FIGHTING THE U.S. DRUG CULTURE

Walk through the streets of our inner cities or the playgrounds of our
public schools, and a sobering reality will hit you: Selling illegal
drugs is a big business again. In fact, for most of the decade, it's
never been better. Drug lords can bring cocaine and heroin into our
country with ease, and there's more of both than at any time in our
nation's history.

Drugs are easier to find, and cheaper to buy, which explains why youth
drug use is higher now than at the beginning of the decade. Since
1992, overall drug use among teens aged 12 to 17 rose by 70 percent.
Among graduating high school seniors, we have seen an 80 percent
increase in the use of cocaine and 100 percent for heroin. Drug-abuse
related arrests more than doubled for minors between 1992 and 1996.
These are the casualty rates of the current war on drugs.

Last year, the Republican Congress came to the conclusion that the
Clinton administration's anti-drug strategy was unacceptable. While
the federal government works with state and local governments and
countless private groups to reduce drug use here at home, only
Washington has the legal authority and the resources to stop drugs
before they reach our borders. In recent years, the federal government
has not fulfilled its sole responsibility in this area.

In 1987, the federal government devoted 33 percent of its drug control
budget to international supply reduction. Drug interdiction and
eradication was serious business. President Bush even tasked the
Defense Department to detect and monitor drugs in transit to the
United States. In 1993, the Clinton administration changed course. By
1995, only 12 percent of the federal drug control budget went toward
international supply reduction.

In all, money for interdiction efforts was cut from $2.29 billion in
1991 to $1.2 8 billion in 1995 - a 63 percent decrease. International
anti-drug funding was cut from $633.4 million in 1991 to $289.8
million in 1996, a 45 percent cut. The reduction meant a significant
loss of resources dedicated to drug interdiction. For example, the
U.S. Customs agency operated an around-the-clock anti-drug
detection operation in the 1980s. In 1986, Customs had 77 vessels for
anti-drug operations, but has only 30 to day.

The Department of Defense currently ranks counter-narcotics dead last
in importance in its Global Military Force Policy. We have seen Coast
Guard operations first hand, and right now they lack the necessary
equipment to detect and seize drugs. In the Bahamas, from April 1997
to April 1998, there was only an 8 percent success rate in stopping
drug air flights. That means over 92 percent got away. History has
proven that an effective anti-drug strategy requires sufficient
investment in three key areas: demand reduction (such as education and
treatment); domestic law enforcement; and international supply
reduction. The Clinton administration's anti-drug strategy is on the
wrong side of history. The administration's failure to invest in
international supply reduction programs has only made it harder to
reduce drug use at home.

Last year, the Republican Congress took the initiative to bring
balance and effectiveness back to our anti-drug strategy. With
overwhelming bipartisan support we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug
Elimination Act - a three-year, $2.6 billion dollar investment in
much-needed resources for our federal eradication and interdiction
efforts in the Coast Guard, Customs and the Drug Enforcement
Administration. This renewed effort will reduce the flow of illegal
drugs into our country.

We didn't stop there. The Republican Congress also passed bipartisan
legislation to improve the effectiveness of drug treatment and
education programs, and increase our investment in innovative
community coalitions that educate children about the dangers of drugs.
And we began 1999 with new legislation, the Drug Free Century Act,
designed to provide additional resources to break down international
drug trafficking operations and to assist local drug treatment
programs that work.

All this legislation should have sent a clear message to the Clinton
administration: get serious about drugs and get back into the business
of reducing drug use.

Amazingly, the Clinton administration is not getting the message. The
administration's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2000 is an
unacceptable step backwards. The administration's anti-drug budget for
next year is $100 million less than what Congress gave this year. Nor
will the administration make the clearly needed investments that were
called for by Congress in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act,
including some of the most promising new technologies for eradicating
drugs. The administration also would cut the Customs Service budget by
30 percent from 1999 levels, and the Coast Guard by 26 percent. It is
unfortunate that the Clinton administration has ignored history and a
strong, bipartisan congressional call for action.

Congress has no choice but to continue to move toward a more
effective, balanced and comprehensive anti-drug strategy and get right
with history. A truly comprehensive, balanced drug control strategy
can put us back on a course toward ridding our schools and
communities of illegal and destructive drugs.

Each component of an effective anti-drug strategy complements the
other. Seizing or destroying a ton of cocaine outside our borders is
more cost-effective than seizing the same quantity of drugs at the
point of sale. We have to continue to persuade Americans, particularly
young people, that doing drugs is wrong - it destroys lives, families,
schools and communities. As long as there is a demand for drugs,
education and treatment remain essential long-term components of our
anti-drug efforts.

The lessons of the Reagan-Bush approach show that with a balanced
strategy, we were making great progress. We significantly reduced drug
use. For the sake of our children, it is time we embrace the lessons
of history, not run away from them.

Sens. Mike DeWine and Paul Coverdell are Republicans of Ohio and
Georgia respectively.