a Star Wars missile defense system as we are spending for our entire anti-drug effort. Increased funding for drug programs is one of the key recommendations in the final report of the White House Conference for a Drug Free America. "Federal, State and local governments need to allocate more resources for the war against drugs," the report declares. "Victory in the war against drugs will not come cheap," the report continues, and adds, "For too many years we have ignored the needs of the forces engaged in the drug war or have funded them inadequately." Leadership on the drug issue does involve much more than spending other people's money, as Mr. Oxley notes by citing former Education Secretary William Bennett's testimony before the Select Committee. But certainly a critical part of that leadership responsibility is to lead by example. If the Federal Government is unwilling to commit adequate resources to fight the national problem of drugs, we cannot expect States and localities to bear the burdens of this war alone. The Reagan Administration has failed to provide effective leadership on drugs. That is why in 1986, and again in 1988, Congress took the initiative to fashion comprehensive anti-drug legislation in response to a national outcry for increased Federal action. It is indeed ironic that Mr. Oxley refers to the former Education Secretary on the issue of leadership. As the drug crisis escalated in 1986 and again in 1988, I had hoped the administration would advise Congress on how we could best use additional resources to fight drugs. I had hoped the Secretary of Education would give us a plan to support expanded drug abuse education and prevention in our schools. But in testimony before the Select Committee, all we got from him was the advice that schools should adopt strict antidrug policies and kick out kids using or selling drugs. In 1986 and again in 1988, I hoped the Secretary of Defense would give us a plan for use of the military to defend our borders against the invasion of drugs and drug smugglers. I hoped the Secretary of Health and Human Services would give us a strategy for treatment and rehabilitation. I hoped the Secretary of State would tell us what we needed for a vigilant international anti-drug effort. I hoped the Attorney General would advise us how to improve Federal drug enforcement, as well as provide much needed help to hardpressed State and local police in combatting drug-related crime in our cities and communities. Unfortunately, we did not hear from any of them. So Congress did the best that it could to develop a comprehensive response to the drug problem. If it turns out that some of our efforts accomplish little more than to "throw money at the problem," then the Reagan Administration must share the responsibility because of its failure to provide any recommendations for a credible Federal response. At least Congress has tried to provide leadership in finding solutions to this serious national problem. Mr. Oxley also proposes that the Committee take a bold step in recommending tough sanctions against drug users and support the death penalty for drug kingpins. The recently enacted Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) includes a number of "user accountability" provisions similar to those proposed by Mr. Oxley. It also permits the death penalty for drug kingpins. I strongly opposed the user accountability and death penalty amendments to the House version of the omnibus anti-drug bill. Although some of the most objectionable features of these provisions were weakened or eliminated in the final legislation, I continue to have serious reservations about user accountability and remain adamantly opposed to the death penalty on moral as well as policy grounds. User accountability has been touted as a "no-cost" weapon in the war on drugs. It remains to be seen, however, just how much it will cost to carry out this policy. Congress inherently recognized some of the difficulties of implementation when it deferred the denial of Federal benefits to convicted drug users until September 1, 1989, pending a mandated presidential report on the proposed administration of these new sanctions and possible congressional action to modify the law. Even if a system can be devised to carry out these user sanctions efficiently, the social consequences of such a policy will produce more harm than good. User accountability makes drug users the scapegoats for our unwillingness, as a government and as a society, to meet the drug problem head on. It is revenge, retribution against those who are the most convenient target. The harshest impact of user accountability will be felt not by drug traffickers or casual drug users with economic means, but by minorities, the poor, the young, the homeless, the addicted-in short, those among us who are most disadvantaged. The loss of Federal benefits for these unfortunate victims of drug abuse will deny them the bestor perhaps their only-opportunity to escape the despair of drugs and become productive, drug-free members of our society. User accountability is not the "missing link" from our drug strategy as some proponents have argued. To the contrary, it is a poor substitute for the strong anti-drug strategy we so sorely need today. It is a reaction to public frustration with the apparent intractability of drug abuse and drug trafficking. It gives the appearance of action, but it is merely an illusion, designed to make us feel good that we are doing something about drugs. Mr. Oxley contends that drug users are responsible for the crime, violence and social decay that accompany drug abuse and drug trafficking. By that standard, we all share the blame by failing to mandate and fund a comprehensive Federal anti-drug strategy. Drug users should be held accountable for crimes they commit. They must be given the message that drug use is unacceptable. But we can do better than "user accountability." We need a real war on drugs that attacks drugs in source countries abroad, provides for vigorous enforcement and interdiction, ensures swift and certain punishment, makes treatment available on demand and support sustained drug abuse prevention and education efforts in our schools and communities. As for the death penalty for drug kingpins, I opposed its inclusion in the recent Anti-Drug Abuse Act for both moral and policy reasons and continue to believe it is a mistake. The death penalty is inhumane and puts the United States in the same league as the repressive governments of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and South Africa while dividing us from some of our strongest democratic allies such as Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and Italy who have eliminated the death penalty altogether or for non-military crimes. The death penalty is irreversible. Although our system of justice is the best in the world, it is not perfect. Mistakes do happen, and innocent persons will be executed. The death penalty has been applied unfairly in this country. Blacks are disproportionately sentenced to die for their crimes as opposed to whites. As of May 1, 1988, 836 or 40 percent of death row inmates were Black, although Blacks comprise only 11 percent of the U.S. population. In addition, the victims of death row inmates are overwhelmingly white-84 percent-and about 30 percent of the cases involved minority defendants and white victims. Not one case involved a minority victim and a white defendant. Furthermore, the death penalty is not cost effective and will not work. The cost of executing a prisoner is as much as six times more than incarceration for life. The death penalty will do little, if anything, to deter drug crime by traffickers who accept the possibility of sudden and violent death as just another daily risk of their highly profitable business. It will, however, defeat our efforts to obtain the extradition of drug kingpins held by foreign governments to stand trial in the United States. According to one of the top Federal prosecutors in Florida, most countries in Europe and Latin America will not extradite a defendant that faces the death penalty. The death penalty is the best protection we could give these international drug criminals. This law will become known as the "International Drug Kingpins Safe Havens Act." We need a real war on drugs, not a patchwork of gimmicks like user accountability and the death penalty. CHARLES B. RANGEL. 81-767 (164) |