[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.''
____________________