[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25994-25995]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as cochairman of the Senate Caucus on 
International Narcotics Control, I have had a distinct interest in the 
National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign and how we can improve its 
quality and improve its effectiveness. In 1998, the White House Office 
of National Drug Control Policy, with overwhelming bipartisan support 
from Congress, launched a historic initiative to encourage kids to stay 
drug free. That effort in 1998 built upon the success of former First 
Lady Nancy Reagan's ``just say no'' campaign. The National Youth 
Antidrug Media Campaign targets youths age 9 to 18. The campaign also 
targets parents and other adults who might have influence over the 
choices young people make about drugs.
  Research has clearly shown that if we can keep children free from 
drugs until the age of 20, chances are very slim that they will ever 
try or become addicted to drugs. Maintaining a coherent antidrug 
message begins early in adolescence and continues throughout the 
growing years. This is essential for educating and enabling our young 
people to reject illegal drugs. Through realistic portrayals, the media 
campaign is designed to show kids the harmful effects of drugs and the 
benefits of a drug-free lifestyle.
  I wish to call my colleagues' attention to the poster behind me. This 
is one of those famous antidrug advertisements that maybe they remember 
from a long time ago. They might recall this famous advertisement known 
for its unforgettable slogan: ``This is your brain; this is your brain 
on drugs.'' Created by the Partnership for a Drug Free America in 1987, 
it is widely recognized as one of the known influential ads of all 
time. While most of us have probably never seen an actual brain on 
drugs, this commercial helped to shape the view of an entire generation 
regarding the dangers of drugs.
  The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is without a doubt the 
single most visible symbol of the Federal Government's commitment to 
youth drug prevention. These advertisements are an important source of 
information for kids and parents about the risks and dangers associated 
with illegal drugs. Sadly, though, we have come a long way from the 
cost and success of those early ads, such as the one you see on the 
easel.
  In the 10 years prior to the creation of the media campaign in 1998, 
the Partnership for a Drug-free America was able to secure grants from 
various businesses, foundations, and agencies to create over 1,000 ads. 
Included in that number is the famous ``this is your brain on drugs'' 
ad which ran in 90 percent of America's households every day.
  Between 1987 and 1998, national and local media outlets donated over 
$2.3 billion worth of free advertising space. If you adjust that number 
for today's pricetag, that would be nearly $3 billion worth of donated 
media time. Unfortunately, as drug use began to decline, then, as you 
might expect, so did the generous donations of free air time. By 1998, 
Congress decided--since it was not going to be free--to fund a paid 
media campaign employing the partnership's antidrug messages.
  Since that time, the Federal Government has spent well over $1.5 
billion to create, to research, to produce, and to distribute ads to 
prevent teen drug use. Yet I fear we are continuing to spend precious 
antidrug dollars to fund increasingly mediocre ads that fail to 
effectively reach our Nation's youth. In other words, they are nothing 
like the brain being fried ad I told you about.
  A case in point are the spots running on TV today. The image you can 
see in

[[Page 25995]]

this new ad I have before us in the Chamber is entitled ``Walk 
Yourself'' from the ``Above the Influence'' campaign. For those who 
might not be familiar with this ad, I will give a quick synopsis of 
what this ad says.
  The commercial--which looks as though it could have been drawn by a 
5-year-old--begins with a man smoking a marijuana cigarette while his 
dog looks on. When the man notices that his dog wants to go for a walk, 
he tells his dog to walk himself, presumably because he is too busy 
getting high. The dog responds, telling him he is disappointed in his 
master. The ad ends with the dog leaving and raising an ``Above the 
Influence'' flag.
  Now, maybe I am missing the point, but I fail to see how an ad such 
as this realistically portrays the dangers or harmful effects of doing 
drugs.
  We have a moral obligation in this country to ensure our young people 
have a chance to grow up without being accosted with drug pushers at 
every turn. We need, as a country, to create a strong moral context to 
help our young people know how to make the right choices. They need to 
know how to say no. They need to know that saying no is OK. And they 
need to know that saying no to drugs is the right thing to do. It is 
not just the safe thing, it is not just the healthier thing, it happens 
to be the right thing.
  While funding for the media campaign has been relatively modest in 
terms of our overall Federal drug control budget, it, for many, is the 
most visible aspect of our Nation's war on drugs. With only so much 
money to go around, we must ensure we are getting the most bang for our 
buck. Although I support and encourage any agency that works to reduce 
or prevent drug abuse, as Members of Congress it is important we be 
good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
  So I refer you to the Weiden-Kennedy chart--and I am not referring to 
Senator Wyden or Senator Kennedy. This is a different Weiden and a 
different Kennedy. We have had numerous studies over the years as to 
how the effectiveness of the present media campaign is very minimal, if 
not nonexistent.
  In last year's Weiden-Kennedy test results of teenagers, the flags 
ads I referred to in the previous chart, as these ads are called--they 
are called ``flags ads''--were rated on their believability, 
persuasiveness, and honesty. When you add up the averages of the flags 
ads with the rest of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America ads, the 
flags ads perform well under the ratings of the previous ads. I think 
the most important categories an antidrug ad must deliver on would be 
the ones you see listed on this chart. That is why I am concerned the 
media campaign is failing to reach and deliver an important message to 
our teens.
  Now, I would like to refer back to the funding because these are 
taxpayers' dollars, and we ought to see how they are being spent.
  So I am not alone in this assessment about the believability or the 
effectiveness of these ads. There is a wide variety of studies beyond 
just the one I referred to showing a lack of effectiveness. Even the 
Government Accountability Office recommended that Congress reduce 
funding for the campaign until it can be proven to be an effective 
prevention tool.
  Congress has slashed funding considerably. As you can see from this 
chart, the funding for the media campaign is only half of what it was 
10 years ago. For fiscal year 2008, the House has slashed another $6 
million off the campaign's budget to bring it to $93 million, though 
our Senate version keeps the funding level. If this is not a wake-up 
call to the Office of Drug Control Policy, I do not know what is. If 
Congress is to support the White House's request for a 30-percent 
budget increase, then the drug czar must take several steps to improve 
the quality and the effectiveness of the campaign.
  The first thing that must be done is to improve the quality of the 
ads. This does not require a budget increase to do so. The ads need to 
be simple, they need to be direct, and, obviously, they need to show 
the consequences of drug use. Exaggerations like a girl flattened on a 
couch or ``smushed'' from pot use, along with poorly drawn cartoons 
where dogs speak and space aliens freely roam show unrealistic 
scenarios and damage the credibility of the campaign, as you saw in the 
previous chart.
  The early antidrug public service announcements--I am talking about 
going back to that period of time 1987 through 1998--were simple, they 
were short, they were memorable. I believe the success of those early 
ads can be replicated by using a similar formula.
  Secondly, the campaign could be more effective if its message was 
more diversified. Although the media campaign has begun an awareness 
campaign on meth, it took an act of Congress to force the campaign to 
spend 10 percent of its budget to do so. Most of the ads produced by 
the campaign so far have all been about marijuana. Although I believe 
it is important that we discourage marijuana use, there are new and 
alarming drug abuse patterns that are starting to emerge among teens.
  Recent studies and articles are showing an alarming rate of teenagers 
who are abusing prescription drugs to get high. These drugs are easily 
accessible because kids can easily find and purchase them online or 
grab them from their parents' medicine cabinet. Many parents are not 
even aware of the trend or how they should go about discarding leftover 
medication. The media campaign could be a very useful tool to educate 
young people as well as parents on these new and emerging threats.
  Finally, the campaign, along with Congress, should work to encourage 
media outlets to donate more air time for antidrug messages. Currently, 
the campaign spends most of its budget in purchasing air time. Although 
media outlets match the amount the campaign spends, it in no way 
compares to what was donated 20 years ago. I believe it is imperative 
we show these outlets the need for more donated time in light of the 
trends I have previously illustrated. With more donated time, it will 
enable the campaign to focus on producing more ads on emerging drugs 
without Congress having to balloon its budget in the process.
  Some maybe think I have been against antidrug media campaigns because 
I have been overseeing some of that for a long period of time. But I am 
not against media campaigns. I am against wasting taxpayers' dollars on 
ineffective programs that show no effort at improvement. I believe the 
campaign can be remade into an effective tool to aid in our prevention 
efforts against teen drug abuse. But much has to change in order for 
that to happen.
  So I intend to send a letter to Director Walters, our drug czar, to 
find out why the campaign is not having a positive impact on preventing 
teen drug use. What do they intend to do to change this trend? I am 
going to ask him. I look forward to hearing their response promptly and 
to begin the process of reforming and reenergizing the National Youth 
Antidrug Media Campaign.
  Mr. President, let me ask my colleague from Iowa, who has been 
waiting to speak, I do not know whether we have the first half hour or 
whether we are going back and forth, but if the Senator does not need 
the floor right now, I have other remarks I want to make.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is equally divided, but 
the order says it is 10 minutes to each speaker. So if the junior 
Senator from Iowa wishes to speak, he is free to do so.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Go ahead.
  Mr. HARKIN. Go ahead.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Iowa is 
continued to be recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank Senator Harkin.

                          ____________________