It seems to me, Mr. President--and I ask for the comments of the Senator from Georgia on this--that during the course of this last half-hour or so, there have been perhaps five different, but related, themes. I wonder if my understanding is accurate. The first, and in a sense the most immediate, is the way in which the White House responds to any kind of criticism, very frequently with nasty personal attack. The second, which is one step above that and perhaps triggers the first, is the indifference in the administration itself to the question of drugs and of security and the like, you know, by the people who serve the administration. The third, it seems to me, is the drug policy of the administration. I think the Senator from Georgia has already spoken to that question-- less money, fewer people, less attention. The fourth is as the Senator from Arizona just said, the use or nonuse of the magnificent platform that any President of the United States has to speak to matters which are of deep concern to the American people or which create grave social problems or challenges to the American people. And the question as to whether or not any particular President pays any attention to that subject. But I think each of those, in my view at least, leads to the final question. And that is, what impact is the plague of drugs imposing on the American people? Is the use of illegal substances rising or falling at any given level?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the administration's response to criticism and drug policy during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from T. Gorton
Americans have acquired far greater choice today after the implementation of those fuel efficiency standards than they had previously. The interesting part of the ad, which was just handed to me--I had not previously seen it--says: Say yes…
this is an amendment that has been widely discussed relating to CAFE standards; that is to say, the fuel efficiency standards of automobiles and small trucks sold in the United States. Now, I want to quote an argument against this proposal…
in fiscal year 1990, the Forest Service sold 11 billion board feet of timber for harvest and for productive use. For the last 2 years, we have authorized through our appropriations 3.6 billion board feet of harvest. The administration…
Initially--that amount was subject to a 0.48 percent across-the-board reduction; consequently, the House-passed funding level is $24.282 million, or $377,000 more than what the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported.





