
  Let's face it! Our supply-side efforts have been a colossal failure! 
When will Congress and the President wake up and face reality?
  Over the last 10 years, the federal government has spent over $150 
billion to combat the supply of illegal drugs, yet the cocaine market 
is glutted as always, and heroin is readily available at record-high 
purities. And while the number of casual drug users may have slightly 
declined, the number of hard-core addicts has not.
  In short, the war on drugs by the U.S. government has been a costly 
failure.

[[Page H1063]]

  And now, Mr. Speaker, a soldier in that war is saying just that, and 
Congress should listen to him.
  We should listen to Retired Navy Lt. Comdr. Sylvester L. Salcedo, who 
served for 3 years as a U.S. intelligence officer working closely with 
law enforcement agencies doing anti-drug work.
  As Lt. Cmdr. Salcedo put it, the $1.6 billion being proposed on drug-
fighting efforts in Colombia is ``good money thrown after bad.''
  Lt. Cmdr. Salcedo also said recently that the stated goal of the aid-
package--to disrupt the production and export of drugs to the U.S.--is 
unrealistic and unrealizable. In fact, the Lt. Commander was so upset 
by this proposal he wanted to return a Navy medal he received for his 
work with the Defense Department's Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6).
  Mr. Speaker, we need to listen to this experienced Naval commander 
who says, ``I don't think we can make any progress on this drug issue 
by escalating our presence in Colombia. As in Vietnam, this policy is 
designed to fail. Rather than spend more money in Colombia, we should 
confront the issue of demand in the U.S. by providing treatment 
services to the addicted population. That's what's not being 
addressed.''
  Mr. Speaker, this veteran of the drug war is absolutely correct. The 
Lt. Commander's stated goal--``to get us to focus on our own drug 
addiction problem''--should be our goal as a Congress.
  As Lt. Commander Salcedo put it, ``Washington should spend its money 
not on helicopters and trainers but on prevention programs and 
treatment for addicts.''
  The cost of the helicopters alone for Colombia would provide 
treatment for 200,000 Americans who are chemically dependent. We're 
about to spend almost $2 billion on Colombia, while here at home we 
have 26 million addicts and alcoholics, and most are unable to access 
treatment.
  When President Richard Nixon declared ``war on drugs'' in 1971, he 
directed 60 percent of the funding into treatment. Now, we're down to 
18 percent!
  The evidence is clear that it's been a misguided use of resources to 
put the emphasis on interdiction, crop eradication and border 
surveillance.
  John Walsh of Drug Strategies, a private company, says $26 billion 
has already been spent solely on interdiction programs. Yet, by key 
measures of drug availability, they are all going in the wrong 
direction. He said ``the focus of anti-drug efforts should be switched 
from interdiction and eradication to treatment of drug addicts.''
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Walsh is absolutely right! We will never even come 
close to a drug-free America until we knock down the barriers to 
chemical dependency treatment for the 26 million Americans already 
addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.
  That's right--26 million addicts in the U.S. today! 150,000 Americans 
died last year from drug and alcohol addiction. In economic terms, this 
addiction cost the American people $246 billion last year. American 
taxpayers paid over $150 billion for drug-related criminal and medical 
costs alone in 1997--more than was spent on education, transportation, 
agriculture, energy, space and foreign aid combined!
  In addition, more than 80 percent of the 1.7 million prisoners in 
America are behind bars because of drug/alcohol addiction.
  Mr. Speaker, how much evidence does Congress need that we have a 
national epidemic of addiction? An epidemic crying out for a solution 
that works. Not more cheap political rhetoric. Not more simplistic, 
supply-side fixes that obviously are not working.
  Mr. Speaker, we must get to the root cause of addiction and treat it 
like other diseases. The American Medical Association told Congress and 
the nation in 1956 that alcoholism and drug addiction are a disease 
that requires treatment to recover.
  Yet today in America, only 2 percent of the 16 million alcoholics and 
addicts covered by health plans are able to receive adequate treatment.
  That's right. Only 2 percent of addicts and alcoholics covered by 
health insurance plans are receiving effective treatment for their 
chemical dependency, notwithstanding the purported ``coverage'' of 
treatment by their health plans.
  That's because of discriminatory caps, artificially high deductibles 
and copayments, limited treatment stays and other restrictions on 
chemical dependency treatment that are different from other diseases.
  If we are really serious about reducing illegal drug use in America, 
we must address the disease of addiction by putting chemical dependency 
treatment on par with treatment for other diseases. Providing equal 
access to chemical dependency treatment is not only the prescribed 
medical approach; it's also the cost-effective approach.
  Mr. Speaker, as a recovering alcoholic myself, I know firsthand the 
value of treatment. As a recovering person of 18 years, I am absolutely 
alarmed by the dwindling access to treatment for people who need it. 
Over half of the treatment beds are gone that were available 10 years 
ago. Even more alarming, 60 percent of the adolescent treatment beds 
are gone.
  Mr. Speaker, we must act now to reverse this alarming trend. We must 
act now to provide greater access to chemical dependency treatment.
  That's why I have introduced the ``Substance Abuse Treatment Parity 
Act''--the same bill that had the broad, bipartisan support last year 
of 95 cosponsors.
  This legislation would provide access to treatment by prohibiting 
discrimination against the disease of addiction. The bill prohibits 
discriminatory caps, higher deductibles and copayments, limited 
treatment stays and other restrictions on chemical dependency treatment 
that are different from other diseases.
  This is not another mandate because it does not require any health 
plan which does not already cover chemical dependency treatment to 
provide such coverage. It merely says those which offer chemical 
dependency coverage cannot treat it differently from coverage for 
medical or surgical services for other diseases.
  In addition, the legislation waives the parity for substance abuse 
treatment if premiums increase by more than 1 percent and exempts small 
businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to knock down the barriers to chemical 
dependency treatment. It's time to end the discrimination against 
people with addiction.
  It's time to provide access to treatment to deal with America's No. 1 
public health and public safety problem.
  We can deal with this epidemic now or deal with it later.
  But it will only get worse if we continue to allow discrimination 
against the disease of addiction and ignore the demand side.
  We can build all the fences on our borders and all the prison cells 
money can buy. We can hire thousands of new border guards and drug 
enforcement officers. But dealing primarily with the supply side of 
this problem will never solve it.
  That's because our nation's supply-side strategy does not attack the 
underlying problem of addiction that causes people to crave and demand 
drugs. We must get to the root cause of addiction and treat it like 
other diseases.
  All the empirical data, including extensive actuarial studies, show 
that parity for chemical dependency treatment will save billions of 
dollars while not raising premiums more than 0.2 percent, or 44 cents a 
month per insured, according to a recent Rand Corp. study.
  That means, under the worst-case scenario, 16 million alcoholics and 
addicts could receive treatment for the price of a cup of coffee per 
month to the 113 million Americans covered by health plans. At the same 
time, the American people would realize $5.4 billion in cost-savings 
from treatment parity, according to another recent study.
  Of course, no dollar value can quantify the impact that greater 
access to treatment will have on the spouses, children and families who 
have been affected by the ravages of addiction: broken families, 
shattered lives, messed-up kids, ruined careers.
  This is not just another policy issue. This is a life-or-death issue 
for 16 million Americans who are chemically dependent covered by health 
insurance but unable to access treatment. It's also a life-or-death 
issue for the other 10 million addicts and alcoholics without 
insurance.
  This year, Congress should knock down the barriers to chemical 
dependency treatment and pass treatment parity legislation. The 
American people cannot afford to wait any longer for Congress to ``get 
real'' about addiction!
  Then someday, we can realistically and honestly talk about the goal 
of a ``Drug-Free America.''

                          ____________________