<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:81443.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-632
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN P. WALTERS TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 10, 2001
__________
Serial No. J-107-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-443 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
Bruce A. Cohen, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel
Makan Delrahim, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa. 85
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 3
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 85
PRESENTERS
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah
presenting John P. Walters, Nominee to be Director of National
Drug Control Policy............................................ 7
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona
presenting John P. Walters, Nominee to be Director of National
Drug Control Policy............................................ 11
STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE
Walters, John P., Nominee to be Director of National Drug Control
Policy......................................................... 13
Questionnaire................................................ 19
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Biden. 86
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator
Bingaman....................................................... 100
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator
Cantwell....................................................... 100
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Durbin 102
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator
Feingold....................................................... 106
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator
Grassley....................................................... 107
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 109
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Leahy. 114
Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator
Wellstone...................................................... 122
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Betty Ford Center, John T. Schwarzlose, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Rancho Mirage, California, letter........... 124
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Arthur T. Dean,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alexandria, Virginia,
letter......................................................... 124
Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., Calvina L. Fay, Executive
Director, St. Petersburg, Florida, letter...................... 125
Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge, Joyce Nalepka, President,
Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 125
Drug-Free Schools Coalition, Inc., David G. Evans, Esq.,
Executive Director, Flemington, New Jersey, letter............. 129
Drug Prevention Network of the Americas, Stephanie Haynes,
Alpine, Texas, letter.......................................... 129
Drug Watch/MN, Jeanette McDougal, Co-Chair, St. Paul, Minnesota,
letter......................................................... 130
Fraternal Order of Police, Gilbert G. Gallegos, National
President, Albuquerque, New Mexico, letter..................... 130
Hastert, Hon. J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois and Speaker of the House of Representatives,
letter and attachment.......................................... 131
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, July 26 (two), July 31, August 1, August 2, and
August 3, 2001, ``Dear Colleague'' letters..................... 133
National Families in Action, Sue Rusche, Co-founder and Executive
Director, Atlanta, Georgia, letter............................. 139
National Troopers Coalition, Johnny L. Hughes, Director,
Government Relations, Albany, New York, letter................. 140
Partnership for a Drug-Free America, James E. Burke, Chairman,
New York, New York, letter..................................... 141
PRIDE Surveys, Thomas Gleaton, President, Bowling Green,
Kentucky, letter............................................... 141
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN P. WALTERS TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2001
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:46 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R.
Biden, Jr., presiding.
Present: Senators Biden, Leahy, Kennedy, Kohl, Durbin,
Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, DeWine, Sessions, and Brownback.
Senator Biden. The committee will come to order.
Let me begin in an inappropriate way by apologizing to our
colleagues and to our nominee for being late. Senator Leahy and
I had to attend a meeting relating to another matter and it
went over just a little bit long, and I apologize to our friend
from Utah.
I have an opening statement, but I would be happy to yield
to the chairman of the full committee.
Chairman Leahy. No. Go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Biden. Today, the Judiciary Committee considers the
nomination of John Walters, to be Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy. As you all know, this hearing was
scheduled for literally a month ago today and the terrorist
attack occurred in New York and in western Pennsylvania and at
the Pentagon. For obvious reasons, it had to be canceled and
events have sort of overtaken things and that is the reason we
are as late as we are. It has nothing to do with the lack of
consequence of this office and how important we think the
office is and how we should proceed.
I want to thank Mr. Walters for being patient, as he has
worked to reschedule his schedule as well, and I appreciate it.
John Walters is well-known to this committee, having
testified before us a dozen times both as a Government witness
during the first Bush administration and as a private citizen.
Mr. Walters is also well known at ONDCP, having served as then-
Drug Czar Bill Bennett's chief of staff and national security
advisor, then as Deputy Director for Supply Reduction under Bob
Martinez, and ultimately as Acting Director of the Office.
Since his time at the drug office, Mr. Walters has served
as a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, president of the
New Citizenship Project, and president of the Philanthropy
Roundtable. I welcome him and his family here today.
Thirteen years ago, I wrote a law that created the Office
of National Drug Control Policy because I was convinced we
needed to coordinate Federal drug policy, with one person
accountable for developing and implementing an effective
national strategy.
I might at add, at that time the Democratic President
didn't like the idea and subsequent Republican Presidents
haven't liked the idea, but I still like the idea because I
think there is a need for there to be one person on whose desk
the buck stops.
I have argued that Cabinet-level status is necessary to
give the position visibility commensurate with the depth of our
Nation's drug problem, providing our drug czar the clout to
stop interagency feuding, fight for budgetary resources, and
decertify inadequate agency drug budgets.
I am glad that at the end of the day President Bush decided
to make the drug czar a member of his Cabinet. To be able to
decertify an agency's budget, as General McCaffrey did with
Secretary Cohen's proposed counternarcotics budget for the
Defense Department, the drug czar must be on equal footing with
the rest of the President's Cabinet.
As the person responsible for coordinating Federal drug
policy, the drug czar will deal with almost every Federal
agency, from the Department of Justice on drug courts, to the
Department of Transportation on interdiction issues, to the
State Department and the Department of Defense on Plan
Colombia, to the Department of Health and Human Services on
groundbreaking research on how drug use changes brain
chemistry.
The drug czar must be able to walk and chew gum at the same
time, making sure that our national drug policy is
comprehensive, as well as balanced. A balanced drug policy is
often compared to a four-legged stool, with treatment,
prevention, enforcement and research comprising the four legs.
If one leg is shorter than the other, the stool topples over.
For a long time, the demand reduction leg has been given short
shrift.
I was glad to hear President Bush say when he announced Mr.
Walters' nomination in the Rose Garden that ``the most
effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to
reduce the demand for drugs in America.'' He went on to pledge
that his administration ``will focus unprecedented attention on
the demand side of the problem.''
I was heartened to hear Mr. Walters say in that Rose Garden
ceremony that he pledged to spearhead drug policy which
includes, ``protecting(ing) our children from drug
use...help(ing) the addicted find effective treatment and
remain recovery...shield(ing) our communities from the terrible
human toll taken by illegal drugs...(and) stop(ping) illegal
drug use and the drug trade from funding threats to democratic
institutions throughout the hemisphere.'' I look forward to
holding him to that pledge.
While Mr. Walters and I agree on a number of issues,
including the critical role of law enforcement at both the
Federal and local level as it relates to drug policy and the
importance of a strong supply reduction policy, there have been
a number of equally important issues on which we have disagreed
on over the years.
I am particularly troubled--and it will come as no surprise
to Mr. Walters because we have been engaging in this for the
last 13 years--by Mr. Walters' many writings regarding drug
treatment. He has written that the ``view that therapy by a
team of counselors, physicians and specialists is the only
effective way to reduce drug use'' is a ``myth.''
In contrast, the top doctors and scientists in the field of
addiction believe that addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain
disease and that addiction treatment is as successful as
treatment for other chronic diseases such as diabetes,
hypertension, and asthma.
Similarly, Mr. Walters has questioned the need for Federal
support for drug prevention, writing that ``teaching children
that drug use is wrong and harmful is primarily the
responsibility of parents and local communities, youth
organizations, religious institutions, schools, and police.
Federal funding is neither necessary nor sufficient for
conveying this lesson by word and deed.''
These statements are certainly not in line with my drug
policy views, and they don't sound to me like they are in line
with what President Bush has stated. I plan to ask Mr. Walters
a series of questions today to determine whether he will stand
by what he has written or whether he will have what is known by
the cynics on Capitol Hill as a confirmation conversion.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I have the
utmost respect for John Walters. He is a man of principle. We
have debated drug issues over the past decade, and I suspect we
will debate them in the future. Though we have often disagreed,
I don't think that either one of us has taken the disagreement
personally. So I welcome here today. I am anxious to hear what
he has to say and I look forward to hearing his testimony.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I see our ranking member has moved down
to introduce, I guess, and I know you have asked me to do this
hearing and you have another one to do.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, that
you are doing this hearing. You have set the standard for this
committee over the years on so many of these drug issues and it
is only appropriate that you are doing this.
I was glad to have the chance to meet Mr. Walters and his
family, his two lovely girls, and it makes me realize how old I
have gotten. It has been a long time since my kids were that
age.
I don't doubt, as you have said, that Mr. Walters has
thought seriously about our Nation's drug problems. I am very
concerned about some of the conclusions he has reached and
forcibly expressed on issues ranging from drug treatment to
interdiction to sentencing issues.
I will put more of this statement in the record.
Mr. Walters, I would urge you, if you have the opportunity,
to take the time to read my statement because some of the
questions I will also submit for the record will be reflected
in there.
We have tried to move people along quickly on this. The
Drug Enforcement Administration head, I think, is one of the
most important in the drug war, and within just a few days of
my becoming chairman of this committee I set a hearing on Asa
Hutchinson. I think we held the hearing within a day or so of
his papers actually arriving here, even before all his things
were in.
You, Mr. Chairman, and I think everybody on this committee
voted for him and we moved him out and had him on the floor
within a matter of days; the same with James Ziglar for the INS
and Robert Mueller for the FBI. So when there is any kind of a
consensus here, we are able to move very quickly.
I do have four areas of concern here. First, there is a
growing and bipartisan consensus that we need to do more to
improve drug treatment and take other steps to reduce the
demand for drugs. In fact, President Bush said ``[t]he most
effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to
reduce the demand for drugs in America.'' The President went on
to say he would give ``unprecedented attention'' to this.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have joined with you and Senator Hatch
and others to introduce S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention and Treatment Act, to put more money and Federal
focus on treatment programs and to improve treatment
opportunities and effectiveness in rural areas for drug-
addicted mothers, and so on.
I want to know how Mr. Walters feels about the approach
taken by S. 304. He has faulted the concept that addiction is a
disease. He has referred to that concept as an ``ideology,''
even though it is held widely, if not universally, by
Government and private experts. He has said that he supports
``good'' treatment, but has sharply criticized existing
treatment providers, aside from faith-based providers.
Secondly, I am concerned about his position on issues
related to criminal punishment. We all agree on both sides of
the aisle that people who break our laws have to be punished.
Those who traffic in and sell drugs deserve to be incarcerated
for substantial periods of time. When I was a prosecutor, I
always asked for extra penalties for traffickers in drugs.
But many of us in both parties have come to question our
reliance on mandatory minimum sentences for a wide variety of
drug offenses, as well as the 100-to-1 disparity under current
law between sentences for crack and powder cocaine.
In his writings, Mr. Walters has been hostile to
reconsideration of these issues. He wrote as recently as March
of this year that the idea that we are imprisoning too many
people for merely possessing illegal drugs or that criminal
sentences are too long or harsh were ``among the great urban
myths of our time.'' That statement flies in the face of the
widespread dissatisfaction with mandatory minimum sentences
among policymakers and Federal judges.
Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial
Conference, made up of representatives from all 12 U.S.
circuits, have called for the repeal of Federal mandatory
minimum sentences. I don't think the Chief Justice is one to
fall prey to an urban myth, especially on something like this
which has such a severe racial impact, as African Americans are
much more likely to be sentenced for crack offenses. The facts
show that overwhelmingly, facts developed by both conservative
and liberal organizations.
Mr. Walters has referred to the racial impact of the
sentencing disparity as a ``perceived racial injustice.'' He
even testified before Congress trying to ``[b]lock lower crack
sentences'' and strip the U.S. Sentencing Commission of their
powers. I would suggested that it is not ``perceived,'' not
with the numbers that we have seen. In fact, what we found is
that blacks accounted for 84.7 percent of those sentenced for
crack offenses which carry the highest penalties, and whites
for 5.4 percent. I think there is something going on there.
Third, Mr. Walters' reaction to popular and legislative
judgments by various States to allow limited use of marijuana
for medical purposes also causes me concern. He said the
Federal Government should just step in and take away licenses
from any physicians who would follow what their State voters
have decided on. It kind of runs roughshod over any federalism
concerns, but his draconian response about stripping them of
their licenses raises questions about his sense of proportion.
It is a very blunt instrument to tell voters in a State that
they don't know what they are doing.
Then I want to know what he thinks about our anti-drug role
in Latin America. I don't disagree that reducing the supply of
drugs would have tremendous benefits for our Nation, but I
agree with President Bush that the reason so many drugs find
their way to our shores is because there is substantial demand
for them and a lot of money people are willing to spend.
My concern is that it seems almost every question--and I
have not read all of Mr. Walters' writings, of course, and that
is why I will submit so many questions on this. There seems to
be no question about drugs to which the answer is not simply a
hard-line, law enforcement response, even on complicated issues
on which there is diverse opinion. I don't think this
unbending, ``my way is the only way'' attitude is what
Americans want to see here. I think we need a greater reliance
on data and pragmatism, and less of an ideological
determination.
I believe Mr. Walters is an intelligent and accomplished
man. I am certainly going to give his testimony and his
responses to the committee's questions close attention. They
deserve it. Obviously, we would have had this hearing a month
before, except for the tragic events of the 11th.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you because I know
you have bent your schedule four ways to Sunday to make this
possible.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont
As all of you know, this hearing was originally scheduled for the
morning of September 11, and was of course postponed as a result of the
terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. I wanted to make sure we
rescheduled this hearing as soon as possible, as drug abuse remains a
vital problem for this nation and we need to continue to pay attention
to our domestic priorities even as we engage in our necessary response
to terrorism. So I thank Senator Biden for working with me to find a
new date for this hearing, and I look forward to a comprehensive
examination of this nomination.
I come to this hearing with many concerns. I do not doubt that John
Walters has thought seriously about our nation's drug problems, but I
do doubt the conclusions he has reached and -forcefully expressed on
issues ranging from drug treatment to interdiction to sentencing
issues. In short, I am not yet convinced that he is the right person to
head the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
We have worked hard on this committee to ensure a speedy and fair
hearing for the Bush Administration's executive branch nominees. Within
days of the Senate's reorganization and my taking over as Chairman, I
noticed a hearing on Asa Hutchinson's nomination to head the Drug
Enforcement Administration. After we had the hearing, I expedited the
process to provide a quick Committee vote, and then worked to secure a
vote on the floor so that Mr. Hutchinson's nomination could be approved
before the August recess. I similarly expedited the process for the
nomination of James Ziglar to head the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and will continue to do my best to make sure that the
Administration receives the quickest evaluation of its nominees
possible, consistent with the Senate's obligation to provide advice and
consent.
The voluminous and opinionated record that Mr. Walters has
developed requires a thorough examination. I have four areas of concern
about his record that I would like to see addressed in this hearing.
First, there is a growing and bipartisan consensus that we need to
do much more to improve drug treatment and take other steps to reduce
the demand for drugs. President Bush has said that ``[t]he most
effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the
demand for drugs in America'' and has promised that his Administration
will concentrate ``unprecedented attention'' on the demand for drugs.
In the Senate, I have joined with Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and
others to introduce S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and
Treatment Act. That legislation would increase the Federal focus on
treatment programs, with targeted programs to improve treatment
opportunities and effectiveness in rural areas, programs devoted to
drug-addicted mothers, and more. I am curious to find out whether Mr.
Walters believes the approach taken by S. 304 is a helpful and
appropriate one, and whether he shares in this growing pro-treatment
consensus. Mr. Walters has faulted the concept that addiction is a
disease, referring to that concept as an ``ideology'' even though it is
held widely--if not universally--by government and private experts. He
has written that ``the culture of victim hood lies at the core of the
therapeutic world view,'' a statement I hope he can explain today. He
has said that he supports ``good'' treatment but sharply criticized
existing treatment providers, aside from faith based providers. In
short, although Mr. Walters has not developed a lengthy record on
treatment questions, some of his statements have caused great concern
among those who care about treating drug addiction. I look forward to
hearing a further explanation of his views today.
Second, I am concerned about the nominee's position on issues
related to criminal punishment. We all agree on both sides of the
aisle--that people who break our laws must be punished, and that those
who traffic in and sell drugs deserve to be incarcerated for
substantial periods of time. At the same time, many of us Democrats and
Republicans--have come to question our reliance on mandatory minimum
sentences for a wide variety of drug offenses, as well as the 100 to I
disparity under current law between sentences for crack and powder
cocaine. In his writings and statements, Mr. Walters has been hostile
to reconsideration of these issues. For example, he wrote as recently
as March 2001 that the idea that we are imprisoning too many people for
merely possessing illegal drugs or that criminal sentences are too long
or harsh were ``among the great urban myths of our time.'' This
statement flies in the face of the widespread dissatisfaction with
mandatory minimum sentences among policymakers and Federal judges.
Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conferences of all 12
U.S. circuits have called for the repeal of Federal mandatory minimum
sentences.
The disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine has been a
significant contributing factor to the disproportionate imprisonment of
African-Americans. Under current law, it takes only 1 percent as much
crack cocaine to trigger equal mandatory minimum penalties with powder
cocaine. This disparity has a severe racial impact as blacks are
overwhelmingly more likely to be sentenced for crack offenses. For
example, in FY 1999, blacks accounted for 84.7 percent of those
sentenced for crack offenses and whites just 5.4 percent. There is also
reason to doubt the logic of the crack-powder distinction on law
enforcement grounds. Since cocaine is imported and distributed in
powder form, and only manufactured into crack at the retail level,
those persons at the highest end of the drug distribution chain are
rarely affected by the increased crack penalties. In other words, the
harshest sentences are reserved for less culpable offenders.
Despite these troubling facts, Mr. Walters has referred to the
racial impact of the sentencing disparity as a ``perceived racial
injustice'' and urged Congress in 1996 testimony to ``[b]lock lower
crack sentences'' and to strip the U.S. Sentencing Commission of
authority even to propose changes in criminal penalties where Congress
has adopted mandatory minimums.
Third, Mr. Walters' reaction to popular and legislative judgments
by various States to allow limited use of marijuana for medical
purposes also causes me concern. Numerous states have considered and
passed medical marijuana initiatives, some by substantial majorities.
Mr. Walters has responded to this trend by advocating that the Federal
government use the Controlled Substances Act to take away the Federal
licenses from any physician who prescribes marijuana to a patient in
States that permit the practice. Such a step would prevent these
doctors from prescribing or possessing any medication that is Federally
controlled, basically making the practice of medicine impossible. In
addition to running roughshod over any Federalism concerns whatsoever,
Mr. Walters' draconian response raises questions about his sense of
proportion. Although shutting down the process as he has suggested may
be effective in rendering these State-passed initiatives meaningless,
his proposal is a very blunt instrument, to say the least.
Fourth, I am concerned that Mr. Walters will seek to have the
United States overextend its antidrug role in Latin America. Throughout
his career, he has been a prominent spokesman for the cause of drug
interdiction. Prior to the development of Plan Colombia, he said that
``we need to do more in Latin America'' in ``[lighting drugs at the
source.'' He has also been a consistent supporter of increasing the
U.S. military's role in preventing drugs from entering the United
States. I do not disagree that reducing the supply of drugs would have
tremendous benefits for our nation. At the same time, I agree with
President Bush that the reason that so many drugs find their way to our
shores is because there is substantial demand for them. The costs--both
financial and political--of our involvement in the internal affairs of
Latin American nations require close scrutiny. I have been skeptical
about Plan Colombia, and I would be skeptical of additional proposals
of that nature. I am curious to find out whether Mr. Walters would
recommend that such proposals be offered.
My fear is that for Mr. Walters, there is no question about drugs
to which a hard-line law enforcement response is not the answer, even
to complicated issues on which there is diverse opinion. I am not sure
this is what American needs in its new drug czar. What we may need is a
greater reliance on data and pragmatism and less of an ideological
focus.
Clearly, I have numerous concerns and questions about the positions
this nominee has expressed. But I will consider this nomination with an
open mind. In making this statement today, I am attempting to put my
concerns on the record so that Mr. Walters will have ample opportunity
to respond. Despite my numerous disagreements with Mr. Walters' past
statements, I believe him to be an intelligent and accomplished man,
and I will give his testimony and his responses to the Committee's
questions the close attention they deserve.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to yield now, if I may, to my colleagues.
Mr. Walters, why don't you come on up to the table there
while our colleagues are speaking about you?
The way we are going to proceed is recognize both my
colleagues, who I suspect are going to attend the hearing as
well. They are both members.
Chairman Leahy. They probably are going to say nice things
about you.
Senator Biden. And then we will go to you, Mr. Walters, and
at that point I will ask you to introduce your family again to
the whole committee, and we will hear your statement and then
we will begin questioning.
Senator Hatch?
PRESENTATION OF JOHN P. WALTERS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY BY HON. ORRIN G. HATCH,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
It is with great confidence and very high regard that I
introduce to the committee John Walters, the nominee for
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP.
As everyone is keenly aware, Mr. Walters' hearing was
postponed on September 11, literally in the wake of the
terrorist attacks. Since the September 11 attacks, there has
been a lot of discussion about the nexus between drug
trafficking and terrorism. We know that insurgent groups in
Colombia have long been characterized as narcoterrorists
because of their known use of cocaine proceeds to fund
terrorist acts, including the kidnapping of Americans abroad.
We know that proceeds from the manufacturing and
trafficking of opium poppy have helped sustain Osama bin
Laden's terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, for years. We also
know that terrorist organizations routinely launder the
proceeds from drug trafficking and use the funds to support and
expand their operations internationally, including purchasing
and trafficking illegal weapons. I am sure in the coming months
and years we will continue to learn about the clandestine
connection between drugs and terrorists.
Mr. Walters will be starting his tenure as drug czar at a
very precarious time, but I know he is the right person to fill
this position. He will have to work closely with law
enforcement and intelligence authorities to ensure that the
international component of the Nation's drug control policy is
designed not only to prevent drugs from being trafficked into
America, but also to prevent the manufacturing and sale of
drugs for the purpose of funding terrorist activities.
Mr. Walters is eminently qualified to carry out this task
and I am confident that he will be a first-rate Director. After
all, having served in ONDCP and the Department of Education
with Bill Bennett, he learned from the person widely regarded
by Republicans and Democrats alike as one of the most talented
and effective drug czars we have ever had in this country.
I would also like to praise General McCaffrey and his
efforts as well. He worked very hard and did many good things.
John Walters' career in public service has prepared him
well for this office. Like you, Mr. Chairman, he has worked
tirelessly over the last two decades helping to formulate and
improve comprehensive policies designed to keep drugs away from
our children. Also like you, he has truly unparalleled
knowledge and experience in all facets of drug control policy.
As an assistant to Secretary Bennett from 1985 to 1988, Mr.
Walters was responsible for managing drug prevention policy and
programs for the Department of Education. As Director Bennett's
chief of staff at ONDCP, Mr. Walters was responsible for
drafting and implementing a sensible and effective drug control
policy. As Deputy Director for Supply Reduction at ONDCP, Mr.
Walters formulated interdiction policies to keep drugs away
from America's youth.
Lest there be any doubt that Mr. Walters' efforts proved
successful, let me point out to the committee that during Mr.
Walters' tenure at the Department of Education and ONDCP, drug
use in America had fallen to its lowest level at any time in
the past 25 years, and drug use by teenagers had plunged over
50 percent.
Since leaving ONDCP in 1993, Mr. Walters has continued to
remain a vocal, committed advocate for curbing drug use. He has
testified numerous times before Congress, including this
committee, on drug policy issues, and he has also written
extensively about this subject.
Since 1996, he has served as president of the Philanthropy
Roundtable. In that capacity, he has worked with foundations
and private donors in many areas of charitable giving,
including support for both drug prevention and treatment
programs.
Mr. Walters enjoys widespread support from distinguished
members of the law enforcement community, including the
Fraternal Order of Police and the National Troopers Coalition,
and from mainstream members from the prevention and treatment
communities, including the Partnership for a Drug-Free America,
National Families in Action, and the Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America.
Yet, despite this groundswell of support, ever since Mr.
Walters' name was first mentioned in connection with the drug
czar position some individuals and groups have attacked his
nomination with a barrage of unfounded criticisms. Today, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight and
to emphasize why our country needs John Walters confirmed now.
We all agree that if we are to win the war on drugs in
America, we need a comprehensive policy aimed at reducing both
the demand for and the supply of drugs. Mr. Walters'
accomplished record demonstrates that he has always believed
that focuses on both demand and supply reduction are important.
For example, in testimony given before the Senate Judiciary
Committee in 1991, Mr. Walters, then Acting Director of ONDCP,
laid out a national drug control strategy that included the
following guiding principles: educating our citizens about the
dangers of drug use, placing more addicts in effective
treatment programs, expanding the number and quality of
treatment programs, reducing the supply and availability of
drugs on our streets, and dismantling trafficking organizations
through tough law enforcement and interdiction measures. Again,
in congressional testimony given in 1993, Mr. Walters
reaffirmed that an effective anti-drug strategy must
``integrate efforts to reduce the supply of as well as the
demand for illegal drugs.''
Some have voiced concern that Mr. Walters will put
prosecution before prevention, tougher laws before treatment.
To the contrary, Mr. Walters' record is replete with calls for
more and better prevention and treatment programs.
For instance, the drug strategy announced by Mr. Walters in
1991 had as its highest priority ``preventing drug use before
it starts.'' And he wasn't just mouthing these words, for
prevention spending increased by 88 percent during his five-
year tenure at ONDCP. No other component, including law
enforcement and interdiction, was increased more than
prevention.
His record on drug treatment belies that concern as well.
In 1993, he testified that more and better treatment was sorely
needed, and he worked to remedy the shortfall. During his
tenure at ONDCP, spending on drug treatment increased 74
percent. Mr. Chairman, this is not the record of a man who
would turn his back on prevention and treatment efforts.
John Walters remains committed to treatment and prevention
programs. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I introduced S. 304,
the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act of 2001,
which both you and Senator Leahy have been kind enough to
mention and for which both of you are some of our strongest
supporters, as you have been in these drugs areas. This is a
bipartisan bill that we drafted together--you, Senator Leahy,
and Senators DeWine, Thurmond and Feinstein in particular.
This legislation, as you know, will dramatically increase
prevention and treatment efforts. In drafting the bill, I
repeatedly solicited Mr. Walters' expert advice. I know that
his record clearly reflects that he agrees with all of you and
myself that prevention and treatment must remain integral
components of our national drug control strategy.
John Walters knows what it takes to reduce youth drug use,
and he will be taking the helm at ONDCP at a critical time.
According to the most recent national surveys, youth drug use,
particularly of so-called club drugs such as Ecstasy and GHB,
tragically is again on the rise.
Over the past two years, current use of Ecstasy among 12-
graders increased dramatically by 140 percent. During this same
period, the number of emergency room visits resulting from the
use of Ecstasy increased 295 percent, and 80 percent of those
visits were by patients under the age of 25.
It is simply shocking that by the time of graduation from
high school, over 50 percent of our youth have used an illicit
drug. We must act immediately to reverse these soaring numbers
and to prevent our youth from endangering their lives. So I
look forward to hearing from Mr. Walters what he plans to do to
reverse these dangerous developments.
Fortunately, Mr. Walters will have extraordinarily talented
deputies to help him with this daunting challenge. In selecting
Scott Burns, a fellow Utahn, I might add, to handle State and
local affairs, Dr. Barry Crane to head the Office of Supply
Reduction, Dr. Andrea Barthwell to lead the Office of Demand
Reduction, and Mary Ann Solberg as the Deputy Czar, the
President has assembled a team of dedicated and knowledgeable
professionals. So I personally look forward to working with Mr.
Walters, his deputies, and the administration in finding new
ways to solve rather than surrender to America's drug problem.
Mr. Chairman, no Senator has worked harder and longer on
the drug issue than you, and it is a testament to your
dedication to America's youth that you are chairing this
important hearing. You and I both want to see youth drug use
rates fall, and we know that one of the keys to this goal is
prompt passage of S. 304.
In that regard, I am very grateful for our chairman,
Senator Leahy, and for his working with you and me and others
on this very important bill. I hope we can get that through
within the relatively near future so that we can do even more
and give the tools to Mr. Walters and others who are serving.
Another one of those keys, Mr. Chairman, is John Walters.
The President shares our commitment to a balanced drug policy,
and he has expressed his eagerness to begin working with us to
attack the problem of drug abuse.
Rightfully, the Senate has been focusing primarily on
passing the anti-terrorism bill and legislation related to the
September 11 attack. However, in light of the documented
connection between international drug trafficking and terrorist
activities and the ongoing war against drugs and terrorism, now
more than ever the administration and the country need to have
its drug czar in place.
It is of utmost importance that the Senate act on Mr.
Walters' nomination immediately. With Mr. Walters in place, I
look forward to working with my Senate Democratic and
Republican colleagues to carry forward our fight against drug
trafficking and terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, 24 members of Speaker Hastert's Task Force
for a Drug-Free America, including the Speaker, have signed a
letter in support of John Walters' nomination, and I ask that
this letter and other letters written in support be included in
the record.
Senator Biden. Without objection, they will be.
Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for you giving
me this time. I have such high respect for John Walters, and I
know that he can do this job and do it well. It is something
that needs to be done, and needs to be done now, not just for
our youth, but in order to stop terrorism throughout the world
as well.
So I want to thank you again for holding this hearing and
being willing to take the time to do this.
Senator Biden. Thank you.
Senator Kyl?
PRESENTATION OF JOHN P. WALTERS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY BY HON. JON KYL, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you for the opportunity to join in Senator Hatch's introduction
of John Walters as Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy.
As all of us are well aware, this is the last Cabinet
position to be filled, and as Senator Hatch just pointed out,
it is vital to continuing this country's anti-drug efforts, as
well as contributing to our war against terrorism.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am biased. My daughter, Christie, is a
good friend of John's wife, Mary. My granddaughter, Alyssia,
goes to elementary school with Rebecca, John and Mary's
daughter, and I have worked with John Walters. But I will tell
you that he will be a superb drug czar. I am as convinced of
that as anything I have ever been convinced of.
I suspect that upon close examination--and I know that all
of you have concerns about past writings or statements--upon
close examination, I think you will find that there is far more
in common than there is any disagreement between the various
approaches to fighting what we all agree is a scourge on our
society that has to be dealt with.
When people talk about John Walters, they talk about his
qualifications, and I doubt there is anybody at least
technically more qualified to serve in this position--over 15
years of experience in handling drug policy.
Let me add a couple of things to what Senator Hatch said,
and maybe repeat one or two as well. John Walters started his
public service at the National Endowment for Humanities as
Acting Assistant Director and Program Officer in the Division
of Education Programs. That was from 1982 to 1985.
Senator Biden. Does Senator Helms know that?
Senator Kyl. As I said, there may be more in common here.
From 1985 to 1988, he worked at the U.S. Department of
Education, serving as Assistant to the Secretary, and there he
led the development of anti-drug programs for that Department.
He was the principal author of Education Department handbook
``Schools Without Drugs: A Guide for Effective Education and
Prevention Programs for Parents and Educators.'' Over one
million copies were requested and distributed free of charge.
After his service at the Department of Education, he
cofounded the Madison Center, a public policy organization
devoted to advancing and improvement in education and related
fields, including early childhood education and drug abuse
prevention.
From 1989 to 1993, he served in the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, and as was noted, during that
time was chief of staff for William Bennett, Acting Director,
and Deputy Director for Supply Reduction from 1991 until
leaving that Office.
For the past five years, he has been president of the
Philanthropy Roundtable, a national association of over 600
foundations and individual donors providing publications and
programs on all aspects of charitable giving.
John Walters believes in a well-balanced approach to the
drug problem, and I am delighted that he now has an opportunity
personally to respond to some of the distortions and
mischaracterizations of his positions with respect to the
balance needed to address the problem of drugs. He understands
all aspects--treatment, prevention, education, and
interdiction.
To just cite some different statistics that relate to the
same subject as Senator Hatch brought up, during his tenure at
ONDCP overall Federal spending for drug control programs
increased by 83 percent, almost $5.4 billion. Spending on
prevention programs increased by 113 percent, $914 million, and
treatment spending increased by 98 percent, $1.1 billion.
So as I said, this is a man who participated in a well-
balanced program for drug abuse. As noted earlier, drug use by
1992 had reached the lowest levels in the past 23 years. His
career, in other words, reflects a deep-seated commitment to
anti-drug efforts in all respects.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee,
American families, schools, those who are addicted to drugs,
police officers, and our communities deserves to have somebody
at the helm of ONDCP who will really lead the national effort
to combat drugs. John Walters has the experience, the
knowledge, the ability, and most importantly the passion to
spearhead the ONDCP.
I hope that we can move very quickly to confirm him. The
President and the Nation need him in this position.
Thank you.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Senator, for a very
good statement. Please come and join us.
Mr. Walters, will you please stand and be sworn?
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Walters. I do.
Senator Biden. Thank you. Before we proceed any further,
would you be kind enough to introduce to the rest of the
committee your family who is with you today and anyone else you
would like to introduce?
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. WALTERS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Mr. Walters. Thank you, Senator. My wife, Mary, is here,
and my daughters, Michaela and Rebecca. My wife, with no
intended disrespect for the committee, is going to take my
daughters out because I can't change nature; they are probably
not going to be able to sit through this.
Senator Biden. Well, if you could do that, it would be
cruel and unusual punishment to make them sit through it.
By the way, I think there is some candy in the back room
back there, if you want to head back that way, and you can hang
out there if you want, or however you would like to proceed. I
thank the girls for coming.
I invite you at the appropriate time, which is now, to make
any opening statement you may have, John.
Mr. Walters. Thank you, Senator. The committee has a copy
of my written statement which I would ask you include in the
record.
Senator Biden. It will be included in its entirety.
Mr. Walters. I will just summarize a few points. I would
like to thank Senators Hatch and Kyl for their kind
introduction.
It is an honor to be here, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Leahy,
Chairman Biden, and the other members of the committee. It is
an honor for me to have been nominated by the President for
this important position, and I am pleased with the effort that
has been made under difficult circumstances of the last month
to hold this hearing. Thank you for your assistance.
Also, I want to thank you and the other members of the
committee and your staff for the willingness to consult with me
during this process, to talk through some of the issues that
are of concern to you and to others. And I hope I will be able
to work with you in the future, should the committee and the
Senate see fit to confirm me for this position.
We all know the tremendous toll that drug abuse has taken
on our society. The challenge of reversing or pushing back
against that terrible threat is made somewhat less daunting by,
in my mind, the history of strong bipartisan commitment to work
on this problem and the many facets necessary to achieve
success, particularly success in reducing drug use and
addiction among our young people.
You already have alluded to, as have others, that the
President shares this commitment, as he had made clear in the
remarks he made on the occasion of my nomination, and
particularly his emphasis on expanding Federal resources for
treatment, announcing his intention to request over the next 5
years $1.6 billion to expand the treatment program, as well as
additional monies for prevention programs involving parents,
community coalitions, and expanding drug treatment, in
particular, in the criminal justice system.
As you know, I began working on the drug policy issue
during my service at the Department of Education in the mid-
1980s. As assistant to then-Secretary William Bennett, I, as
has been alluded to, became the principal staff member
responsible for managing drug prevention policy and programs.
During my tenure, which began in September 1985 and ended
in 1988, I was one of the principal authors of the guide
``Schools Without Drugs,'' referred to here, a guide for
teachers and parents. Almost two million copies of that guide
have been distributed to citizens throughout the country. It
was a how-to guide for prevention programs in the home and in
schools and communities.
I was the senior manager of programs to link schools and
communities together, called the Schools Without Drugs
Challenge Program, as well as the developer of a prevention
public service campaign and the implementer of the 1986 Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act which vastly expanded the drug
prevention funding from the Department of Education to schools
and communities throughout the United States.
I will not summarize the other parts of my career. As was
alluded to earlier, Mr. Bennett and I left the Department. We
intended to go into the private sector. We were starting a non-
profit that would be involved with education reform, as well as
drug prevention and early childhood education.
Unfortunately, that lasted only several months because the
first President Bush asked Mr. Bennett to become the first drug
czar. I went with Mr. Bennett to that office. We had long
discussions with you, Mr. Chairman, and other senior members of
this committee about the first drug strategy and its
construction and implementation.
I served first as chief of staff to Mr. Bennett and was
involved in the construction of the strategy throughout the
various agencies and programs. In the latter part of the Bush
administration, I served as supply reduction deputy.
My tenure at ONDCP, with the strong bipartisan support in
Congress, sought to expand a balanced program of drug
prevention and drug control. We sought not only, as was alluded
to earlier, to bring together, organize and make accountable
and effective programs on law enforcement and national
security, but in prevention and treatment.
Our efforts to focus on expanding treatment I am
particularly proud of because I believe we provided more
resources during that period, during that administration to
drug treatment, and increases, than any administration before
or after. And I believe those are needed and provide a basis
for the expanded efforts we have been talking about and I think
everybody agrees we need in the future.
We also launched particular new programs to expand prison-
based treatment and prevention programs. We launched a new $100
million-a-year community coalition initiative, modeled on the
successful Robert Wood Johnson program. We also expanded
resources to law enforcement, and I am proud to say we expanded
anti-drug interdiction and national security programs not by
taking money from other parts of anti-drug programs on the
prevention side, but by making the priority of drug control a
more central part of our national security agenda. The national
security agencies and the interdiction agencies became a more
complete and full player.
I believe these balanced policies that we established and
that we have been discussing already here today are crucial for
successful drug control. And I think the proof that they can be
successful has been the decline in drug use, and I am proud
that use reached one of its lowest levels in the last several
decades in 1992, and particularly that drug use by young
people, as has been alluded to, aged 12 to 17, dropped by 60
percent from 1985 to 1992. Cocaine use by those young people
dropped by 78 percent.
Sometimes, as you know, people say we can't make any
difference. We do make differences, we have made differences.
We make differences everyday, and I think it is important that
we build on those, but to build on them we have to first
recognize them.
Let me conclude this brief summary because I know you have
questions and I don't want to eat up the time. But given some
of the comments that have been made in the public and in the
press about my record in the past, let me try to state
concisely my views so that we can explore this and we follow up
what I put on the record.
I believe in drug prevention programs. I believe in efforts
by parents, by schools, by workplaces, and by communities. I
think my record in office and subsequently reflects that. I
believe in drug treatment, in particular, public and private. I
believe that it works in prisons. I believe that it works in
diversion programs and in drug courts.
I believe also in law enforcement and interdiction playing
an important role. I believe that drug control efforts should
be expanded to our foreign policy priorities in appropriate
ways, not that it is the only foreign policy priority. But I
believe the record of the administration I last served in and I
believe the discussions I have had with members of this
committee, as well as others, indicate that I think there is an
appropriate role, and I understand how that can fit into other
priorities.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank a couple of
people in closing who are in the audience here and have been
helpful--who have been willing to consult with me during this
process and who I look forward, should the Senate decide to
confirm me, to working with in the future, including some
people I know that are well known to members of this committee:
Mr. Dick Bonnetta from the Partnership for a Drug-Free America;
General Art Dean and Sue Thau from CADCA; Melanie Heaps from
Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities; John Avery,
Association for Treatment Professionals; Johnny Hughes from the
National Troopers Coalition; Steve Young, newly-elected
national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, and Jim
Pasco of FOP; Jennifer Collier of the Legal Action Center;
Chief Bob Warshaw, who worked in the previous administration as
Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs and was chief in
Rochester, New York, formerly; Linda Wolf Jones, of Therapeutic
Communities of America; Judge Karen Friedman-Williams, National
Association of Drug Court Professionals; Betty Sembler and
Calvina Fay from the Drug-Free America Foundation; Judy
Cushing, President of the Oregon Family Partnership; Henry
Lazono, California for Drug-Free Youth; Barry Crane, who is in
the audience, who has been nominated to be supply reduction
deputy at ONDCP and has written extensively.
These are just some of the people, but people who made the
time to come here today, some from a long distance, and I
wanted to publicly thank them for their advice and counsel and
their support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Walters follow.]
Statement of John P. Walters, Nominee to be Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy
Chairmen Leahy and Biden, Ranking Member Hatch, and distinguished
members of the Committee:
I am honored to appear before you today as you consider my
nomination for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP). I want to thank each member of the Committee for the guidance,
counsel, and support offered during the nomination process. If the
Senate permits, I will be pleased to join my colleagues and take my
seat as a member of the President's Cabinet.
Illicit drug use and its consequences exact a tremendous toll on
our society. As you know, developing an effective arid comprehensive
drug control policy is a challenge that is complex and multifaceted.
This challenge has been made somewhat less daunting by the history of
strong bipartisan commitment to our shared national goals of reducing
drug use, especially among our youth.
The President shares this commitment and made clear when he
nominated me for this position that the drug issue is of foremost
concern for the public health and national security of the United
States. I fully endorse the President's pledge to increase federal
funding for drug treatment by $1.6 billion over five years and look
forward to working with Secretary Thompson on this important
initiative. I strongly support the President in his heartfelt belief
that in order to succeed in our efforts to craft a solution to this
problem, the Congress and Executive Branch must transcend traditional
political and party boundaries.
Over many years now, both as an official of the United States
Government and as a private citizen, I have had the privilege of
working with most of the members of this Committee in an honest and
cooperative effort to shape the most effective drug control policy
possible. Although we have not agreed on every policy in the past, I
have never doubted that we all share a deep personal concern for the
good of our nation as it relates to these critically important matters.
If confirmed as the ONDCP Director, I expect that our discourse will
continue to be constructive and guided by a mutual desire to achieve a
society less threatened by illicit drugs.
I have always believed that the fundamental elements of effective
drug control policy are consistent with common sense. We need to
prevent young people from experimenting with drugs in the first
instance and starting on the path that all too often leads to
addiction, crime, and personal and familial destruction. We need to
help those who have become addicted get off and stay off drugs. We need
to use the coercive power of the criminal justice system and other
supply reduction programs to support domestic prevention and treatment
efforts, as well as pressuring and disrupting drug trafficking
organizations.
Despite the all-too-frequent claims of a vocal few that our drug
control efforts are without merit and destined to fail, we all know
that dedicated Americans throughout our country are making a difference
every day in their communities by teaching the young about the dangers
of drug use, treating the addicted, and protecting fellow citizens from
the predatory drug trade and the destruction it inflicts. These
community leaders deserve our full and unqualified support. They
deserve our sincere thanks and our best efforts to .bring the widest
possible attention to their important work.
But even though much is being achieved, none of us-particularly
those working hardest in this field-is satisfied with the status quo.
Despite our best efforts, there are too many of us using drugs. There
are particularly too many of our young people using drugs at very early
ages. There are too many of us chronically addicted. The drug trade is
too prosperous.
Every responsible American wants to see us join together as
individual communities and collectively to better address all aspects
of the drug problem. Every responsible American wants to see us drive
down drug use to lower levels. Every responsible American wants us to
counter the irresponsible counsel of the legalization movement, which
would sacrifice our the health and safety of our children to advance
its own selfish agenda. We owe it to those concerned citizens to forge
a united effort with renewed confidence, commitment, and effectiveness
to reduce the drug problem substantially in the next several years and
maintain our diligence to keep it in decline. Drug legalization, it has
been noted, is a counsel of despair, a policy of hopelessness. Let me
be clear, our experience-our recent experience, even-teaches one lesson
more clearly than any other: when concerned Americans push back on the
drug problem, it recedes.
I began working on drug policy issues during my service at the U.S.
Department of Education in the mid-1980's. As an assistant to then
Education Secretary William J. Bennett, I became the principal staff
member responsible for managing drug prevention policy and programs for
the Department. During my tenure, which ranged from September of 1985
to September of 1988, I was:
<bullet> principal author of an Education Department handbook,
``Schools Without Drugs,'' a guide for effective education and
prevention programs for parents and educators. Millions of
copies have been requested and distributed free-of-charge to
schools and families throughout the country;
<bullet> senior manager for the Department of Education's
recognition program that gave national attention to schools
with effective drug prevention programs;
<bullet> senior manager for the ``Schools Without Drugs''
public service campaign that broadcast prevention education
advertisements;
<bullet> senior manager for the ``Challenge'' newsletter that
distributed drug prevention strategies and successes to every
school district in the country; and
<bullet> senior manager for the implementation of the expanded
prevention funding initiated by the 1986 Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act.
William Bennett and I left the Department of Education in the fall
of 1988 to found the Madison Center, a non-profit institute designed to
continue our work on education reform and drug prevention education. We
were just beginning our new efforts when President George Bush
nominated Mr. Bennett to be the first Director of the ONDCP and he
asked me to join him as his Chief of Staff. I served at ONDCP from
early 1989 through the end of the Administration, as Chief of Staff for
the first half of that Administration, as Acting Director from December
1990 to March 1991, and as Deputy Director for Supply Reduction from
May 1991 until the end of the Administration.
During my tenure at ONDCP-with the strong bipartisan support of the
Congress-we sought to achieve an expanded and more balanced drug
control strategy. In fact, I managed the drafting of the first National
Drug Control Strategy to make our goals clear and to subject them to
debate and further improvement. I am proud that the first Strategy
highlighted drug treatment as a fundamental component of our multi-
faceted approach at a time when treatment programs did not enjoy
popular support. With the help of Congress we put resources in place to
support the policies and programs advanced by the Strategy, many of
which continue to enjoy tremendous success. From FY 1989 to FY 1993 (in
1996 constant dollars):
<bullet> overall federal spending for drug control programs
increased by 61 percent or by $4.9 billion as compared with the
FY 89 level;
<bullet> prevention increased by 88 percent or $873 million;
<bullet> treatment increased by 74 percent or $1.04 billion;
<bullet> domestic law enforcement increased by 84 percent or
$2.9 billion;
<bullet> interdiction decreased by 8 percent or $136 million;
and
<bullet> international programs increased by 52 percent or $193
million.
It is important to note that those budgets funded expanded anti-
drug interdiction and national security programs by making drug control
a central priority for the limited resources of those agencies of
government, not by redirecting funds from agencies tasked with carrying
out critical domestic demand reduction programs.
Currently, we are enjoying significant bipartisan interest in
expanding our nation's commitment to effective drug treatment programs
and research. I am proud to have been a major architect of a drug
strategy from 1989 to 1992 that called for, and obtained, larger
increases in treatment resources than any administration before or
since. We targeted those resources to areas experiencing a heavy demand
for drug treatment services by creating a capacity expansion program
(that remains a critical component of our treatment infrastructure),
launching new initiatives to match better the specific needs of
individual drug addicts with proper treatment modalities, and expanding
the availability of prison-based treatment programs.
In addition to the gains we made concerning drug treatment, I also
am pleased that we were able to direct greatly expanded budgets and
programs for drug prevention activities. In addition to enhancing
substantially existing education and prevention programs, we launched a
new $100 million per year community coalition initiative that enabled
new federal funds to support a program created by the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, and mobilized the efforts of private service
organizations in a campaign to discourage drug use by young people, as
well as supporting the advertising campaign created by the Partnership
for a Drug-Free America.
I firmly believe that the balanced policies and programs we
established in that first Strategy, as well as the supporting budgets
the Congress provided, helped make the efforts of millions of Americans
more effective and contributed to real results:
<bullet> By 1992, drug use in the United States had fallen to
the lowest level of any time in the past quarter century;
<bullet> Specifically, between 1985 and 1992 ``current''
(defined as monthly) use of all illegal drugs by 12-17-year-
olds dropped by almost 60 percent; marijuana use dropped by
over 66 percent; and cocaine use dropped by over 78 percent.
Those achievements are measures of what we can accomplishment when
we commit to working together to overcome the many challenges posed by
illicit drugs. Those achievements are not the result of our efforts in
government, but of many, many dedicated Americans working together on
all aspects of drug control policy. It would be an arrogant mistake for
national leaders to take credit for these reductions which in most
cases are the hard fought victories of parents and teachers, of police
officers and members of the clergy, of neighborhood orange-hat patrols
and treatment providers. The people who work hard each and every day,
focusing on individual to individual, are where success in this effort
rests. But they also need-and deserve-national leadership, and the
resources that support their efforts. If confirmed, I will dedicate my
office to working within the Administration and with the Congress to
provide the support they so richly deserve.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to
answering any questions the Committee may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.028
Senator Biden. Well, thank you very much.
We will do five-minute rounds for the first round here. I
am also supposed to be chairing a hearing, which I am not going
to chair, upstairs on Afghanistan in the Foreign Relations
Committee. But I am going to go do exactly what the chairman
did here. I am going to go up and make a brief opening
statement there at the appropriate time and I may leave for ten
minutes. I just wanted to explain my absence when I do, but
this is more important.
Let me start by saying, John, I don't have to read any of
your quotes or anything. You and I have known each other for a
long time. I can't think of anybody that I have liked better
who I have disagreed with more.
In 1996, you testified before my committee, and my staff
excised this and reminded me. It was on the national drug
control policy. I said, ``Look, John, I love you. We always
argue a lot, you and I. While we always disagree, I am not sure
we disagree as much as we like to disagree,'' and I went on
from there.
The point is I have a slightly different recollection of
some of the reasons why things happened in the first go-around.
If I remember, during the tenure of Bill Bennett, consumption
did drop. But I am the one that put the money in. You guys
opposed the additional money for treatment. This wasn't one of
these things where you all came out and said, hey, let's have
more treatment money. It was a big fight. Were it not for Dr.
Kleber, we wouldn't have gotten there because Kleber was the
only ally I had in that outfit at the time.
Now, you had a logical argument, a good argument, and we
all agreed at the time we weren't sure who was right; we just
had a different view on how to approach it. The argument was
you all didn't believe there were enough treatment
professionals out there to be able to accommodate and use the
treatment money well. At least that was Dr. Bennett's argument
as to why we should not be putting more money in treatment in
the first three budgets.
But let's get the record straight there. It did go down,
but it didn't go down because you and Dr. Bennett were arguing
for more money for treatment. That significant increase got put
in over your objection. Now, that doesn't mean that you
shouldn't be the drug czar.
The second thing is I also think that some of the stuff
that is being used to make the case against you now is being
used to make a case against you because you were in your
political mode, not a substantive mode. I mean, the guys behind
you are the guys who helped me write the crime bill, the thing
you called irrelevant, ``the irrelevant crime bill,'' if I am
not mistaken.
I don't know whether you guys remember that, but this was
the guy who thought the crime bill as irrelevant, and still
thought it was irrelevant and wrote about it being irrelevant
as little as a couple of years ago. I don't take that seriously
because I know you don't think it is irrelevant. I took it as
your being a partisan, which is understandable. You had a
Democratic President you didn't like very much and so you had
to write that stuff.
But one thing is at the core of my concern, and we know
each other too well, so I am not going to ask you any baited
questions. I am going to ask you a general question that I
would like you to respond to, and this is going to disappoint
my staff because they wrote a hundred questions that are very
specific.
You very strongly believe in this notion of devolution of
Government. You very deeply believe that and I respect that. I
think you are dead wrong, but I respect it. The President
believes it, too. You believe, as you have written numerous
times, that law enforcement, drug treatment and education are
local functions; the Federal Government should not be in the
business. You have written that extensively.
You have a very compelling ideological point of view, and
when you write it, you write clearly and concisely. Everything
I know about you in the years we have dealt with it is your
views on how to deal with the drug problem are consistent with
that philosophy. It is not at all inconsistent, which brings me
to this dilemma.
I don't doubt you think treatment makes sense sometimes. My
recollection was you weren't real crazy about my idea of drug
courts when I introduced that legislation. I may be wrong, but
I don't think you were. I will go back and dig up the record,
but you weren't so crazy about those. Again, local
responsibility. What is the Federal Government doing involved
in all this?
Drug treatment that the Senator from Alabama was pushing
very, very hard--he is not here at the moment, Senator
Sessions--in prison, mandatory drug treatment in prison,
imposing that view on States--I don't remember what your view
was, but I don't remember it being supportive. I could be
wrong.
But here is the point: If, in fact, these are local
responsibilities by and large, the difference in degree that we
have is really consequential potentially. I don't suggest you
think treatment can never work. I think you do think treatment
works sometimes. My impression from 15 years of knowing you is
that you don't think it works well enough to warrant the
investment and the priority that it has had.
I introduced a bill on pharmacotherapy when you guys were
there for a $10 billion commitment, $1 billion a year over 10
years, that you guys opposed. You opposed it then and I think
you still oppose it now. You have written cogently about the
fact that you don't think that anti-addiction medications are a
particularly useful way to go about this issue, a gigantic
issue about methadone, whether or not we should be promoting
it, and so on. My recollection is you view those things as
substitutes for an abuse that exists already and they don't go
to the heart of the problem.
You may be right on all of this, but I just want to make
sure I got it right, that I haven't just been in a fog for the
last 10 or 12 years as to what our disagreements are. You know
my views thoroughly. I have put out a thick old book every
single year since I have written this legislation, and I know
you have read it and I know you know it.
So here is my generic question: Is addiction, not the first
time one consumes an illegal substance--once someone is
classified as being addicted, is that a moral problem or is it
a medical problem at that point? I assume you believe we could
agree on a point at which someone is addicted to a substance,
physiologically addicted, or do you think that is possible?
Mr. Walters. Well, let me simply say first I don't want to
pretend to be a physician--I am not--but I accept the Institute
of Medicine criteria for substance dependency.
Senator Biden. Now, at that point is that a moral or a
medical problem?
Mr. Walters. It is a medical problem and it is a problem of
engaging an individual's own resources, as well as outside
experts, in overcoming the addiction. So I am not trying to
evade the question here, but I do think on the issue of
disease, for example--this gets at the question of disease,
obviously--if the understanding of disease is that it is
something like diabetes where an individual's adherence to
behavior that moderates the effects of the disease--to take
medicine, change diet, exercise--these are an important part of
their recovery, then I don't have a problem with that.
Some of the context that I have written in and some of the
criticisms that have been of concern to people, whether they
are in context or out of context, have been more or less in my
mind, at least, intended to say for people who think one thing
is going to solve this, there are important limits to almost
everything we do in drug control. And there is no silver
bullet, and we ought not over-promise.
I have been concerned in my career that drug policy gets
caught up in rhetoric. You have made a point that I have been
involved in that, too, and I will confess that I have. But the
rhetoric I have been most concerned about is that we over-
promise, and as a result we play into the impression that
nothing works. Of course, we all know a lot works, and we are
trying to make the things that work, work better.
So on the issue of what approach do we take, I think that
people can take a variety of approaches and a combination of
approaches that involve drugs, from methadone to naltrexone to
other drugs that are coming on line to help in addiction
treatment.
But I think also we have--and I think it has been more
recognized--we have to expand the scope of what we talk about
in addiction and recovery, programs especially for people who
have had severe and extended periods of addiction. We have to
talk about recovery.
What I have been doing for the last several years at the
Philanthropy Roundtable insofar as it has touched the issue of
drugs, (which is not the focus of the Philanthropy Roundtable),
has been working with donors in the area of treatment and in
the area of working with people in community institutions--
employment, recovery and reentry of people from the criminal
justice system, working with people on educational
opportunities, as well as child care opportunities, especially
in neighborhoods that are poor and have been affected
particularly harshly by the drug problem.
So coming back to the point you made about local
responsibility, almost everything the Federal Government does
that it doesn't carry out itself it relies on local people to
do the real work--law enforcement, treatment, and education. I
have been struck by, and I know that you have been in
Government longer than I, how blunt an instrument the Federal
Government is.
People look to it for help, but the frustration always is
you can't really do much. You can enable people to do things
that are crucial, but we rely on them to do them. My career out
of Government has been to talk about how to better use those
resources and how local governments need to build the coherence
in their own systems to handle those resources and do a better
job. I did not intend to say that Federal resources were not
important.
On the area of treatment funding, I don't remember the
precise distinction between the request figures and the enacted
figures on treatment funding. But I wasn't just at the Office
then; I was the guy who had to negotiate the final tough parts
of the budget and strategy. And I remember being on the phone
with colleagues in HHS, in Lou Sullivan's office, screaming at
them that we were going to decertify them because of the
request amount that wasn't enough for increases in treatment.
And that wasn't because they were against treatment. It was
because, as you know, the appropriations process made it such
that they believed other parts of their budget that were
important--Head Start, other programs in HHS--were going to
take the hit. We got more money, however.
Now, I think we can all debate about what level was enough,
but I don't remember us not stepping up to the plate and I
don't remember us not being willing to fight inside the
administration, and it was as hard to get those dollars on the
prevention side as it was to get those dollars on the supply
side.
Senator Biden. Well, my time is up in this first round, but
you sure fooled me because you were on the other end of the
phone with me and with my staff saying, and Dr. Bennett was
saying we shouldn't be spending this money. I don't doubt for a
minute what you say inside the administration, but you sure in
hell fooled me.
Now, I will yield to the Senator from Utah.
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Youth drug use, Mr. Walters, remains markedly higher than
it was back in 1992. For me, the problem is--and I hope that
you agree--that even if teen drug use has leveled off in the
past few years, it is leveling off at unacceptably high rates.
For instance, use among eighth-graders since 1992 has increased
by 129 percent for marijuana, by 80 percent for cocaine, and by
100 percent for both crack and cocaine.
Teenage drug use dropped dramatically during your tenure at
the Department of Education and at ONDCP. I am curious to know
what worked previously to slash drug use rates among our youth,
and what do you think accounts for this drastic increase and
what would be your strategy for bringing these current numbers
down?
Mr. Walters. Senator, I think we were benefitted by a
broader consensus than has existed over the last several years
about the priority and about the seriousness of the drug
problem and about the need to focus energy on young people. I
think some of that is coming back. I think the effort now, the
ads on television that are now focused on parents and engaging
parents as a vehicle to be involved in the behavior of young
people, of supervising their time, but also just of sending the
message--I mean, society became more blase about it.
I do think that questions were raised that didn't exist at
the latter part of the 1980s and early 1990s about whether or
not even current law and current sanctions in society
disapproving of drug use were appropriate. We know that the
most important influence on young people is what they thing
their parents and other responsible adults around them think
and what those adults around them do as an example and what
their actions indicate about the truth and the seriousness of
their words.
If you say don't use drugs, but you don't really act as if
you care, if you don't follow up about where young people are
after school and what they are doing when they appear to be
erratic in their behavior or when there is a question about how
they are spending their time or what they are doing with their
time, then you are sending a message.
When there are more or less known open sales of drugs
around schools or along the routes children take back and forth
to schools, or there are accepted parties, or when we say this
is going to be a rite of passage for American young people, I
think you end up with mean ages of first use that are as low as
they are today which is shocking for drugs, and I think you end
up obviously with larger numbers of initiates.
What we do in terms of programs and activities all have to
focus on use, and particularly I think there is now uniform
agreement that we need to stop young people from using and we
need to stop them from using for longer periods of time because
that is a key to diminishing addiction and long-term use
patterns in the country.
Senator Hatch. In addition, the perception that youth drug
use is confined to our urban areas is proving to be mistaken.
According to a report funded by the DEA, drug traffickers are
infiltrating rural America, as they have already done in urban
and suburban areas.
The report found that eighth-graders living in rural areas,
as compared to eighth-graders living in urban areas, are 104
percent more likely to use amphetamines, including
methamphetamine, 50 percent likelier to use cocaine, 34 percent
likelier to smoke marijuana, and 83 percent more likely to use
crack cocaine.
Now, this is particularly troubling to me and my
constituents from my State which is mostly rural. Specifically,
what can I tell my constituents back home that the Government
is doing to protect children living in rural areas from
becoming victims of illegal drug trafficking and use? Will you
take a different approach from that used in urban and suburban
areas, and if so, what different approach would you take?
Mr. Walters. I think some of the basic approaches obviously
involving parents remain the same, but the ability for us to
deliver both the resources to help parents in organizing and
cooperating with schools, also frankly the resources obviously
in connection with public health services and law enforcement,
are not as available in many rural areas.
I have heard this when I was in office and I have heard it
subsequently. Many rural areas can easily be swamped by demands
for treatment, demands for law enforcement. I think part of the
advantage of the expanded HIDTA program, for example, has been
to try to organize resources in larger geographic areas that
could be flexibly applied to needs as they arise, because when
you don't have as much to apply against the problem, it is a
quick mushrooming of use and supply that can overwhelm the
available resources. So I think that is helpful.
I also think we need to be careful that we don't fall into
the kind of nationalizing trap of one size fits all. We need to
vary and work with and talk with people that are working
successfully. My view in my career in Government and out is
when you have a problem, try to find somebody who is solving
that well and see what lessons and see what kind of attention
we can give to that in order to get more people working
successfully, because most people want to solve problems rather
than flounder around and if we give them both the resources and
the example, they are eager to do things on their own.
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Leahy. [Presiding.] Welcome, Mr. Walters. I
checked the numbers and I am told that there are 4,161 Drug
Enforcement Administration agents working to prevent drug crime
and apprehend law-breakers. Do you believe they are doing a
conscientious job?
Mr. Walters. Yes.
Chairman Leahy. And then we have Asa Hutchinson, a
conservative Republican. He and I have been on opposite ends of
a number of things, but a man I strongly supported for the post
as head of DEA. He was confirmed in August and sworn in on
August 8. Would you say he is doing a pretty good so far?
Mr. Walters. Yes.
Chairman Leahy. Even before he was there, the DEA agents
were not just sitting on their hands; they were working hard to
protect America.
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Chairman Leahy. Now, there are 10,522 Customs agents. Their
job responsibilities include preventing illegal drugs from
entering the country. Would you say these Customs agents have
been working hard and with dedication throughout President
Bush's tenure so far?
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Chairman Leahy. There are 11,523 FBI agents. They are
working to prevent and solve crimes, including drug-related
crimes. Would you say that these FBI agents, these men and
women, are performing their jobs admirably?
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Chairman Leahy. Of course, there are thousands and
thousands of State and local law enforcement officers,
including those I used to work with when I was in law
enforcement, whose responsibilities include drug crimes. They
certainly have been working all year, have they not?
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Chairman Leahy. The Bush administration hasn't said we
won't do anything on drugs until you come along, is that
correct?
Mr. Walters. I haven't been told that. I think people are
continuing to work hard even when I am not there.
Chairman Leahy. Well, I agree with you because I know from
any discussions I have ever had with them and everything I have
ever heard them say that President Bush, like most Americans,
wishes there was no drug abuse in this country and is very much
opposed to it.
I only mention that because apparently a number in Congress
have said that the Bush administration was paralyzed and
nothing was happening, pending your nomination. I felt the
President was working pretty hard and I just thought I would
get this on the record because I thought it was an unfair
charge being made by these members of Congress.
I will put their letters in the record, but I wanted to
stand up for the 4,161 Drug Enforcement agents, the 10,500
Customs Agents, the 11,500 FBI agents, and President Bush, and
point out that they have been working. Obviously, the
administration would like to have you there, too, but these
others have been working in the meantime.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has estimated that less than
7 percent of all Federal crack defendants are high-level drug
offenders--less than 7 percent--so they have recommended that
Congress reduce the sentences for crack offenses. I have always
found the disparity unjustified, but you have criticized the
Sentencing Commission for its recommendations and conclusions.
You have urged that crack penalties be retained.
Do you believe today that the current penalties for crack
offenses should be retained?
Mr. Walters. I think we should examine them. I have been
concerned by both what I think is pretty widespread concern
about the level and the extent of the sentences. And I think as
a part of looking at the drug strategy from top to bottom we
ought to work with you and other members of the Congress.
I think the President has indicated a willingness, and the
Attorney General--
Chairman Leahy. But do you have any feelings one way or the
other as you look at it today?
Mr. Walters. I am less concerned today about the level of
the sentence than the justness of the sentence in terms of
proportionately provided punishment to people who are engaged
in trafficking and the effect--
Chairman Leahy. I am not sure I understand what that means.
I am just from a small town in a little State. You big city
guys, I have to keep up with you.
Mr. Walters. I am from Michigan, but I would not want a
change in the law to be one that either went as far as to
normalize the drug trade as an acceptable activity or to send a
signal that there was a consensus that drug trafficking in
serious, addictive substances is not a serious concern of
legal, political and national authorities.
Chairman Leahy. Well, I understand it takes 1 percent as
much crack cocaine to get the same kind of mandatory minimum
that you could with powder cocaine. In other words, you have to
have 100 times more powder cocaine to get the same sentence.
That worries me because 38 percent of crack users in 1995 were
black, but 88 percent of those who were sentenced were black.
Now, you say that is a perceived racial injustice. Those
are pretty amazing numbers. I mean, as a Vermonter I would
worry about anybody using powder or crack cocaine. I am not
suggesting otherwise, but it seems that if you are a powder
cocaine user, not an awful lot happens to you. But if you are a
crack cocaine user, you are heading to the slammer.
Mr. Walters. Yes. Well, Senator, I don't need to tell you,
you were here when some of this legislation was passed
originally, and the concept, in part, was the greater danger of
addiction and trafficking in crack cocaine and, in fact, the
greater danger it posed to some of the poorest and least well-
endowed communities in America.
Chairman Leahy. It seems their danger is they all go to
jail, whereas if they are in white, affluent America, they
won't.
Mr. Walters. I think that concern is an issue that warrants
a review of the sentences, but I would like to just say one
thing about the background of my opinions.
Chairman Leahy. Please.
Mr. Walters. When I was at the drug office, and
subsequently now working with people in communities with
donors, what I saw was people who in many cases have borne the
brunt in terms of ravaging not only families, but economic
foundations of their communities and the other institutions of
their communities; people who, unlike some of the suburbs, had
to worry about their children walking past open-air drug
markets to school.
Most of those people, I found, wanted the same thing that
the people in the suburbs wanted, which is why can't we close
these drug dealers down and keep them off of our streets? I
mean, it is inner-city neighbors that are walking their streets
at night unarmed in orange baseball caps and have sometimes
been pushed by frustration to burn down crack houses. The
people in the suburbs don't have to do that. Also, it is the
inner-city neighborhoods that have faced the fewest resources
in rebuilding.
So my concern in the discussion of racial equity--and I
think I have said this and I have tried to be clear; maybe I
haven't been as clear as I should in writings or testimony--is
that the equity not be detached from the victims of open-air
drug markets. When you look at maps of metropolitan areas, the
communities that are affected by those are not randomly
distributed, and I don't think it is unreasonable to hear the
calls of those citizens and want to provide law enforcement
protection where open-air drug markets and other kinds of open
trafficking--
Chairman Leahy. If you had the same open-air drug markets
in wealthy suburbia, you would be hearing the same complaints.
Unfortunately, in wealthy suburbia oftentimes you see a very,
very nice high school with signs outside saying this is a drug-
free high school as the kids are peddling drugs from their very
expensive cars that belong to their parents to each other or as
they are buying designer clothes and everything else.
I know you are not suggesting that drugs aren't in both
wealthy suburbia and inner cities, but I just want to make sure
that we have the same resources to approach it and we don't
take the only resources and if you are white, wealthy suburbia,
we will get you into a rehab thing and we will take care of you
and we will make sure there is nothing on your record, and if
you are in black inner-city America, we will send you to jail
for 20 years.
Mr. Walters. I agree with you. My own view of my work in
the last several years has been not so much focused on law
enforcement, obviously, because that is not where I have been.
But I think the problem is in stabilizing neighborhoods once
law enforcement is provided with effective treatment, with
effective housing, with effective economic development, better
schools.
And I have been, in fact, working with donors to try to
bring that about in the private sector. Obviously, there is
public sector money here, too. We ought not to make drug
enforcement a kind of maw that sucks in generation after
generation of young black men in our inner cities and grinds
them up and destroys their lives. But I do believe you have to
balance that concern with not allowing the drug trade to grind
up those communities and addict and destroy the lives as well.
So we have to be able--in this case, I guess maybe it is a
``walk and chew gum'' requirement. We have to be able to
sustain lawful order and we have to rebuild and sustain the
outlets for healthy development and economic and social well-
being of the citizens.
Chairman Leahy. Well, my time has expired. I am going to
yield to Senator Kyl. I have also been called to go back to the
floor to try one more time to see if we can move this terrorism
bill.
I am going to submit a number of questions for the record
in case I don't get back. If I get back, I will ask them. I
would ask you not to consider these boilerplate questions. I
have thought long and hard on them, and I would want you to do
the same. If I don't get a chance to ask you them here, we are
going to have to sit down and talk about them.
Senator Biden will take the first step on this, but then
after that a determination of when this may be set on the
agenda. I will be largely influenced by those questions. If you
think any of the questions are not fair, I wish you would just
call me up and tell me so. I think they are, but if you think
otherwise, call me up. They are not trick questions. I am
trying to get an honest answer from you.
Senator Kyl?
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin
by putting a slightly different perspective on the timing of
the hearing and the fact that we haven't confirmed a Director
yet.
While the Chairman, I think, is correct that one can't
infer that we are paralyzed as a result of the fact that we
don't have a Director because of the literally thousands of
people who in one way or another are working hard on the
problem of drug control, by the same token I don't think we can
infer that it is a good thing, or even acceptable, that we
don't have the leader, the Director of the Office, in this
position.
Chairman Leahy. If that was directed at me, I thought my
question was very clear on it and I thought his answer was very
clear.
Senator Kyl. It was, Mr. Chairman, directed at the
inference which one might take from your comment, and I am sure
you would not want it left pregnant out there that it is okay
to have a nominee for this important office still hanging fire
in mid-October, the last month, of course, obviously having
interfered with our responsibilities, and rightly so. But I do
think it is important that we move this forward as quickly as
we can.
Chairman Leahy. I will make sure you are given an extra
minute for the time on this. But as you referred to me, I am
perfectly willing to have my question be on the record as it
was asked and Mr. Walters on the record as answered. I think we
both understood each other very, very well. Obviously, any
Senator can draw any inference they want and usually will.
Senator Kyl. I want to alert my colleagues and caution the
public about a report on John Walters that is being circulated
by an organization called the Coalition for Compassionate
Leadership on Drug Policy. A few weeks ago, this binder with
information regarding John Walters was delivered to our Senate
committee offices. It was prepared by the CCLDP and contained a
report on John Walters.
I just have a caution of three words: follow the money. The
CCLDP's Web site is registered to the Soros Foundation, in New
York. The Soros Foundation was founded by multi-billionaire
George Soros, whose major interest is to advance the
legalization of drugs. I am familiar with George Soros and
other legalizers because of the three separate legalization
ballot initiatives that they helped to fund in my own State of
Arizona.
In 1996, when Arizona had its first ballot initiative to
legalize over 116 Schedule I drugs such as heroin, LSD and
marijuana, over $1 million in out-of-state money financed the
initiative, at least $430,000 of which was from Soros.
In 1998, when Arizona had another ballot initiative
regarding legalization, out-of-state donors, including George
Soros, contributed approximately $400,000 to help its passage.
Just last year, another legalization initiative was in the
works to further decriminalize drugs by immunizing people who
took so-called medical marijuana from a variety of crimes,
ranging from possession of cocaine and meth to selling drugs to
minors. Again, out-of-state donors, including George Soros,
spent almost $500,000 in support of this initiative.
Soros has founded a number of organizations, many of which
are members of CCLDP. Some of the official members of that
include organizations who support legalization, including
NORML, the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws,
and the Marijuana Policy Project. So, again, follow the money.
While the CCLDP report purports not to take a position on
the Walters nomination, it is filled, in my view, with
distortions and inaccuracies, two of which are especially
disturbing.
First, it characterizes John Walters' record on treatment
as ``relatively limited,'' notwithstanding all the things that
we cited before about his qualifications in that regard, 15
years of experience in treatment, and the other items that we
noted before.
Second, the report distorts the scientific evidence
surrounding the needle exchange programs by incorrectly stating
that overwhelming evidence shows that increasing the
availability of sterile syringes curtails AIDS and hepatitis.
That, of course, ignores the body of scientific research
cautioning against needle exchange programs, including the
analysis of Montreal, Canada, NEP which found that drug users
enrolled in the NEP were twice as likely to become infected
with AIDS than non-participants. That is from Lancet, the
British medical journal. A study of the Vancouver NEP, the
oldest and largest in North America, revealed that both AIDS
and drug use increased over 25 percent since that exchange
program started in 1998. So I just want to caution people that
some of the material that they have been getting is designed to
manipulate and distort John Walters' distinguished record.
The question I would like to ask is this: It seems to me
that the real question here is the announced policy of
President Bush which everyone on this dais so far has extolled
as a balanced, reasonable and appropriate response to the drug
problem in the United States.
My question is, Mr. Walters, will you faithfully execute
the policies that we have been extolling up here of President
Bush in the execution of your responsibilities as Director of
this Office?
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir. I wouldn't have taken the job,
obviously, if I couldn't do that, and I believe the President's
statements and his proposals are consistent with what needs to
be done in this country. So I have no reservation and am eager
to help in any way I can in carrying out those policies.
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. [Presiding.] Thank you very much.
I welcome Mr. Walters. I enjoyed our chance to talk in our
office and I appreciate your coming by. And I welcome this last
response. I think all of us are aware that the President, I
think, to his credit has called for the closing of the
treatment gap.
You have had important responsibilities in this area for a
number of years, and written about it, commented on it, and
exercised important responsibilities. For many of us who
believe that this kind of demand side that exists in our
society which has been a scourge among the young people of this
Nation needed to have a greater voice for the treatment of the
various challenges that young and old alike have faced.
Now, I was here in 1988, and we had the Nunn-Moynihan task
force that at that time announced that what we really needed--
and it went into very great detail and examined the materials
and talked about a 50-50 balance. That wasn't accepted by a
narrow vote, one or two votes in the Senate. It was actually
rejected. Then we went ahead with the 1988 Act on this and you
had 4 years of important responsibility.
You know, you can look back in terms of the resources and
the funds that were out there when you were there, and we have
seen since that period of time some enormously compelling
information that has been made available to us: the Cal data
that for every dollar we spend on drug treatment, we save as
much as seven dollars on costs relating to crime and health
care.
The RAND study says treatment for heavy cocaine users is 3
times more effective at reducing cocaine consumption than
mandatory minimum sentences, and 11 times more effective than
interdiction.
The NIDA study says methadone treatment has shown to
decrease criminal behavior by as much as 50 percent. The
Department of Justice said in 1997 that offenders who
successfully complete drug court programs are one-third as
likely to be arrested for new drug offenses or felonies and one
fourth as likely to violate probation or parole.
I have looked at your record. I have tried to find out
where you fought, like you mentioned to the former chairman of
this committee, Joe Biden, or where you have written, where you
have advocated, where you have pointed out what have been the
findings of the scientific reviews about the importance of
treatment for this. And I can't find it; I don't see it there.
I hear your answers to this and they have been positive.
You talk about child care, employment, recovery programs, all
of those kinds of things. But in your writings we find really
the contrary to that, and that is what is of central concern to
me, whether you really have the belief that this is of
importance, that this is of consequence, that you want to go
out and try to do, I think, what credibly the President has
said, because there is very little in the 4 years that you had
important responsibilities.
The fact is, over that period of the 4 years, in terms of
treatment and prevention the budget never got even up close to
a third during that period of time, maybe 32 percent or 33
percent, not that budget in and of itself is all of the answer.
I mean, the money isn't all, but at least it is a pretty clear
indication as to where it is, and that is where we really find
the difficulty.
Now, what is your sense? You are going to be asked in terms
of policy what you think it has to be. Let's say that money is
at least an indicator of what are going to be our priorities.
What would you like to see?
You have had a long time to think about this. How would you
allocate resources in terms of interdiction, prosecution,
treatment, prevention? Give us some idea of where you stand on
this issue.
I have got a short time, too, and I want to give you a fair
chance to answer it, but I do have other questions.
Mr. Walters. Thank you, Senator. I mean, I don't know
exactly how to meet the question you have about my intent
underneath all this. I can tell you that when I worked at the
Office initially, when we looked at the treatment problem and
talked about increases in the treatment system and trying to do
that in a concise way, we, came up with a program that still
exists today called the Capacity Expansion Program to target
resources to where there was a measurable need. We discussed
and implemented programs to match modalities of treatment to
the needs of those who needed those services. We tried to
support additional programs to both conduct research and to
bring those together.
As you probably see from my resume, I was actually Acting
Director of the Office for a period between Mr. Bennett's
departure and Governor Martinez' arrival in November to March.
And during that period of time, there was an actual meeting
with the President on the budget and remaining drug policy
issues, and I was the one representing the Office at the
Cabinet and there was one fundamental issue that was a debate
between myself and then-OMB Director Darman and that was the
increase in money that we were requesting for treatment. And I
was the one who had to make that argument and it was not an
easy argument, so I haven't--
Senator Kennedy. My time is up. What do you think for
interdiction, what do you think for prosecution, what do you
think for treatment, and what do you think in terms of
prevention? I mean, what would you say you would like to see?
What are you going to advocate for?
The President says he wants to reduce the treatment gap.
You are going to have important responsibilities. What would
you say? Out of a dollar, what would you spend on each one?
Mr. Walters. Well, I think it is remarkable to have a
President who begins with a $1.6 billion commitment to
treatment at the start of his administration.
Senator Kennedy. Let's just take one dollar, without
getting into how much the budget can afford. Just on one
dollar, that was my question because I know my time is up. Out
of one dollar, what would you like to see as someone who has
looked at this and thought about it?
Mr. Walters. I don't mean to evade your question. It is
hard for me to say, not having had discussions with what people
have out there. If we are not talking about cutting things in
order to make an artificial percentage--
Senator Kennedy. If I can just finish this question, I am
not asking you whether it is a $1.6 billion or $1.9 billion or
what we have to cut in Head Start. I am not asking you that.
You just have percentages. The President says we have got ``y''
amount of money to spend. I want to know from you how you think
it ought to be spent.
Mr. Walters. Just the Federal money?
Senator Kennedy. Just one dollar, say, of the amount that
is going to be available. How much do you think ought to be on
interdiction, how much in terms of prosecution, how much ought
to be in treatment, how much ought to be in prevention?
Mr. Walters. I don't want to mislead you and make a
commitment I can't live with, obviously. I don't think there is
anything wrong notionally to talk about those as equal parts of
the overall strategy. I think to qualify that, I have to say
that there are parts of the drug strategy that the Federal
Government is a partial player in and it is a partial funder
of, but State, local, private resources are there that help to
balance it.
If I understand the concern you have, if driving in the
direction of apportioning the four parts, if you want, among
prevention, treatment, law enforcement and international
programs into equal parts is--I don't think notionally that
there is anything wrong with that and I don't disagree with it.
But I am aware that the devil is in the details in these
things because appropriations bills are divided and people do
have to make tradeoffs and there are some things the Federal
Government does that other levels of government can't do.
So I am not trying to be evasive, but I am trying to be
candid with you. I, as you have, have fought for these monies,
too, and you have got to authorize them and you have got to
appropriate them and you have got to be willing to stand in the
draft of all the other competition at the time. And I have been
struck by one of the problems in getting money for treatment is
the people who need these services are not active and vocal
constituents frequently. And so when it comes time to make
phone calls and to wire members about their support, they
aren't there.
So I mean I would like to do more. I think it is
unprecedented that a President begin with this level of
commitment for treatment, and I honestly am not ashamed of the
record that we had in the administration I served in. It was
the largest increase in treatment funding. And it is not just
dollars; I recognize that.
I am sorry that Senator Biden remembers this another way,
but it was not an easy fight, and it was not an easy fight
inside the administration and it was not an easy fight inside
Congress. So I recognize that we have differences on issues,
but on this issue I have fought and I am proud of that record
and I would intend to follow through on that record if I was
confirmed.
Senator Kennedy. My time is up.
Senator DeWine?
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Mr. Walters, the percentages are always an interesting
question and I am a huge proponent of a balanced anti-drug
approach. I think we do have to point out, or I will at least
point out that when we look at that we also have to look at the
total government dollars that are being spent, not just Federal
dollars that are being spent.
For example, one of the things that is done in regard to
trying to drive drug consumption down is we go to the source
countries and we do things in the source countries. We do
things on our borders. Those are pretty much exclusively the
obligation of us, the Federal Government. And so it skews it a
little bit, I think, when we look at the pie charts and whether
it is the Federal Government's money. But I believe in the
general concept that we need to have a balanced drug approach,
and I am glad that you do as well.
Let me ask you a question. You talked a little bit in your
written statement about your work in expanding the availability
of prison-based treatment programs. I wonder if you could just
take a couple of minutes and tell us where you think we are in
this area. I mean, this is something that is clearly our
responsibility. These are Federal prisons, these are our
prisons, these are the ones that we have the responsibility
for.
As I have said many times in the past, we already pay to
house these prisoners and to feed them and to clothe them, and
while we have got their attention involuntarily it sure makes
sense to try to do some treatment and we are crazy if we don't.
How are we doing in the Federal prison system, if you know?
Mr. Walters. I don't know, in detail. I do know that the
opportunities for treatment in the Federal prison system have
expanded from the start that was made when I was last in
Government. I think all the reviews are that these have
positive results.
We also tried when I was in Government to expand resources
for State and local prison-based treatment by opening up as an
option to the block grant resources being moved into the prison
system.
Senator DeWine. I wholeheartedly agree we should do this.
Mr. Walters. I also am aware that some recent studies, I
believe, have suggested that a substantial increase in the
effectiveness of prison-based treatment to produce long-term
recovery is provided by follow-up programs after the individual
is back out in the community. This makes sense from what we
know about treatment generally.
Senator DeWine. From what we know about treatment
everyplace else, it makes sense in prison.
Mr. Walters. I think in terms of looking at making the
system more effective, not only do we have to talk about the
allocation of slots, but what kind of slots, how we match them,
how we handle outreach, how we handle follow-up services,
because we know especially for long-term substance abusers this
can be an extremely long process. It is talked about as a
chronic, relapsing disease. What that means is we have to be
able to have some continuity.
I think the criminal justice system not only in prisons,
but in diversion programs like drug courts, give you a way of
influencing behavior in a positive way using the criminal
justice system. I had the opportunity since I was nominated of
visiting a drug court with my former colleague, Reggie Walton,
whom I believe this committee has recently confirmed for a
Federal position on the bench.
Part of his calendar in D.C. was the juvenile drug court,
and I made contact with him after my nomination and I went down
and talked to him about that. I think he took a system that
wasn't running as well and helped turn it around, and it is a
big loss to D.C. But these programs obviously work because they
provide the kind of continuity, and I think in some cases it
was obvious from his impression an adult that will help and be
involved in the life of young people who have not had the kind
of guidance that they need in a serious and sustained way,
getting them the resources for treatment, but also for getting
back on track in their education and back in their community.
So I think those are important levers where the discussion
of opposition between the criminal justice system and
prevention and treatment is wrong-headed. These are systems
that work together, and when they do, we get the best results.
Senator DeWine. I agree.
Let me turn to education. I know that when you were in the
Department of Education, one of your major responsibilities and
roles was on education reform and drug prevention education. I
happened to serve in 1989 and 1990 when I was in the House of
Representatives on the National Commission on Drug-Free Schools
and we looked at where we were 10, 11 years ago, at that time.
How do you think we are doing today, and what do we need to
be doing? How are our schools doing? We identified a lot of
problems in 1989 and 1990 on this commission report, and I know
that you worked on a lot of those problems in that same general
era. Where do you think we are now?
Mr. Walters. I have been touched by the number of people
who are working in this area everyday very hard and have felt
that the culture has kind of turned to become an adversary to
their work in the last decade. It has not made this a serious
matter; it has made it a questionable matter, and dabbling in
drug use was now kind of fashionable and chic.
Parents and teachers and community leaders felt that they
had been orphaned after being given the kind of support and
leadership that made it possible for them to extend their
efforts. That doesn't mean they have stopped working, and I
think it is important that we not forget that everyday a lot of
people in all aspects of this problem go to work and save
lives. And they have not asked for recognition, but they would
like people to stop making it harder. And if we can give them
some additional help, that would be more than welcome as well.
So I think to reestablish the consensus that first of all
says what society thinks about drugs in a consistent manner
with what parents and I think the vast majority of Americans
think, and give that message to young people--you shouldn't use
it, it is wrong, it is harmful--and now we have been reminded
that enemies of the United States also believe that drug use is
harmful to our people because they would like to promote it.
So I think we have a remarkable opportunity for consensus.
We are rebuilding the cultural consensus against drug use and
we have a lot of people that are not only doing a lot now, but
are energized to do more if we can support them both with
programs but also with vocal leadership on this issue.
Senator DeWine. Well, it is a relationship clearly between
what the community is doing and what the schools do. And they
cannot be separate and apart; they have to be tied in together.
I would hope, after your confirmation, this would be one of the
things that you would look at.
We have a bill that I expect we are going to pass that
makes some reforms in that, and I think that will do some good.
But ultimately the question is going to be, and always is, what
is the local community doing. I think it is a role that you
could play a very significant role in. In my home State of
Ohio, it is 630-some school districts, and you just multiply
that all the way across the country.
I guess we are doing a tag. Over to Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. [Presiding.] I thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Walters, welcome. I would just like to ask one more
question before I move on on prevention and treatment. In 1996,
you wrote on the Federal funding role in preventing drug use,
``Teaching that drug use is wrong and harmful is primarily the
responsibility of parents and local communities.'' ``Federal
funding,'' you wrote, ``is neither necessary nor sufficient for
conveying this very personal message to children on a
consistent basis.''
In 1995, in the newspaper the Washington Times, you wrote
that ``Individual program mandates should be abolished so
States and localities can establish and pursue their own
priorities for fighting drug use and drug crime. Law
enforcement, drug treatment and prevention and education are
local responsibilities. Therefore, the new block grant program
should be designed to restore local responsibility by phasing
out these programs after three years.''
So under your formulations, I would conclude that States
and localities would have no requirement to spend any money at
all on prevention or treatment after three years, if they so
desired, and would not receive any Federal money at all to use,
even if they wanted to, for that purpose. So I have a difficult
time reconciling these statements with your previous answer
about treatment and prevention.
In 1995 and 1996, you seemed to be clearly against any
Federal money spent specifically on treatment and prevention,
and now you are apparently saying something that is quite
different. So before I move on, could you finally reconcile
your thinking then and your thinking now? Has it evolved, has
it changed? Are you not today of the same thought process as
you were back then?
Mr. Walters. Yes, I have changed my view on that, and that
was a change from when I was in Government and let me explain
why. I was concerned at that time that both the management of
the Federal resources and the level of support for those
resources was dropping off and was drifting, and that for many
communities the ability to manage and direct and to have
accountability in prevention, treatment, and even supply
reduction programs was diminished. I was also working at that
time in an organization that was designed to try to provide
greater onus for local institutions to take greater authority
and accountability for local actions.
I may have been wrong about the direction in which funding
and management was going, although I am not sure about the
management part. But at a time when the attention of the
country here was shifting, I thought it would empower the
people at the local level who were working everyday to make
decisions about resources that would be most effective to them
and to find long-term support that would be directed toward
results.
I would not recommend that today. That is not the
President's policy and I wouldn't have taken this job if I
disagreed with him on that. I believe we need to maintain
Federal support for these programs. When I was last in
Government, we did that in both prevention, treatment and on
supply reduction programs, and I think we need to make them
more accountable and effective.
So, yes, I did have a change of thought during that period
of time. Again, maybe I was wrong about what was happening, but
I did think that things were moving so that the resources
weren't going to be sustainable or were not going to be managed
as well as they should.
Senator Kohl. All right. I will take you as you wish to be
taken, at your word.
Mr. Walters. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Walters, in a 1995 commentary in the
Washington Times you wrote about the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
This is the bill that makes it a Federal offense to carry a gun
within 1,000 feet of a school. Basically, the bill and the fix
we made in response to the Supreme Court challenge in Lopez
were efforts to address the ever-growing problem of school
violence.
In your article, you quoted me as saying that the bill was
a common-sense approach to the issue of guns in our schools,
which is what I did say. Then you commented on that statement
that I made by writing, ``The Gun-Free School Zones Act does
not rest upon common sense; it defies it.''
Six years later, I still believe that the Federal
Government has an important role to play in addressing school
violence, and it is still common sense, in my opinion, to do
everything we can to help keep guns out of and away from
schools.
Given the number of school shootings in this country since
you wrote your article, have you changed your mind at all on
the importance of the Federal Government's role in trying to
stem school violence and crime generally, and in the wisdom of
having a law that says you must not carry a gun within 1,000
feet of a school?
Mr. Walters. Yes. I would support the law. I mean, I
wouldn't again take an office that I couldn't support the law.
Let me just say, at the risk of having Senator Biden accuse me
of having a confirmation hearing conversion, in taking on this
responsibility, and I think frankly in my past record, I have
not been ashamed of saying that certain things are Federal
responsibility, where others have argued otherwise, other
conservatives, other Republicans.
I tried to make a point, maybe not a point I should have
made, with that law that--and, again, talking about at that
time being concerned with the integrity of local institutions
where most of the resources that even the Federal Government
delivers have to be carried out, the concern I had was that the
tendency to nationalize these discussions would diminish the
attention to what inevitably still is going to be local
manpower, local teachers, local parents, local law enforcement.
As I said earlier in regard to some of the other questions,
I am not opposed to Federal resources being applied to help
here because there are situations where that is crucial. And I
agree with your point, if I understand it, which is you can't
stand back on some of these issues and say ``I don't do
windows'' here at the Federal Government; that is your job.
But I also think--just in defense of my thought here, I
also think that there has been, and other people on both sides
have talked about this, a tendency to erode the responsibility
and authority of local institutions who are the first-line
people, who are inevitably going to have more of the resources
and more of the actual involvement with individual problems in
communities.
And one of the things where we have seen renovation,
whether it is education or law enforcement or treatment or
health care, is when accountability has been restored to those
institutions by local citizens. The Federal Government can
help, but its help has to be such that it doesn't cripple, in
my mind, the integrity and the proper management of local
institutions. I wouldn't write the same thing today, Senator.
Senator Kohl. Well, to my colleagues I want to say that I
have always dreamed about being chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. I am not chairman either. Go right ahead.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sessions. I suppose you also dream that the nominee
would have criticized one of your bills, too, that you asked
him about.
Senator Biden. [Presiding.] And he criticized your prison
funding thing, if I am not mistaken.
Senator Sessions. Maybe. I will have to check on that.
Just briefly, I want to make the point that I don't believe
there is a conflict between education, prevention, law
enforcement, and treatment. All of those are part of the way
you fight drugs.
You come at this position with extraordinarily wonderful
experience. You presided over the drug czar's office, at least
the executive director of it or whatever the title was, second
to Bill Bennett, and succeeded him for a time during the
greatest achievement of reduction of drug use in the history of
this country.
This idea that the war on drugs has been lost is baloney.
We won the war on drugs and made tremendous achievements and
improvements in it. From the time of, I think, the last year of
President Carter or the first year of President Reagan until
former President Bush left office, according to a University of
Michigan study, the most authoritative study of high school
seniors in America, drug use declined every single year. It was
reduced by over 50 percent. We have people who say the drug war
was a failure.
Let me ask you, isn't the best way to deal with treatment
is not have people become addicted at all?
Mr. Walters. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Sessions. Isn't it true that treatment can help a
number of people, but once people become addicted most people
never get over it? It is a long-term personal disability of
some kind. They suffer from it in various ways the rest of
their lives.
Mr. Walters. I think we always have hope that people will
be treated. I think many families and friends of individuals
are aware that there are people who have tried for years and
years to fight their addiction and regrettably have not been
successful.
I think that we need to try harder. We all want research,
we all want treatment to work better. We also, I think, have to
give the prevention message to young people that it is not a
matter of you can play with drugs and if you get in trouble, we
will definitely be able to treat you and you won't have long-
term consequences. You are playing with a serious threat to
your future well-being.
Senator Sessions. Treatment is helpful to a lot of people,
but a lot of people, it never takes and it is such a tragedy.
If anybody has ever seen and known people who have gone through
treatment, it costs them immeasurably. Some are able to beat
the addiction, some are not.
I visited a treatment center not long ago and the guy told
me that with regard to a lot of these people, they will be in
and out of here the rest of their lives and the only thing that
will cure their addiction is death. Many do it by suicide; they
do it be overdose. They end up going to jail. It is just a sad
thing.
So stopping people from trying drugs, reducing young
people's experimentation with drugs, as you presided over a 50-
percent reduction, means you are going to have ultimately 50
percent fewer addicts. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Walters. We hope so. I also want to make clear, though,
that I share your concern about the dangers here. I think we
can save more people from addiction, but it is not a substitute
for stopping people going into the beginning because we know
that if--I mean, this has been repeated over and over again--
that if young people do not experiment with drugs by the time
they reach roughly age 18 or 20, they are unlikely to try and
then become a candidate for addiction later on.
That is something we ought to be able to do as a society to
take care of our young people in early parts of their lives.
And if we do that, we are attentive to that, we don't have all
the consequences of drug addiction to deal with later.
Senator Sessions. Well, would you say that you are proud of
the results that occurred during your tenure in the drug czar's
office?
Mr. Walters. Yes, I am.
Senator Sessions. And would this Nation have been better
off if you had those same trends continued after you left
office?
Mr. Walters. Yes, I mean certainly.
Senator Sessions. Drug use went up among high school
seniors when you left that office immediately almost, did it
not?
Mr. Walters. Yes, but I want to be careful.
Senator Sessions. I know you don't want to get into that,
but I want to get into that.
Mr. Walters. But I want to be--
Senator Sessions. President Clinton talked about ``I wish I
had inhaled.'' He joked about it, he sent a mixed message. He
slashed the drug czar's office, and drug use started going up
after 12 consecutive years of decline, culminating during your
time there in which we achieved the greatest reduction of any
period that occurred. I think that is the fact. If you can keep
people from starting drugs, it is better than having treatment.
Now, President Bush, I know, Senator Biden, cares about
treatment, and I do too. He has got a $1.6 billion increase for
treatment which you support, but I just don't think we ought to
overlook the combination of law enforcement, good education,
and creating, as you said, the need to rebuild the cultural
consensus against drug abuse which has been lost to a sad
degree. We need to rebuild that and I think we can start seeing
those use numbers go down.
Do you believe it is possible that we can start seeing drug
use numbers by high school students, teenagers, start going
down again?
Mr. Walters. Yes. I think in some cases you are seeing with
the new national survey that younger people--the youngest age
cohort is going down.
I appreciate your kind words toward me. I want to be
careful, though, because it is not just a matter of me, but I
think it is fair. We worked with a lot of people, including
people on this committee and the Congress, and we tried, I
think, all of us, to empower people, some of whom are
represented behind me from organizations that are working
there.
I don't believe that I, or even the administration I served
was the cause of this, but we have to not get in people's way.
And we did try to support them and I think one of the things I
looked forward to, should the Senate agree to confirm me, was
working with you and some of your colleagues up here.
I mean, I have testified here with some of you in the past
even after I left office when this topic was not in season and
when people still were willing to fight for resources and
attention, and try to push against what I think was a difficult
environment. But I want to be clear that I don't expect to have
to, but I also would never expect to be able to do this alone
and I am counting, if I am confirmed, on people like yourself
and the other members of this committee to be as vigorous. And
the President's commitment here, I think, is also crucial in
providing the level of support to give not only the resources,
but the tone and cultural support for what needs to be done to
get drug use down again to the levels we had before.
Senator Sessions. I want to say that is correct. I know as
a Federal prosecutor at the time, Senator Biden was the
champion, with other members of this committee, improving the
ability of those fighting the war on drugs to be successful,
and it worked. I think my concern is we are drifting away from
what worked, and I think it is ultimately the cultural
challenge to keep the message that drug use is unacceptable.
Within the last week, Senator Biden, I saw a promo for a
sitcom in which one of the persons--this is the kind of promo
that would be repeated over and over again: well, I don't know
why I did that; maybe I was high on speed. I think those are
almost the exact words. That kind of thing has got to undermine
this cultural consensus that drug use is not acceptable.
Somehow you achieved that, you and Bill Bennett, to a good
degree, and if you can reestablish that, I think you will see
the numbers go down.
I do believe that there a lot of things we can approve this
drug effort in and I am open to that. I think we ought to
narrow that gap between crack and powder sentences, and if
nobody else is going to offer legislation to do it, I am. There
are some other things we can do. I do believe in increased
treatment, but the whole package--one is not hostile to the
other; they all are part of the way to have victory in this
effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Durbin?
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Walters. Mr. Walters, I have asked these
questions I am about to ask you of everyone, from Democratic
administrations, Republican administrations, since I have been
on this committee for the last few years, and they reflect my
genuine concerns about how the laws will be implemented by the
people who are entrusted with that responsibility.
I have asked these questions of Attorney General Ashcroft,
Attorney General Reno, General McCaffrey and virtually everyone
who has come before us. So they are not directed at you
personally. They are things that are on my mind whenever we
talk about drug policy, but I will have to say that some
statements you have made prior to this hearing lead me to have
greater concern about where you stand.
The first one has to do with racial profiling. We have
heard over and over from everyone that racial profiling has to
be eradicated, that we have to put an end to it. Yet, if you
look for the clearest illustration of racial profiling in
America, it is in the enforcement of our drug laws, where we
have a small percent of our population who are
disproportionately arrested, convicted and imprisoned for drug
crimes. And those are people of color, African Americans,
Hispanic Americans.
Now, what I have read from your writings is that you claim
that this racial profiling is an urban myth. That troubles me
because if you are entrusted with a multi-billion-dollar agency
to guide the thinking about the enforcement of drug laws in our
country and are not sensitive to this disproportionate
treatment of minorities when it comes to drug crimes, that
troubles me greatly.
Have you changed your opinion? Do you still believe racial
profiling in drug sentencing is an urban myth?
Mr. Walters. Let me just approach it this way because I
don't understand racial profiling exactly as identical with the
sentencing issue. I understood racial profiling to be the
stopping or arresting or apprehending of individuals on the
basis of a profile, whether or not there was any actual
criminal activity or probable cause.
Senator Durbin. That is the point.
Mr. Walters. I mean, I am not trying to avoid the question,
but--
Senator Durbin. Let me be very clear.
Mr. Walters. Okay.
Senator Durbin. The State trooper that pulls a car over
because he sees a person of color in it is guilty of racial
profiling. When that person is then arrested and then is
convicted by a court and then is incarcerated, the initial act
of racial profiling has played itself all the way through the
system. They sit in the cell because the initial focus was on a
person of color.
If we know that African Americans represent 12 percent of
our population and 13 percent of drug users, how can we sit
here and ignore the fact that 87 percent of the drug users who
are not African American are not being arrested, are not being
convicted and are not being incarcerated?
The war on drugs is a war that is looking for people of
color. Do you believe that is an urban myth?
Mr. Walters. It was not my experience when I was in the
Office that there was an intention--if anything, there was a
contrary intention in regard to race. The goal that I think we
have talked about prior to your arrival was that the original
mandatory minimum sentencing in the Federal Government was to
protect against what was then perceived to be an intention by
Colombia suppliers to market crack into the inner city.
At that time, Congressman Rangel and the Black Caucus in
the House vigorously supported that legislation to help protect
people in the inner city from what was thought to be the most
dangerous and addictive substance we had ever faced as a part
of the drug problem.
I understand the concern about the application and the
result of the law. I will say that my experience with the vast
majority of people in law enforcement and in the criminal
justice system is that they do not intend to be racially
biased. They are as sensitive to the issue of the perception
that there is this kind of bias in the system. I think most of
them are working very hard.
Most law enforcement personnel that I know, know what bias
means. They have felt it personally. Whenever someone in law
enforcement does something wrong and it is widely publicized,
in the eyes and in the words of people that they see they are
accused of being the bad cop or the bad prosecutor, too. So
they know how corrosive, they know how dangerous that is.
I think everyone, I presume, that you have asked this of
that has been confirmed in the administration--most of the
people I have ever worked with and are now either in the
administration or out would say we need to work very hard to
make sure the system is both fair and is perceived as fair. I
have talked about a willingness, as a part of a review of drug
policy, to work with members of this committee, the Attorney
General, the President, who have talked about a need to review
these laws.
As I said to you when we met privately--I want to be frank
here, too--my concern is in my experience working both with
foundations and charitable donors and in Government is that the
process not end up depriving people who already desperately
would like protection for their children going to school, for
their communities, in the same way that other parts of our
society get that protection from the law enforcement protection
to make their streets safe and their homes and communities
safe.
My experience being in those communities was that frankly
those people would say, why can't we get the same--why are
there open-air drug markets here, when they wouldn't be
tolerated where most of the better-off people live in the
suburbs? And I think the answer to that question, as I tried to
indicate earlier, is we not only have to provide law
enforcement resources; we need to work to stabilize communities
so that employment and housing--and it is not just everything
has to be done, but what has to be done is effective linking of
treatment resources.
That is why I think there has been promise to things like
community coalition programs that take the relevant
institutions and stabilize a place that first has to have the
open-air drug markets closed and keep it from being generation
after generation of young black men in the inner city being
sucked into the criminal justice system and being ground up.
That is not what any American wants.
It is not simply a law enforcement matter, although we have
to make sure law enforcement is just. It is also a matter of
bringing back lawful order and institutional integrity to
communities throughout, especially those that have been hardest
hit by drugs.
Senator Durbin. The point I am making, Mr. Walters, is
this: You are talking about the enforcement of the law. First,
I share your admiration and respect for the men and women in
uniform who put their lives on the line every single day to
protect us, all of us. And I think that it is incumbent on all
of us as political leaders to work with them and try to develop
policies that really do beat down the racial profiling which is
undermining respect for the law in many segments of America.
I have been in Chicago police cruisers and I have gone down
the street and I have seen the open-air markets. I have seen
the African American selling drugs, but I also notice the color
of the buyers, the customers. They are white kids from the
suburbs, and the people who are going to get arrested are not
the white kids from the suburbs. That is what the statistics
tell us. If we are going after this system in a fair-minded and
even-handed way, everyone should be held accountable under the
law and not one group picked out over others.
I really need to satisfy in my mind whether you think what
I have just said is a reality or a myth before your vote comes
up on the floor.
Mr. Walters. Let me answer another aspect to that as well
as the central question. I have written and I have tried to
provide some additional evidence as to why I think simply the
use of figures capture the whole problem. And I have tried to
explain--I don't know the extent to which I have been able to
do that--the background for some of the remarks I have made in
the past.
But I also think that we are all in agreement, or there is
a wide consensus that it is counterproductive to use the
criminal justice system to take users and incarcerate them for
extended periods of time. I know I have been accused in some
places of being for long jail terms for users. I have never
been for long jail terms of users, and I don't think that users
get long jail terms now. I don't think the data supports that.
But I do think that early-level people involved in the
trafficking and probably addictive use of drugs ought to be
more vigorously diverted into programs that provide them
treatment and more extended supervision to get their lives back
together, like drug courts and other kinds of diversion
programs.
So I think part of the answer to this question is to change
the mix on the ground in some places to provide proper sorting
of people who need treatment help, rehabilitative help in
appropriate settings, rather than the long-term incarceration.
But I also have been candid in saying I don't believe the
frequently stated argument that there is a lot of people who
are simply users who are serving extremely long jail terms
because the system, I think, already makes a sorting effort in
this regard and it is a disservice to the people working there
to suggest otherwise.
Can we do a better job? Do we need to do a better job? Yes,
but it is not also going to be the ``silver bullet'' answer
that if we get a proper mix of diversion programs we are not
going to have to still enforce the law, because we are going to
have to enforce the law, obviously.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Biden. Thank you.
John, you and I have been doing this a long time. I have
changed some of my views. Is there any change in your thinking
about how to deal with this drug problem that has occurred
since we began this trek back in the first years of the Bush
administration?
I know we began it, both of us, earlier than that, but--I
am sorry, Sam. I beg your pardon. It was just pointed out you
haven't questioned yet. I apologize. I yield to you. I
apologize. I am sorry. I didn't see you there.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very
kind.
Mr. Walters, welcome to the committee. I am delighted you
are up for this office. You have got an impressive background
and impressive resume. I have got two questions areas that I
want to focus on, if I could. One is on teen drug use and the
other is on methamphetamines, which is a big problem in my home
State.
In teen drug use, I was looking back through the record of
when you were in the drug czar's office before and there was a
very impressive reduction in teen drug use that took place
during that period of time. People are pointing out that most
adult users and virtually all adult addicts of illegal drugs
experimented with them as teens. So if somehow you can get them
through those teen years without experimenting, you are
limiting your group of people that is likely to use drugs for
the rest of their lives, or worst still, even addicted to them.
Your record in the drug czar's office between 1985 and 1992
showed that teen use of all drugs dropped by 60 percent and
regular teen use of cocaine dropped by 78 percent, which I
found an extraordinary achievement and a cause for hope that
Federal policies really can have a difference and have an
impact.
As you look at that number and as you contemplate going
into this office, what are the key areas of policies and
practices that you think contributed to those numbers that I am
hopeful, if approved, you will use in the office this time
around?
Mr. Walters. Thank you, Senator. I think the basis is the
establishment and maintenance of a consensus about the danger
and the unacceptability of drug use in society. I think the
bringing together of key institutions so that that is not just
empty rhetoric, that we have both national leaders but also
that our institutions of health care, education and law
enforcement are working together, and supported in the effort
to convey that in the environment that young people feel is
happening.
They are acutely aware and sensitive to adults saying one
thing, but not meaning it, or saying one thing and doing
something else. What we had was a period of time when there
was, I think, a greater visibility of adult leadership in the
Nation, as well as in communities, making clear that young
people should not, and adults did not use drugs, and that it
was unacceptable. We need to rebuild that.
I also think that there was more support, as I have said
earlier, for the people working in this field effectively. I
think we have more people working in the field, frankly, now.
They are more organized. We have learned a lot over those
years, with parents groups, community coalitions, law
enforcement and treatment providers working in teams with
critical institutions. We need to do more on this.
I do think there is a lot more to build on, but what we
have to do, and what I have heard from people in the last
several months is a great desire to have a clear and consistent
voice from our national institutions that makes this more of a
clear priority for young people.
There has been some drift. There has been talk about should
we legalize drugs. There has been a greater fashion and kind of
joking about drug use in the media and in entertainment. No one
wants to be humorless here, but I do think it is grossly
misleading to target this kind of message on young people and
to therefore not make clear to them the real dangers of
addiction. We see them in everyday in everything from child
abuse, to broken families, to crime, to lives that are wasted,
to kids dropping out of school.
There is a tendency to want to pretend as if, I think by
the people who make the joke, that that is not a reality. And
that is really educating kids with a misguided view that this
is not a serious matter when they start flirting with,
experimenting with, or walking down a path that for all too
many of them can get them in an situation of dependency and
destruction.
Senator Brownback. That just seems to me to be such a key
issue to really set that standard clear for teens because if
you could catch it at that point or stop it at that point, we
can stop our problems from being magnified so much more later
on.
In my home State, methamphetamine is a major issue and a
major problem. Last year, law enforcement seized over 700 labs
in the State of Kansas. This year, we are on track to do even
more when this year is completed.
Have you given much thought to this problem and how you
would be addressing it?
Mr. Walters. Not as much as I would like to and would be
able to do after consulting with folks, if the Senate sees fit
to confirm me. I think the extent of this problem obviously has
emerged since I left office, and the severity we see today.
I have been encouraged, though, in the conversations I have
had that I do think that again the HIDTA program, which was
small when we started the Office, has been a helpful program in
bringing Federal, State and local law enforcement resources
together to respond more quickly to some of these, especially
in rural areas or in areas where the resources both for cleanup
of toxic chemicals as well as simply law enforcement and
treatment resources in some cases have not been available when
small areas get overrun.
This is incredibly fluid. It is obviously capable of being
a market and manufacture that can have very small, very quickly
moved, very quickly developed suppliers. And I think we also
need to do a better job of explaining the scope and dangers of
the problem to the American public that it has now grown, it is
now visible.
There is a tendency, I think, here to be a little bit slow.
I also think there is a sensible tendency to not make every new
drug or trend the top danger because people get weary of that,
and I think it is calling ``wolf'' when you shouldn't. But I do
think that is not the case here and I don't believe we have the
understanding yet in the public mind of exactly how extensive,
dangerous, what the growth has been and it is more serious.
So we need to put more attention on it, but the specifics
of how you would address it I would reserve to the kind of
conversations--I mean, I would intend to have them with members
of the committee and Congress, as well as with State and local
officials that are dealing with both supply and demand issues
out there.
Senator Brownback. It is a key issue for us. I hope we are
able to move the nomination forward aggressively and I think
you are going to do a wonderful job in that position, given the
past record of the successes that you have had there. We need
to really redouble this effort of drug use and getting on top
of that in this country.
Mr. Walters. Thank you, sir.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Senator.
John, would you move HIDTA out of ONDCP?
Mr. Walters. My inclination now would not to. I don't think
that is a likelihood. I do think that as we expand some of
these programs--and I would like to be able to consider, with
the consultation of Congress if I were confirmed, expanding
some of these programs perhaps significantly as a way of
delivering resources, not only the HIDTA program in the Office,
but, of course, we have the ad campaign, we have the community
coalitions, we have some other programs that are run by the
Office.
And there have been, as you know, GAO investigations and
reports about the proper management and staffing of these and
whether the Office has the expertise or should have the lead
for some of these. I do think that with--again, I don't think
this is something where there is any need for any kind of
conflict over, but I do think that we need to improve the
staffing of some of these programs and maybe either create a
cooperative arrangement with other agencies or expand those
that already exist for contract and grant management, or in
some cases look at other ways of delivering the resources and
monitoring and managing them so that we don't have some of the
problems of the past.
In some ways, it has grown. When I left the Office, it was
roughly 145 people. It essentially had the HIDTA program, which
was smaller, but it did policy, budget and the coordination
job. Now, it is $500 million in discretionary funds, as you
well know, and it still has about 140 people and it is supposed
to be doing what it did before, plus all these discretionary
grants.
I know people work hard there. I am actually more of a
champion of bureaucrats, I know, than is common. I have worked
well with career Federal civil servants for most of my career
in Government and I admire them and they work very hard. But I
think we have got to look at whether we are going to need
relief, especially if we are going to expand some of those.
Senator Biden. Well, prior to this you have had a rational
position that said, I assume, because there were so few people
relative to the grant authority, that, without reading all your
quotes back to you--I hope they don't read my quotes back to me
someday, but you did at one point think that the grant
authority should be turned back to the appropriate agencies not
within the shop that may become your shop.
Are you saying now, which is a legitimate thing, either we
should turn these programs back or we are going to increase
your staffing, one of the two? Is that realistically what we
are faced with from your perspective?
Mr. Walters. It may be possible to expand the support
provided by other agencies for a part of the grant program. I
want to be clear on this point because I think these programs
are central to the mission of the Office and the overall
effort. It is not a substitute for what is done in HHS or
Justice. You understand what I am saying here, but the
integrity and fidelity to purpose and effectiveness of the
program is first and foremost. Any change in staffing, I think,
has to be obviously and rationally designed to make those work.
Also, they are all programs that provide resources to
people out in the country to do the real work. We have to
consult with them. You created the Office. You know it is not
just a requirement or a hoop. The Office can't work without
that kind of consultation because it can't sit back and think
of things and tell other people to do them. It has to be able
to work with the knowledge that people in the field have of
what is going to work.
Senator Biden. Well, that is one of the reasons we have the
shop. I have been maybe chairman or ranking member of the
Foreign Relations Committee too long, but you are sounding like
a State Department guy in that answer.
It seems to me, and I think this is logical, you point out
that the amount of the grant authority, the responsibility
given to ONDCP for programs like drug-free community support,
the youth anti-drug media campaign, HIDTA programs, counter-
drug technology assessment, all programs that the Congress
rightly or wrongly--I think rightly--thought should be funded,
like HIDTA for dealing with the problem in your State, which I
might add when we were back in those days I wrote a report
saying ice is coming and it was coming in your way, and no one
wanted to listen to it at the time--it wasn't made a priority
because guess what? They were doing it in vans, mixing the
stuff in vans on the thoroughfares and the freeways in
California and it got too hot for them, so they moved to areas
where it would work. They went and polluted Montana, and then
Montana came down on them and they moved into the Midwest, Iowa
first and then your State. And it is all predictable.
I have got more bad news for you: heroin is coming to your
high school like you have never seen before in your life. I
wrote a report two years ago. No one paid any attention to it,
no one wants to hear it, but it is coming. It is so pure they
can now smoke it. It is the way in which crack got introduced
in those communities. And John is right about it.
It was two guys, a guy named--I won't mention his name
again, but a guy, a senior black Congressman in the House and a
senior white Senator here, me, who were the guys that came up
with that crack penalty. The intention of the crack penalty was
to try to save African-American communities. All the experts we
consulted told us that this was what we had to do.
The reason crack multiplied so greatly is that you found
that prior to crack, there were more male addicts than female
addicts. That became a great equalizer; it became one-to-one.
Why? Women didn't have to snort that stuff and distort their
nostrils and have their eyes blurry and all those things they
didn't like to have happen to them. They could smoke it, and
they could do it real quickly and get a high. All of a sudden,
we had within a matter of five years as many women addicts as
we had men addicts.
Now, the same thing is happening with heroin. They are
going to get these high school kids using heroin because, guess
what? You can smoke it. It is over 90-percent pure. It is what
they called chasing the dragon back in the 1910-1920 era. It is
so pure you can smoke it and you literally follow the smoke and
inhale it. It is that pure. During the Nixon administration
when I first got here, we were talking about heroin from Mexico
with 6-percent purity.
So it is coming and they are giving it to these high school
kids. They are giving it to them to get them going. And if you
think you have got a problem getting someone off of these other
drugs, you get a poly-abuser who is a heroin abuser and you are
talking a long time.
My point, John, is I know you know all that. My point is
that we have these programs now and you have made an accurate
observation about them. So what are you going to propose as a
solution?
The solution can't be I am going to keep the same number of
people I have and I am going to be able to administer it very,
very well. It is either going to be I have got to increase my
administrative capacity or I have got to move the programs out.
So what are you saying? That is what I am trying to get to.
Mr. Walters. Senator, I understand, but I also want to be
fair to the consultation issue here. I have not been able to
talk to the program people. I have not been able to talk
systematically to the people who receive these grants and work
with them. I have talked to some people in those regards, but
to be fair I would need to have--my intention would be the
following.
I have no intention at this point in time, nor do I know of
one in the administration, to move these programs out of ONDCP.
I would like, though--I think it is incumbent upon the Office
to deal with some of the management issues that have been
raised in past GAO reports and in other committee reports about
the management of these programs; also, as a part of a review
of the drug strategy, to look at the shape of the future of
these programs that we would like to propose.
But to do that, I also need to be able to talk to the
program people, the people outside and inside Government, you
and your staff and other members of Congress and their staff
that are relevant here. These are very effective, very
important programs, and not just because somebody says they are
effective.
But I believe that the media program, the community
coalitions program, the HIDTA program, the CTAC program are all
programs that have produced front-page results, as you know,
and not always recognized for the effort. So I am not, and I
don't think I have ever indicated that I would be willing to
damage the programs. But in order to maintain the integrity of
the programs and the proper management, you are right,
something has to give. There has to be some different people or
structure.
Senator Biden. No, I am not suggesting you would damage the
programs. I suggest we have a difference of point of view as to
where the programs are most likely to get the most attention
and be administered with the greatest efficacy.
When we wrote this law, one of the reason we put some of
these programs with your office is so that you would have
control because we lacked the faith that other institutions,
great institutions, would have the time or interest. It is not
among their highest priorities.
You are going to cure cancer at NIH. At HHS, you want to be
able to have an anthrax vaccine. That is going to trump HIDTA.
Over at the Justice Department, putting the program in the
Justice Department that relates to--and I am not sure you think
it is a good program--relates to reaching out to teens about
not using drugs--if you put that over in Justice, it is going
to get trumped by task forces to go after the Mafia and it is
going to get trumped by other things.
So the reason they were put in your office was that it
would be the only thing on your agenda. So let's not make--I
know you don't mean to, but I want to make sure there is a
philosophic reason they were put there. I don't have any doubt
you support the program, or some of the programs, HIDTA, for
example. I don't doubt you support it. My argument would be if
you transfer it, you dilute it because no one is going to take
as good care of it and view it as high a priority as it is
within your shop. So that is where we may have a philosophic
difference.
So, understand, if you are confirmed and if you go to
transfer it, you are going to have me all over you. That
doesn't mean I will win, but this is going to be holy war if
you want to do that because I think the best way for it to be
effective in the Midwest is if it is administered by you, not
administered by Justice, not administered by HHS, not
administered by anybody else.
I know you know this, but a lot of people don't know this
who don't spend as much time in this as you or I do where the
philosophic ground maybe doesn't meet here. That is the reason
why I was asking you about whether or not you would transfer 93
percent of your budget out of your budget, because 93 percent
of your budget is this grant authority. That is 93 percent of
your budget.
I don't know what heft or clout you have. Once you transfer
that, I am not quite sure where you go from there. That is the
only point I want to make. I understand about efficacy and
efficiency, but it also goes to who has the greatest interest
in making sure that the programs, in fact, function well.
Anyway, I don't want to argue with you about it, just so
you understand my view.
Mr. Walters. Senator, let me just say I don't believe we
have a philosophical difference about this.
Senator Biden. Okay. Now, one of the things that I have
thought--and I may be wrong about this; obviously, I may be
wrong. My sense is that one of the reasons why the tone you
take when talking about treatment--let me just put it that
way--is different than the tone that Kleber takes--and it is
different, by the way--or that I take or that other people
take--and there are a lot of people who agree with you on tone
as well as substance--is that I get the sense that you think if
we talk too much about treatment working, we are going to
provide a front-end crutch to the non-user who is considering
using who can say to himself or herself, well, you know, they
tell me this is dangerous and they tell me this could become
addictive and they tell me this is bad, but, you know, if I try
it and if I get addicted, I know I can get cured because I can
get treatment.
Is that part of your thinking? I don't mean is that the
dominant theme, but I mean does that play in anywhere when you
talk about this liberal society that views the--I forget the
phraseology, but you know it better than I do. Is that part of
it at all?
Mr. Walters. Thank you for letting me respond to that. That
is not my view. I have in the course of my writings, as your
staff may have seen--I don't expect anyone to read all my
writings--not even my mother--but I have been critical in the
course of discussing policy of all aspects of drug control
policy. And I haven't met anybody who works in these fields,
frankly, that doesn't think we can't do a better job and has
their own recommendations for reform.
I support treatment. We had a little bit of a discussion of
this when you were out of the room, so I want to be fair. My
recollection of the fights, as I understood them, both inside
the executive branch and with the Congress about funding and
about resources was that we weren't bashful, and that I
recognized that we did not always meet the proposals that you
had. I still have a complete collection of your drug control
strategies.
Senator Biden. By the way, I am not suggesting I was right
about it all, okay? So let's make that clear.
Mr. Walters. I want to be clear, and this is something that
has been frustrating in the period of nomination when I can't
speak publicly, and I appreciate this opportunity to do so.
I support treatment. I have supported treatment. I have
worked hard to make programs like the capacity expansion
program work, to build the initial--at a time when, quite
honestly, Senator, I think we actually were in more agreement,
when there were big parts of the Federal Government that wanted
to talk about treatment but not really deliver the resources,
or didn't really want to implement the programs effectively or
wanted to implement them, apropos of your comment about where
the programs are in ONDCP, and say, oh, yes, sure, give us the
money over here and we will put it in another part of the
department where we want the resources to go. That is why I
said I don't think we have a philosophical difference on that
issue.
I support treatment. What I have partly tried to write
about, and obviously not clearly enough in some ways or we
wouldn't be having this discussion, is everybody says we are
for treatment, prevention, law enforcement and research. But as
you know, because we sat in a room like this with less people
behind us and talked about this in hearings, they don't work
that way.
They believe there is one thing, or they don't really care
about the other thing. I genuinely, and I know you do, believe
that you have to make the parts work, and the hard part of the
job is to maintain that coherence between the parts that have
to work here, to get the law enforcement system to divert
people into treatment, to help sort the treatment system to
help go out and work with people that need the resources. If
they need outpatient, that is one thing. If they need
residential treatment or if they need after-care, that is
another, or need mental health services.
You and I understand that the tendency to talk about this
for shorthand that we have to have in a public debate masks the
very serious problem in managing and apportioning and
regulating the resources so that we get people treated and
don't just walk away and say, well, we are for treatment, so we
have solved that problem. The same is true of, I think, some of
the other parts of this problem.
But if I have left the impression that I don't believe in
efficacy or don't support treatment, I did not intend to mean
that. That is not my view, and I think my work inside the
administration, and frankly my work, the limited amount I have
with donors now in the private sector--most of that is in
regard to treatment programs, frankly.
Senator Biden. Well, it is not only me, as you know, that
has wondered about your notions about treatment. I will ask
unanimous consent--it is easy to do, since I am the only one
here--that a letter from the president of the Betty Ford Center
be entered in the record.
I will just read one partial paragraph from it. It says,
``Mrs. Ford and I are convinced that Mr. Walters may not have
the confidence in the treatment and prevention strategies that
we believe are necessary for the creation and implementation of
a balanced and thoughtful to U.S. drug policy.''
I am not going to question you on it, but I will make a
copy available to you.
There are other folks you have worked with who--well, let
me put it this way. One of the things that we used to debate
and I wonder if we could raise it--we debated it lot with Bill
Bennett as well--in the days when you guys were running the
show under Bennett and I used to raise this issue of treatment,
you all kept talking about diverting people to treatment.
I used to always point out that there are enough people in
every city in America who walk in voluntarily every single day,
not having been diverted at all, who are committing crimes,
because they have to commit crimes to maintain their habit--it
doesn't justify the crime--who walk in, raise their hand and
say take me. You know, like ``take me before I kill again.''
Take me. And they are told in New York City and my little city
to come back in a week, a month or six months.
So this notion that we have to divert people into
treatment--we do; it is a good thing to divert people into
treatment. That is what the drug courts do. That is what we are
doing with in-prison treatment programs, et cetera. We used to
have this debate that, well, our effort has to be to divert.
Don't we have to just make available the good treatment
because there are so many people out there seeking it?
Mr. Walters. In many places, yes, I think that is true.
Senator Biden. Can you name me a big city in America over
300,000 people that is able to handle those who voluntarily
walk in the door on the basis that if they come, there is
treatment available for them? For the record, check it out. I
would be surprised and pleased if you could name me a single
city in America that can do that. I sure can't think of a rural
area.
The rate of increased drug use is greater in rural America
than it is in the inner city. And there is a simple reason for
that. I mean, Aromingo Avenue is already occupied in
Philadelphia. All the drug dealers have it. You go and try to
get a corner there and you got shot dead. I mean, literally,
you get shot dead.
So why not go to Harrington, Delaware? You know, you don't
have to compete with anybody. Why not go to Aberdeen, Maryland?
Why not go to these small cities and towns? And there is no
treatment available in those places. All my friends and your
friends behind you are cops. If you ask them if they could
increase their law enforcement force by 5 percent or they could
increase the number of treatment facilities they had in the
district they cover by 25 percent, which would they take, I
will lay you 8 to 5 they would all take the increased treatment
facilities. That is all I get from my cops in rural areas: Joe,
I got no place to put these folks. There is no place for them
to go.
So talk to me about that. I mean, what about that? Are we
short on treatment facilities for people?
Mr. Walters. Sure. I think that is part of the reason why
the President proposed as an initial start the increase in the
treatment program and directed the assessment for both the
delivery of those resources, but also the shaping of a more
comprehensive system, with the Federal Government taking a lead
here that I believe is unprecedented from any President at the
beginning of this term with that kind of commitment.
Now, is that going to solve all the problems? Of course, it
is not going to solve all the problems, but it is a start that
we can begin to work with. I think the conversations I have had
with some of the people behind me that are not cops but are
working in treatment-providing--they support that and they
support the desire to deploy those resources with the necessary
focus on needs and to work on the problem of providing those
resources in rural areas or widely diffused areas where it is
much harder to get the kind of especially multi-modality
treatment and other kinds of services in tandem when you have
people that need them and their recovery is going to depend on
a multiplicity of modalities, from mental health to different
kinds of treatment, whether it is outpatient or residential or
assistance with recovery in the community. So we have to also
do this in a way that looks at the contours of the need and
tries to provide resources that are deployable by the people
that are facing these needs.
Senator Biden. Can we talk about what constitutes
successful treatment for a minute? I have really spent a lot of
my adult life trying to figure this out. My observation has
been that we hold as a measure of success the treatment
community to a standard that we hold very few other people.
For example, we don't hold the education system in America,
notwithstanding all our new focus on education and testing, to
a success rate that requires a 90-percent success rate. In a
number of inner-cities, the graduation rate of people when they
start school and finish school is less than 50 percent. We
don't go shut the schools down. In most schools in America, it
averages about 70 percent. We don't shut the schools down.
Yet, when I talk about treatment and measure success on
that they have been drug-free for 5 years, and you get numbers
that are in the 40-, 50- and 60-percent range, that program is
declared a failure. I bet most of the audience out there would
think it is a failure. If I said you have got a drug treatment
program that 50 percent of the people stayed drug-free for 5
years, they would say, oh, that is a failure, shut it down. Why
waste taxpayers' money on that?
Yet, if I said that about schools in your area, shut it
down, and by the way, have those kids go to no school, just
have them wander the streets, I wonder how many of the folks
out in the audience would say, yes, I guess we should do that.
Or on Defense Department over-spending, you know, if you go
above 30 percent of your budget, shut down the operation. We
wouldn't go very far.
So I am confused by what people mean by and what you mean
by--I am not confused by you. I am confused by what you would
view as a successful treatment program. Is success only
measured in that once the person goes through the treatment
program and finishes it, they never again encounter an illicit
substance, or is there some other measure?
One other point I will make to you and then I want to hear
your general response. I have argued for years that a program
that keeps someone in treatment for six months--and I used to
know this stuff cold when I did it every single day; I don't do
it every single day anymore. Back 5, 6 years ago, the numbers,
if my memory serves me correctly, were if you are in a
treatment program for 6 months--by the way, the average
addicted person in America--and we are talking about roughly 4
million hard-core users.
If you have got those 4 million hard-core users--and you
hear numbers that vary--they have to commit somewhere between
90 and 150, depending on whose number you pick, offenses a
year, mostly felonies, to keep their habits going.
The way I have kind of looked at this, in addition to
whether or not we cure people of their problem, is that if you
have someone in treatment--and I forget the exact numbers now,
but my recollection was that they were committing while in
treatment 85 percent fewer crimes than they would if they were
out of treatment, even though they weren't cured.
Now, I used to always say to my cop friends, how many cops
do you need to calculate the ability to reduce the number of
crimes committed by an addict by 85 percent? And if, in fact,
you put that addict in jail, you are talking about a $30,000-a-
year bill to keep them in jail. Isn't it just smarter, even if
it is having them tread water, to have all these folks in
treatment?
While they are in treatment, it is about one-fifth the cost
of putting them in prison and they are committing only--I will
correct the record on this, but considerably fewer crimes. So
doesn't it just make sense, even if you didn't want to do
anything else, to just put them all in treatment and vastly
increase the treatment programs, even the ones that aren't
working so well, and get everybody into treatment who is out
there, everybody who puts their hand up and says I want to be
in treatment?
I mean, if the numbers are correct, it is well over 50
percent fewer crimes they commit while in treatment and it
costs considerably less than--I think it is a fifth of what it
costs to put them in jail. So why doesn't that just make sense
even if we weren't curing them? Why wouldn't that make sense as
public policy?
Mr. Walters. I think expanding treatment does make sense.
Senator Biden. I mean, significantly expanding treatment.
Mr. Walters. I am not even opposed to significantly
expanding treatment. You know, what level we are talking about
I am not precisely sure, but--
Senator Biden. I am not either.
Mr. Walters. One reservation about what you have said, and
I think this is consistent with most of the people I have
talked to, from Dr. Kleber, to Dr. Barthwell, the President's
nominee to be the new deputy, demand reduction, to some of the
people I introduced at the beginning that are here.
I think success rates, to get to the first part of your
question first, ought to be measured, and we tried to do this
when we were in office, by a scale that looks at the condition
of the individual when they come into treatment so that we are
comparing people with similar problems when we look at the
results of the treatment they are receiving.
Secondly, I think that partly to sustain this--you know how
hard this is in Congress and you know how hard it is out in
localities for the contribution--that our goal is always going
to have to be we would like to get people in recovery and keep
them in recovery.
But we are also a country, I think, that does believe in
this case not only in second, third and fourth chances, but
fifth and sixth chances. What we don't want is a demoralizing
of the system where it can be characterized as, well, we cycle
them through a program where the quality is low and the
resources aren't there, when we should be putting them in the
best program we can have, which is not to say unless you have
the top of the line you shouldn't give treatment.
We have to be able to make prudent judgments about this,
but I think now the criminal justice system, and more the
public health system, wants to put more people into treatment.
It does not want to incarcerate drug addicts, and I don't think
the system does as much of that as some of the critics say.
Now, I have been involved in the Office and privy to all the
discussions.
Senator Biden. I am not even making the argument, John. I
am not making the Durbin argument here. I am not making the
argument that we are incarcerating people who shouldn't be
incarcerated. That is not what I am saying. I am just making an
argument about my physical safety and the safety of my wife in
the parking lot of the Acme tonight, in Wilmington, Delaware,
when she finishes teaching school. That is what I am talking
about.
I am talking about when you have somebody, there is one of
two things. You are either going to be in prison or in
treatment, because when they are on the street they are a
menace to my wife, they are a menace to my daughter, they are a
menace to my sons. So even though it may be a disease of the
brain, it doesn't matter. If they hit my wife in the head to
take her purse, whether their brain is diseased and/or their
morals are non-existent, I don't give a darn. They hit my wife
in the head, so I have got a problem, I have got a problem. So
how do we deal with that?
One of things that I think we waste a lot of time on here--
not you and I, but we in the community that debates all this--
is we waste a lot of time on looking for this silver bullet. We
are recycling people through the prison system. We say, well,
we have no problem with that. We recycle them through.
If I am not mistaken, the number used to be somewhere in
excess of 250,000 people a year walk through a gate with a $10
bus ticket coming out of a State prison to get back to where
they came from after having served their time addicted as they
walk out the gate, as they walk out the gate. In other words,
they have served their time, but they had drugs available in
prison. They are addicted as they walk through the gate. They
get on the bus and they are an accident waiting to happen.
So I just wonder why we don't broaden the discussion here
about treatment in terms of the efficacy of even the bad
programs relative to what the cost of the alternatives are and
relative to how it increases my safety.
If God came down and sat in the middle of the table and
said, Joe, what would you like, I would say, well, I would like
you to take that piece of the brain out that allows people to
be addicted, that gets them hooked. But, second, God, I will
tell you I have another one. I have got just a little request
for you. Take every single drug addict in the State of Delaware
right now and tomorrow morning have them go into treatment,
every single one, the hardest hard-core. I know by that act
alone I have reduced crime in my city by a lot.
Even, God, if you are going to recycle everyone that has to
be recycled in 6 months, it is cheaper for me. I don't have to
spend as much money in the prison system. I eliminate some of
my social problems, creating this class distinction that exists
now, because more blacks are in prison than whites relative to
their use, and so on.
I wonder why we don't ever talk about it that way, why this
is the only area--and I am going to yield to my friend from
Alabama now, but the only area where we apply a moral judgment.
I tried to figure for the longest time why people wouldn't be
willing--if God could absolutely come down and guarantee to
everyone what I just said was absolutely true, we would still
have resistance. And I think the resistance is sort of our
Protestant work ethic kind of notion, which is not a bad thing.
It is a good thing; it has made this country.
But it is sort of like, you know, why should I take my
money out of my pocket to help that guy over there who made a
conscious decision before his brain was affected by the drug to
go ahead and use this drug, causing him to do bad things to me
and my family? I come back and say, well, because he will do
fewer bad things.
But I want to punish him. I can't blame people. I want to
punish him, I want to punish him. I say, well, the punishment
part isn't working too well. It is costing you a lot more money
and it is not working too well. Do you know the reason why
those long sentences work? Guess what? When they are in jail,
they can't hurt anybody. That is not a bad thing. So with these
long sentences, you are in jail.
So I used to always say you do one of two things with these
4 million addicts, or one of three things. You go out and shoot
them, shoot them dead, so they are gone and they can't do
anything bad to anybody anymore, including themselves. You lock
them up forever, or you figure out how to reduce their
dependency. You try to cure them or reduce their dependency.
I don't know what other options we have. These folks are
already beyond the pale. There are 4 million of them and they
are committing a couple hundred crimes a year. That is a lot of
crimes. So to me, in a sense, John, the more I deal with this,
the simpler it gets to me. I don't know if that is the first
sign of real ignorance that it is getting simple to me, but I
don't know why we never discuss treatment in the context of
when you are in treatment, you are not committing crimes, or at
least as many. Isn't that all by itself a rationale?
You can respond if you would like. You don't have to, to my
little diatribe here, and I yield to my friend from Alabama,
who engages in diatribes like me and that is why I like him.
Mr. Walters. If I can just say one thing in that regard,
and it is not at all to capture everything that you were
getting at here, but what my goal was, and I think the
colleagues I was honored to work with when I was in the Office,
was to try to bring some structure to tying what we did and
what the results were to central principles--I think the
central principle here is use; crime is obviously related to
this, and the costs--and to tie these back to what we are asked
to put in the system, how people can make a legitimate judgment
about is the system producing real results and what are they.
That is why I said earlier what I did about over-promising.
I think there is a tendency even in treatment to not be
realistic. In my experience, a 50-percent success rate for a
random treatment program is outstanding. Five years drug-free
is outstanding. If we even had the existing number of programs
that were able to perform at that level, I think we would be in
a different situation now. I would be happy to check that.
So I don't have unrealistic demands here, but I do think
that part of the support for this is to gain the public support
and the support of national leaders at all levels. And I know
private people have done this, but I think we still have a lot
to do about what is really being achieved, what is realistic,
and what are the results.
And if we can make that case, I think everybody wants
solutions to this. They don't want to see people continually
addicted. They know that drugs and crimes are the central
destroyer of innocent and disadvantaged people's lives in this
country. What they want to know is, is it really making a
difference?
And you are right. Maybe it is and they don't understand
that, but that is where we have to try to reach a consensus and
then stand together, I would hope, and make that a matter of
common public understanding and support. If we can do that, I
am not saying we can just revolutionize everything overnight,
but we will make headway that is most important.
But we have to tie what we do in supply, what we do in
demand, what we do in prevention and treatment to standards
that people say--too many times, as you know, these discussions
come down to are you really personally committed to this as an
objective, and everybody's personal commitment doesn't
necessarily easily transfer to other people.
We want to be hard-headed and pragmatic about this. This
produces results. These are the consequences of these results.
You ought to have more confidence in the people that are
delivering these services than we currently do, and this is how
we can help them and this is what we can expect as an outcome.
Senator Biden. Well, if you do that, that is great. As you
will observe, with all the documents I have thrust upon you
over the years, you have never once heard me use the phrase
``war on drugs,'' not one single time, because it is over-
promising when you talk about a war on drugs.
Number two, I would make the observation that I bet none of
you know anyone who is over the age of 25 who doesn't have a
family member, a neighbor, a friend or a coworker who has a
son, daughter, husband, wife, nephew, niece that doesn't have a
drug problem. I have never known one single one of those
persons who hasn't said to whomever they are talking to, their
friend, or to me how can I get my child, my friend, my neighbor
in treatment?
Whether they are blue-collar or they are white-collar,
whether they are princes or whether they are princes, they all
immediately say I have got to get my kid to treatment. So I
think there is more of a consensus out there than you think.
And the last point I will make, and I promise I won't say
another thing on this, is the good news for both of us when we
started this little undertaking back in the 1990s was when you
asked the American people what was the single biggest problem
they faced, they said drugs. So that communicated to every
member of the Congress, every member of the Senate, and I could
have gone out, and I did, and asked for more money than you
wanted, forced money on you you didn't want and was able to get
everybody to vote for it and the President would sign it.
The same with the crime bill. When I wrote the crime bill,
that was the number one thing on everybody's mind. Then violent
crime went down 6 to 8.5 percent per year the last 7 years
during, I might add, the Clinton administration. You know, you
give him credit for the other stuff going up and you have got
to give him credit for the crime going down. You can't pick and
choose. Do you know what I mean? It is called the principled
rationale for something. So, you know, they are responsible for
drugs going up and violent crime coming down, okay?
Now, do you know what the problem here is? This guy and I
disagree, but we agree on law enforcement stuff. We have
trouble getting them to fund crime on the floor now. These
don't understand that it is like cutting grass. They think
because we have got crime down now, we don't have to spend as
much money. What it really means if we have got to spend more
money, not less, to get it down.
It is like cutting grass. I cut my grass in the middle of
the summer and it looks great. These guys around this shop that
I work in say the grass is cut, get rid of the lawn mower; you
don't need it anymore. Crime and drugs are like cutting grass;
you have got to do it every single day. You have got to keep
spending money on it. But around this place where we work, and
among Presidents, former and probably future Presidents, that,
hey, we have got that problem taken care of, let's move on. And
it is the exact opposite.
So part of our problem we are going to have here is we are
going to even have trouble getting money, I suspect, for what
you agree we need more money for, what the President says we
need more money for, and what most experts say we need more
money for. It is going to be a battle. By the way, we cut the
COPS program. We cut the funding for these other programs now
because I guess the grass looks good now. But I want to tell
you a lot of weeds are on their way.
I just think we have got to have a better consensus among
those of us who stay in this, like the Senator from Alabama and
myself and you and others, day in and day out about what we
mean by success, what we mean by an adequate treatment, and
what we mean when we say that we are committed to the idea of
increased treatment.
The thing I am not even going to ask you about now and I am
going to submit questions to you on is how do we stop people in
the first place. I haven't figured that one out. Moral
disapprobation is a big, big deal, and societal attitudes a big
deal, the single biggest reason why I think drug consumption
goes down.
By the way, even in the last administration we were down
from 25 million users to 15 million users. That is 10 million
down; up with teens, down overall. That happened in the last 8
years, I might add. So that is down, but how do we get it down
further? I support DARE, but DARE is not enough. As I matter of
fact, I dare say we have got to do a heck of a lot more with
DARE to make it work better.
So I have questions about what your ideas are. I don't
expect an answer, a silver bullet. I expect an opinion or view
as to what you think those things are to keep these kids from
getting into the crime and drug stream in the first place. It
is pretty tough stuff, but I think part of it is, day in, day
out, keeping the pressure on the entertainment industry,
keeping the pressure on ourselves, keeping the pressure on
parents and educating parents.
Again, I tried for six years to get date rape drugs moved
up a class. This committee stopped that, by the way. They
wouldn't go for that. The last administration didn't push it.
I wrote a report on Ecstasy a little over a year ago saying
we have got a big problem with Ecstasy.
Parents were happy their kids were using Ecstasy and said,
well, at least you are not using this. Ecstasy actually kills
the brain cells. We have got a problem, but parents don't
understand it.
Do you know what I tell parents when I go to speak at all
these schools at these parent-teacher meeting things? I say
look for two things, extra bottles of water in your kid's car,
pacifiers next to their bed, and funny little decals that have
like Mercedes and things on them. They say, well, that is in my
house. No one told them.
You have got a 15-year-old or a 19-year-old kid with a
pacifier in his room and you know the boy is on Ecstasy. You
don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Parents
don't know that. All of a sudden everybody is carrying around
bottled water. Yes, part of it is a trend. You go in the back
of your kid's car and he has got four empty water bottles. You
ought to start thinking about it.
At any rate, I yield to my friend the rest of the time.
Senator Sessions. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Biden.
You have indeed throughout this whole drug war for the most
part been one of the champions of doing something and improving
our effort. As a Federal prosecutor for many years, a lot of
things that you passed here I can assure you were very, very
helpful.
I think it is appropriate for us, Mr. Walters, to look much
more intensely at treatment because we do have a lot of people
that are addicted. We do have some good treatment programs in
prisons and some good treatment programs around the country.
They are very, very expensive, but not a hundred-percent
successful. We can debate how much, but a lot of people are
just not able to stop drug use.
An Assistant United States Attorney called me into the
conference room and said I would like you to meet this
individual. He was being prosecuted for armed robbery. He had
been in jail, he had gone through treatment, he had gotten
religion and had married. He got out, got a job.
This is what she told me; she said I just want you to hear
this story. He said, I got out, I worked for two weeks, I got
my first paycheck. I was going down the street to get some
clothes, and he said I just kept right on going and I ended up
back buying crack, getting addicted all over again, getting
arrested for armed robbery, probably serving 15 or 20 years in
jail. It just brings tears to your eyes. I mean, it was really
sad.
I guess having spent an extraordinary amount of my time for
12 years as United States Attorney dealing with these issues, I
am a little berserk on them, a little intense about them. We
met for one year once a week every Thursday afternoon to
discuss it. I was active in the Drug Coalition for a Drug-Free
Mobile, the Partnership for Youth. We built those
organizations. It was all part, I think, of a cultural climate
against drugs.
My first comment is that we ought not to be too tough on
ourselves. I think if we recapture some of the things that
worked to see these numbers go down, I think we can see them go
down again.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Walters. I agree.
Senator Sessions. You are cautiously optimistic, could I
say?
Mr. Walters. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. Well, we are going to look at that.
General McCaffrey and I had cross words, but his numbers later
on went down. They weren't going down for a while when he
started. But I think ultimately we will judge you on whether or
not you can reverse some unhealthy trends.
Let me ask this: Eric Holder, the former Deputy Attorney
General, was a Federal judge here in D.C., and as a result they
drug-tested everybody that was arrested. As I understand it,
whether it is shoplifting, whether it is petty theft, whether
it is armed robbery or drug dealing, you get about the same
percentage of people testing positive for drug use when they
are arrested, no matter what the crime is.
Usually, it is about two-thirds, is that correct?
Mr. Walters. It has varied over time, but, yes, a high rate
of people are testing positive for drug use.
Senator Sessions. I guess my question would be isn't that a
good way to find out those people whose criminality has been
accelerated by drug use by testing them upon arrest? Therefore,
then the judge has certain powers over them, such as I will
release you on bail, but I want you to be drug-tested every
week, or I will give you probation, but I want you to continue
to report to the probation officer and be drug-tested because I
want you to stay free of drugs.
Is that a good strategy for reducing recidivism and drug
use?
Mr. Walters. Absolutely. In most systems, for many more
minor crimes, the person would not face any incarceration and
you could use the authority of the criminal justice system to
test, to refer them to treatment, to check on whether they are
looking for a job or continuing in their education. I think
this is a pretty proven method.
It needs to be managed. It is not cost-free, but there are
many dedicated people, some of whom are represented in this
room, or at least they were here when we started, who are
making those programs work. We have got to tell more of that
story, and I think everybody agrees we ought to find ways to
expand that effort.
Senator Sessions. Well, drug courts are sort of on that
model, although you don't have to have a drug court to do that.
Mr. Walters. That is right.
Senator Sessions. D.C. did that in the district right here
in Washington, D.C. The Federal court system tests everyone
that is arrested, and I think that ought to be done nationwide
because I don't see how a judge can make a decision about
whether to release somebody or to impose a sentence if they are
blithely unaware of whether or not the criminality is driven by
drug use, do you?
Mr. Walters. I agree.
Senator Sessions. That is what Eric Holder said. He thought
it was invaluable to him in analyzing that. So I am a big
supporter of that.
You will be able to work with the Department of Justice,
will you not?
Mr. Walters. I hope so. I mean, I don't have any reason to
believe I can't. I have worked a little bit before with
Attorney General Ashcroft when he was in this body. I know a
number of the people who are there, including the current head
of the FBI and some of the other folks working for Attorney
General Ashcroft.
Asa Hutchinson asked to see me prior to his confirmation
and we had a good conversation. I have not engaged in more
consultation because I thought it would be inappropriate until
I was confirmed, but I am quite optimistic about the
relationship between the Office and the Justice Department.
Senator Sessions. Now, they have a lot of money they spend
on research. In my view, it is astounding how many important
programs that we spend a lot of money on have not been properly
peer-reviewed and good data hasn't been done.
Do you think we could do a better job of getting quality
research on drug prevention, drug courts, and other kinds of
treatment programs?
Mr. Walters. Yes, with the caveat that I haven't reviewed
their programs. I think across the board, from my past
experience, we can do a better job both of focusing research in
many cases--I am not criticizing them, but we also need a
better job frequently of picking out the successful research
and following up or disseminating it because sometimes there is
a tendency not to be as aggressive in finding preliminary
solutions to problems people really have in the field and
getting it out to them and following up.
I think sometimes people can be in a program that has a
particular focus and they are doing things in a broad way, and
it is through no ill will or bad management, but when you look
at it from the point of view of the drug office, some things
look compatible with other programs on community support or
education or even other areas of law enforcement that will be
interesting.
So part of the idea of having people work together is not
just a cliche. It is a matter of--you are right--we are
spending a lot of money on Federal research across the board in
these areas and we need to be able to capitalize on that
investment, I think, more effectively.
Senator Sessions. It strikes me that the Federal Government
does not need to take over State and local law enforcement and
drug treatment. I mean, it has been done at that level. Ninety-
five percent, 97 percent of criminal cases on drugs are State
and local, I am sure. What we do has little overall impact in
the Federal courts.
But one of the great roles I think you can do is provide
good information to a community that is desperately trying to
improve its criminal justice system, its treatment programs and
its prevention programs, and put out the best-quality
information. I have talked to the Department of Justice about
this, the Office of Justice Programs and the research branch,
and I am still not sure it is practical enough for the people
who need to use it.
So would you consider it one of your responsibilities to
make sure that you are analyzing the research that is being
done, finding out what works and getting that information to
the local cities and counties and States that are actually
doing most of the anti-drug work in America?
Mr. Walters. Absolutely. I think we need to expand even the
direct connection between the drug office and people in States
and localities so that we are talking to them and they are
talking to us. But that also allows us to harvest valuable
results from Federal agencies and be aware of what we can
convey effectively.
So if confirmed, I would look forward to being even more
aggressive than we were when I was there last time in making
that kind of connection through the Office, because you are
right; it is a lot of potential and a lot of resources, and
sometimes actually a fairly good collection of valuable
material that we could convey, partly looking at ways in which
we can do it through clearinghouses, electronic print means.
Also, there are, as you know, a myriad of organizations
that are sensitive to the needs of providers in different areas
and people working in treatment or law enforcement or community
programs now that have been nurtured and developed partly with
Federal support, and with a lot of State and local and private
support as well.
We need to use those resources because they know what the
people in the field want. They are the people in the field and
they talk to them regularly. We should be more connected to
those people than we have been in the past.
Senator Sessions. You began working on drug matters with
the Department of Education in the mid-1980s. You were the
principal author of the Education Department's handbook
``Schools Without Drugs: A Guide for Effective Education and
Prevention Programs for Parents and Educators.'' Over 1 million
copies were distributed. You designed the Education
Department's recognition program, giving national attention to
local schools for effective drug programs. All of that, I
think, is excellent.
The funding that began a decade or so ago through drug-free
school programs, and so forth, are continuing today, are they
not?
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. But I have a sense that maybe the sense
of urgency that was there in the schools 15 years ago to really
make sure kids got a negative message about drugs or knew the
truth about drugs and the consequences may have slipped a bit.
Do you have any idea as to how you might reinvigorate the
education system nationwide and county school boards, over
which you have no direct control? How can you motivate them,
reenergize them to create this cultural consensus against drug
use?
Mr. Walters. I think, one, we need to sit down in a more
systematic way with our colleagues at the Department of
Education and bring in some of the representatives of
principals, teachers, administrators, school board, parents. I
think some of those people, from my limited contact, feel they
have been--in some cases, the programs have worked well. In
other places, people have felt disenfranchised. They are not
sure where the resources are in their school district.
Parents frequently mentioned, and have mentioned over the
years that they feel they are not involved; that the money goes
into a bureaucracy and either a trivial amount seems to come
down to the school or they are not sure what happens to it when
it comes down. So I think to examine what is really happening
with those resources, and also to better help the organizations
nationally that are trying to knit together these local efforts
so people are still going to do a good job, but they don't feel
they are alone, and to give them the resources.
The President has proposed an effort to try to do some
additional training of parents in drug prevention. He has
proposed additional support for community coalitions. I think
all those things have proven to be incredibly valuable and we
need to work with them. But we also should be able to work
effectively with leaders in the education community because I
don't believe anybody who works in an educational institution
today fails to understand the importance of protecting kids and
the consequences of not protecting kids in future crime and
addiction and lost lives.
Senator Sessions. Wouldn't you agree that perhaps a lot of
the schools are really not following through on programs today
as they were when they initially were funded the money and
probably need to be encouraged to reevaluate where they are?
Mr. Walters. Yes. I don't want to--
Senator Sessions. I am not being critical. It is just the
natural cycle of life.
Mr. Walters. Yes. My personal view is yes.
Senator Sessions. And how you energize them is a challenge
for you.
Mr. Walters. Yes, but I think that is partly the kind of
national leadership and cultural challenge of trying to say,
while this is not the only issue the Nation has to face today,
this remains an important issue. It remains one where you have
to rebuild the consensus, where you have to push back on the
cultural forces that have tended to trivialize or to undermine
the effort, and to have people stand together--national
leaders, State leaders, local leaders--to help parents.
The most common thing I hear from parents is I want people
to stop working against me in the culture. I want people to
stop sending messages over the entertainment media or not
wanting to talk about this at a PTA meeting or suggesting to my
kids when this comes up in the context where they are
supervising them that this isn't relevant.
Some of that is bad behavior by other parents sometimes,
but I think we need to guide people in establishing what
everybody wants, which is let's be responsible, let's be
serious, let's face this. This is an ongoing problem. As
Senator Biden said, it is like cutting the grass. Every
generation has to be educated. So you can't say, well, we have
done that and now we have got drug use down.
My great regret about leaving Government--and I frankly
didn't expect to return to Government--was that we didn't get
as far as I wish we could have and we didn't seem to be able to
institutionalize as much of it as I would have liked to
continue it. So it is a rare chance you get to come back and
perhaps do a job again and learn from your mistakes.
So I would like now both to drive the drug use down and the
consequences of it, but also to look more seriously at
sustaining the institutions that contribute to this so that the
long-term need can be dealt with and it doesn't have to become
a crisis and come back up to some kind of national crisis level
in order for us to get serious again.
Senator Sessions. Now, I trust that you support a law
enforcement role in fighting drugs. But from what I hear, the
way you are just discussing the overall campaign against drugs,
you believe that is just one part of the overall effort. Is
that correct? You are not here to say send me over there and I
am going to see how many people I can prosecute. You have got a
whole panoply of ideas for reducing drug abuse in America.
Mr. Walters. Yes, Senator. One of the annoying things about
some of the discussion in public of my record has been as if
the work I have done or the commitment I have made or the issue
I have pushed in regard to prevention and treatment didn't
exist. I have worked diligently, I hope, on law enforcement and
national security issues as part of my job as well.
As I think I know you agree from our conversation prior to
this hearing, the parts have to work together. We can't tell
young people not to use drugs and have open-air drug markets,
look the other way in our schools, not prosecute drug dealers,
and make clear that the law enforces the attitudes we are
teaching them and we say we care about.
That is why, despite some of the critics, I don't believe
my views are draconian on this. But I do believe that if you
think that law enforcement doesn't send an important
educational message, you are wrong. So we don't need draconian
law enforcement, but we need not to, in reaction to being
accused too harsh, say it doesn't make any difference at all.
Senator Sessions. I agree one hundred percent, and if you
live in a neighborhood where people are selling drugs quite
openly on the street corner and nobody ever arrests them or
nothing is ever done about it, the community is sending a
message to the young people in that neighborhood, aren't they?
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. They have basically, de facto, legalized
drugs.
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. So I wish putting people in jail could be
avoided, but I think the overall picture of this thing has got
to be focused on challenging city police departments and
Federal agents and others not to allow open sale of drugs,
don't you?
Mr. Walters. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. I know Bill Bennett was strong about
that, and I always felt that was critical. It takes a little
effort, but you can drive it underground. You can really make a
difference in the sale of drugs with effectively utilizing law
enforcement, in my view.
Mr. Walters. I agree.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think you have a balanced and
mature and experienced view of the drug effort. I hate to see
the phrase ``war against drugs'' eliminated. Maybe it is time
to do so. It has been out there since the early 1980s, but I
saw it that way as a prosecutor and as a leader in my community
for prevention programs and education programs. I saw teachers
really become energized about it and my children coming home
from school extremely hostile to drugs and smoking and
unhealthy habits. So I know we made some progress, and the
numbers showed it; the numbers went down.
I believe that you are one of those rare people that as a
young person got to see it firsthand and be in the pit of all
this. You have been out for a while and now you are asking to
come back in, and that maturity and experience is going to
stand you in good stead and I believe you will do a great job.
Is there anything you would like to share before we finish
up?
Mr. Walters. No, Senator. Thank you for the chance of being
heard. And if the Senate sees fit to act favorably on the
nomination--I am not just mouthing platitudes--I need, for all
the reasons we have discussed here, to be able to work in a
bipartisan way with the members of this committee. I think I
have done that in the past and I hope that we can do that again
because there are a lot of opportunities and I am very
optimistic.
But I know this job requires enlisting people's support up
here, as well as out in the country, to do well. And there was
no reason to come back in if I didn't think you could do the
job well because I have been blessed with a lot of other
opportunities. So I came back to do the job and I hope to be
able to do the best job possible, with the help of people like
yourself and your colleagues.
Senator Sessions. I certainly intend to support you, and
believe that you have a unique ability to bring us together in
a coherent focus against drugs that will result in reduced drug
use. The fewer that use, the fewer people that are going to be
addicted, the fewer people that are going to commit crimes as a
result of their addiction and their use. So this prevention,
all of which encompasses a lot of different efforts, is a key
thing.
Senator Biden has asked that I close out the hearing and
state that the record will remain open for a week for
additional questions and statements.
Senator Thurmond and Senator Grassley have asked that we
include their statements in the record and we will do so at
this point.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Strom Thurmond, a U.S. Senator from the State of
South Carolina
I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today on John
Walters, the President's nominee for Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy.
Mr. Walters is extremely qualified to serve in this capacity. He
has 15 years of experience in drug policy, working as Chief of Staff
and later as Deputy Director for Drug Interdiction at the ONDCP under
Bill Bennett. Prior to his service at ONDCP, he served in the
Department of Education, where he spearheaded drug prevention efforts.
It is essential that we fight the war on drugs on all fronts,
including prevention, treatment, prosecution and interdiction. Mr.
Walters understands that all of these aspects are critical to America
one day winning this war. Any criticism that he does not appreciate the
importance of treatment and prevention is misplaced.
This is a very important time in the war against drugs, not only at
home but abroad. The recent terrorist attacks have highlighted the role
illegal drugs plays in funding terrorism. Terrorists, including Osama
bin Laden's organization, use the proceedings of drug trafficking to
support and expand their efforts to promote death and destruction
around the world. We must do all we can to disrupt these operations.
The President needs his choice to be in place at ONDCP at this
critical time, and Mr. Walters is a proven leader who will do a fine
job for the President and for America. I look forward to his quick
confirmation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:]
Statement of Hon. Charles E. Grassley, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Iowa
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a brief statement in support John
Walters as the President's nominee to be the nation's drug czar.
I have known and worked with John for many years and know him to be
a man of great integrity and passion. If confirmed, he will serve the
country well as drug czar.
Mr. Chairman, you and I know only too well just how daunting a task
he faces, now more than ever. Not only do we as a nation have a major
drug use problem, we are increasingly facing a well-funded legalization
lobby. Legalization groups oppose John's confirmation and they have
organized a lobbying effort to block it. I can think of few things more
damaging to this country and the welfare of its citizens than
legalization of dangerous drugs, no matter what kind of benign face
legalizers try to put on their efforts.
John will oppose those efforts, a fact that has made the legalizers
even more determined to stop his nomination. It is a pressure we would
do well to resist.
That effort aside, I would like to comment briefly on why John is
more than qualified to lead the nation's counter drug programs.
As you and members of this committee know, he has a long and
distinguished record of engagement on this issue. He began working on
counter drug issues more than 10 years ago when he was with Bill
Bennett at the Department of Education. While there he did a lot to
promote prevention efforts. He then went with Secretary Bennett to the
newly created drug office, where first as chief of staff and then
Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, he helped frame and implement the
nation's first comprehensive counter drug strategy. That strategy saw a
major increase in the counter drug budget, including a near doubling of
the demand reduction budget.
Although some in their zeal to block his nomination skip over this
point, that strategy also helped to promote a major reduction in drug
use among the nation's young people. After leaving the Drug Czar's
office, he remained engaged on the issues. There are few people more
familiar with what needs to be done, here or overseas, by ourselves or
by our allies.
We need his experience, his integrity, and his toughness in these
trying times. We need his contribution whether we are talking about the
need to bolster our efforts in neighborhoods in Iowa, or Delaware, or
any of our communities ravaged by drugs. We need his toughness as we
engage our enemies, who use drugs to attack our well being from afar or
fund their international operations with drug money. Whether we are
talking the renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act or the renewal
of the Drug Free Communities Act, we need someone whose experience and
commitment covers this wide range of issues.
John's background and his acknowledged expertise on the drug issue
make him an ideal choice to carry out the President's agenda and our
nation's agenda. We need the kind of tough advocate on the drug issue
that John will be in the Administration. I strongly endorse John and
want to thank the Committee for the chance to introduce him.
Senator Sessions. If there is nothing else, we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Biden
Question 1: In your March article in the Weekly Standard, you
stated that thinking of addiction as a disease is an ``ideology.''
You have also written that ``the mantra that the root causes of
drug use are poverty, racism and `low self esteem' '' and ``the more
general view that therapy by a team of counselors, physicians and
specialists is the only effective way to reduce drug use'' are
``myths'' and ``serious obstacles to reducing such drug use.''
In an article written with former drug czar Bill Bennett, you
asserted that:
at their core these myths deny individual responsibility and assume
that drug use is not the product of an individual's decision, and that
decisions are somehow made in a vacuum where things like fear of
getting caught, public disgrace, and punishment are never
considerations.
The top scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse believe
that addiction is a disease of the brain. Your writings lead me to
believe that you do not share that view.
Your core views on this matter are important because the drug czar
has the loudest voice on drug policy issues. He sets the tone.
Statements like those you have made questioning whether or not
addiction is in fact a disease turn back the clock in this country and
could potentially reverse a number of the gains we have made in recent
years--the increased public support for drug treatment, the growing
awareness among doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals
that they need to look for signs of addiction among their patients,
etc.
Do you believe that addiction is a brain disease?
Answer: I am familiar with, and understand the expanding body of
research demonstrating the biological and neurological effects of drug
use, including that continued drug use adversely affects brain
chemistry and structure. The research also demonstrates that, for a
significant minority, drug use can lead to the compulsive drug craving,
seeking, and taking behavior we characterize as addiction.
I also recognize that the treatment and management of drug
addiction are in some ways similar to the treatment and management of
chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. For instance,
adherence to a treatment plan is critically important in addressing
chronic conditions. Whether a person becomes a drug addict or is
afflicted with diabetes, he or she must take personal responsibility
for obtaining and following through with treatment. Much like a
diabetic must monitor blood sugar levels in the bloodstream, maintain a
healthy diet, and take insulin, overcoming drug addiction can require
the commitment to taking medication that is a part of specific
treatment programs, working to change behavior and accepting other
services necessary to foster recovery.
I am not a physician, but I believe the consideration of addiction
as a disease has wide application. I also believe that a full
understanding should not obscure the nature of the onset of drug
addiction which policy cannot ignore. The repeated, willful use of an
illegal, psychoactive substance is behavior we must seek to effectively
discourage even though drug use, not drug addiction, is the intent of
the user. A comprehensive prevention policy should assist youth in
recognizing their responsibility to avoid drug taking behavior and the
threat of addiction that comes with it.
Do you believe that--as Dr. Leshher at the National Institute on
Drug Abuse often says drug use after a time causes a change in the
brain that is like the flip of a switch? That is to say, before the
switch flips, drug use is a voluntary behavior and after it flips it is
not?
Answer: The mechanisms underlying brain activity and addiction are
still imperfectly understood. I find Dr. Leshner's work interesting and
provocative, and he may well be right, but in my recent conversations
with Dr. Herbert Kleber, of Columbia University's Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse, he does not fully concur with the ``switch''
description, preferring instead the view that addiction ``erodes, but
does not erase'' individual capacity for voluntary action and
responsibility. Since I am not a trained research scientist in this
field, I am reluctant to make a precise judgment on this matter. If
confirmed, I would like to discuss this issue directly with Dr. Leshner
and others.
Do you still believe that the ``view that therapy by a team of
counselors, physicians and specialists is the only effective way to
reduce drug use `` is a ``myth `` and a ``serious obstacle to reducing
such drug use'' ? If so, what are other effective ways to reduce drug
use? Do you have any peer-reviewed, published studies to back up your
claim?
Answer: I support drug treatment and I believe my record in
government when I had the greatest opportunity to support treatment
through federal programs and policy illustrates my commitment to
treatment. The point of the article you quote was not to deride drug
treatment so much as to argue that there are a range of strategies that
can be effective in discouraging drug use-the four-legged stool you
cited in the hearing, in other words. The article goes on to discuss
the importance of prevention, law enforcement, and supply reduction:
Drug enforcement and individual responsibility are important
because drug use can be intensely pleasurable. The desire for drugs
must be countered by certain moral precepts: drug use is wrong and
those who use and traffic in illegal drugs deserve to be punished. A
responsible community teaches these things by what those in positions
of authority-parents, religious leaders, teachers, friends, employers,
and political officials-say about drugs and how they act toward drug
use and sale. If those in authority do not address the issue seriously,
they teach that drug use is not a serious matter. And if they say drug
use is intolerable but fail to act effectively to stop and punish those
who sell and use drugs, their actions convey a much more powerful
lesson than their words.
Reducing the supply of drugs is important because drug use-whether
by non-addicts or addicts-is fueled by the desire to use and by the
ease with which those who want drugs can obtain them. A nation that
permits wide availability of dangerous drugs is sending its citizens,
particularly its youngest citizens, an unwitting message: We are
indifferent to drug use. The harsh reality is that drug use begins with
experimentation, with a substantial portion escalating to addiction,
which often ends in death. A free, democratic society ought to display
a special intolerance for those things that destroy people's virtue and
eventually, destroy people's lives.
Question 2: Given the recent tragedy and the need to spend more
combating terrorism, there will undoubtedly be difficult budget
decisions to be made in the future.
In terms of the drug budget, the President, the OMB Director and
other top government officials are going to be looking to you for
guidance about what programs can be cut and what programs should be
preserved in full.
What are the top three specific programs that you would fight for?
Where would you cut if you had to?
Answer: The current constrained fiscal environment will indeed
require dedicated efforts within ONDCP and support within Congress to
defend the Administration's budget requests for drug control program
agencies. New programs and program increments are understandably the
most difficult to fight for, and in that regard, if confirmed, I hope
to be able to call on you and your colleagues for support in securing
passage of the President's initiative to increase drug treatment
spending by $1.6 billion. Other such initiatives include: establishment
of a Parent Drug Corps, to mobilize parents and families; increased
funding for local anti-drug coalitions; increased funding for the
National Institute on Drug Abuse; resources to support a strong
commitment to drug courts and other criminal justice diversion
programs; increased support to law enforcement for methamphetamine lab
cleanup; reimbursement for border county prosecutions; and technology
support to local law enforcement officers. With regard to your question
about cutting programs, at the present, I am not aware of any specific
cuts that will be forced upon us as a result of budgetary constraints,
as opposed to conscious policy decisions. If confirmed, I would make
any such decisions only after a complete review and consultation.
What would you say to those who would try to convince you to cut
funding for treatment? The media campaign? Plan Colombia? Federal law
enforcement?
Answer: Each program element of the President's National Drug
Control Strategy must serve in some manner to support the overarching
goal of reducing drug use. That contribution is also the basis of our
budget justifications for these programs. If confirmed, I will resist
any attempt to cut programs that are making a demonstrated contribution
to that goal.
Question 3: In a March 2001 article in the Weekly Standard, you
wrote:
Newsweek makes much of the promise of new wonder drugs for
treatment, but what new anti-drug drug is likely to work substantially
better than the drugs we have to block tobacco craving (``the patch''
and ``the gum '') and the medication we have to make alcohol
consumption a sickening experience for alcoholics? These are useful
tools, but there are still many smokers and alcoholics. If anything,
the trend of anti-drinking and anti-smoking efforts today is to
criticize certain aspects of use and to attack availability.
That is far from a ringing endorsement or adequate understanding of
anti-addiction medications.
Because I believe that addiction is a brain disease and must be
treated as such, I have been a strong supporter of pharmacotherapies,
believing that they are effective and that we should be investing more
to develop new anti-addiction medications. I have worked through the
years to increase access to these medications. For example, last year I
worked with Senator Hatch, Levin and Moynihan to pass legislation to
allow qualified doctors to prescribe certain anti addiction medications
from their offices rather than requiring patients to go to specialized
clinics.
One of General McCaffrey's most important accomplishments, in my
opinion, was not only working to increase access to methadone, the
oldest and most widely used pharmacotherapy, but also breaking down
some of the old misconceptions about medication. Having the drug czar
praise methadone did wonders to move this form of treatment out of the
shadows and into the mainstream.
As drug czar, would you fight for increased use of
pharmacotherapies to treat addiction? Would you push for drug courts or
prison-based drug treatment programs to use these medications in
treatment?
Answer: I support research and development into appropriate
pharmacotherapies. Nor is this support new; the President's 1991
National Drug Control Strategy, which I helped write, stated that
``Advances in the neural and biomedical sciences can enhance and hasten
the development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for
drug use. Biomedical research into brain mechanisms involved in drug
use continues to hold great promise for development of new addiction
medications and treatments.'' What was true in 1991 is still true.
Indeed, please note that in the Weekly Standard article you cite, I
described emerging pharmacotherapies as ``useful tools.'' Some
pharmacotherapy backers go beyond that assessment, as do supporters of
various elements of an effective drug control program. In my view, they
don't fully appreciate the very real challenge they face in inducing
addicts to use such medications, and it is in this, not any inherent
limitation of pharmacotherapies, that lay my reservations.
Question 4: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the
signing of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I
worked for years to make that bill a reality, and its sweeping
provisions have played a major role in the drops in crime we have seen
over the past several years.
Title I of the Crime Act of 1994 was the Public Safety Partnership
and Community Policing Act--the legislation that created the Department
of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Seven
years later, COPS has awarded over $8 billion to fund over 115,000
officers--73,600 of them on the beat today. Grants have gone out to big
cities and small towns, from Dover, Delaware to Carlsbad, California,
to more than 12,400 law enforcement agencies in total.
Seven years ago, we made a common-sense decision: let's put more
police on the street to reduce crime in our neighborhoods. Let's create
a program that moves our police departments away from the reactive,
wait-for-the-crime-then-deal-with-it approach of old and towards a new,
proactive plan that promotes community partnerships, decentralized
command, and innovative strategies.
The plan worked. New officers on our streets have made America a
safer country. The FBI recently reported that violent crime has dropped
for eight straight years. And in its most recent survey, the Department
of Justice reported that the rate of violent crime victimization in the
U.S. has dropped a full 46 percent since 1994, the year the COPS
program began.
You have repeatedly disparaged the COPS program, writing that ``it
is almost inconceivable that the program has made a measurable
contribution to reducing crime.''
You have also called the 1994 crime bill which authorized the COPS
program ``irrelevant.''
As drug czar, you would play an important role in federal law
enforcement matters.
Do you still believe that additional cops on the beat won't do
anything to reduce crime?
Answer: No, I do not.
If you have changed your mind on this matter, what caused that
change? Walk me through how your philosophy has evolved.
Answer: The article you quoted above challenged President Clinton's
claim that the ``100,000 police,'' among other programs, had ``led to
drops in violent crime and murder and rape and robbery,'' and it
challenged it for the simple reason that the COPS program had hired a
tiny fraction of its current complement by 1995, when the relevant UCR
data was collected. You and I may have differences about the COPS
program, but they are not principally about its effectiveness.
Question 5: You have repeatedly pointed to Rep. J.C. Watts'
Community Renewal Act as an innovative way to allow faith-based
providers to treat addicts. That Act makes the following findings:
(1) establishing formal educational qualification for counselors
and other personnel in drug treatment programs may undermine the
effectiveness of such programs; and
(2) such formal educational requirements for counselors and other
personnel may hinder or, prevent the provision of needed drug treatment
services.
I do not think that this was just an instance where you had not
read the fine print of the legislation, because it is consistent with
other things you have written. You have decried what you call ``the
McGovernite ideology that has dominated American liberalism for the
past 25 years''--an ideology that views drug abuse and other social
problems as so complicated that traditional institutions such as
churches and voluntary associations cannot possibly address them. Only
policy specialists trained in the delivery of social services-
therapeutic-state elites-are up to the task.
Do you believe that training a health care provider to treat a
brain disease may actually ``undermine the effectiveness of such
programs'' or ``hinder or prevent the provision of needed drug
treatment services''?
Answer: I do not.
Would you support allowing people without medical backgrounds to
treat any other illness?
Answer: As I stated in regard to an earlier question, I recognize
that the treatment and management of drug addiction are in some ways
similar to the treatment and management of chronic diseases like
diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. I have the utmost respect for the
medical professionals working to treat addiction. I do not intend to
minimize their talent or expertise. Most of those professionals that I
have worked with, however, also recognize that there are some dedicated
individuals with other types of backgrounds who are providing important
help to the addicted.
Question 6: You have asserted that ``hard-core users are mostly
beyond the reach of drug treatment professionals.'' But according to
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, a journal published by the American
Psychological Association, this is not the case:
given the chronic, relapsing course of drug dependence, multiple
treatment episodes may be better understood as parts of a cyclical
process of recovery than as categorical failures. . . .These findings
suggest that clients. . .with extensive histories of prior treatment
may be more dysfunctional in many domains, but this should not lead to
an erroneous conclusion that treatment is not effective for them.
Rather, clients may accrue incremental improvement with this additional
treatment episode, and, among individuals with similar drug addiction
careers, those with prior treatment may be more likely to be ready for
change than those without prior treatment.
You have also said that the Clinton Administration's focus on
hardcore drug users was an ``ineffectual policy--the latest
manifestation of the liberals' commitment to a `therapeutic state' in
which government serves as the personal agent of personal
rehabilitation.''
I have long supported a strategy of treating hardcore addicts
because I believe that is where you get the most ``bang for your
buck.'' Hardcore addicts consume the majority of drugs in this country
and are responsible for a great deal of crime. In fact, drug addicts
commit somewhere between 89 and 191 crimes per year to sustain their
habit.
Do you still believe that treatment of hardcore addicts is
ineffectual?
Answer: No, I support it. I believe it enormously challenging,
however. That is why I think it should be one of our most serious
policy objectives, but that we should be careful not to over promise
what the current state of the art can produce in results.
What proof do you have to back up your assertion that treating
hardcore addicts does not work?
Answer: I did not write that drug treatment ``does not work.'' I
believe it does work. I even believe that the treatment of hardcore
addicts works. I believe it is difficult in the most difficult cases as
the definition quoted above makes clear, getting addicted individuals
to desist from drug use is a painstaking, long-term, and repetitive
effort.
What do you propose as an alternative that would deal with this
problem in a more effective manner?
Answer: I do not believe that there is a substitute for moving
hard-core drug users into treatment, just as there is no substitute for
strong prevention messages, aggressive interdiction programs, and
effective law enforcement. My views on the subject are perhaps best
summed up in the introduction to the 1990 National Drug Control
Strategy, which I helped write, and which stated, in part, that:
For reasons both political and institutional, much public
discussion has been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile debate over
``supply'' versus ``demand'' solutions. But to repeat what we have been
saying for almost a year, the reality of the drug problem cannot be met
through an exclusive ``law enforcement'' strategy on the one hand, or a
``prevention and treatment'' strategy on the other. Most Americans
recognize by now that we need both approaches. An effective criminal
justice policy needs a good treatment policy; a successful treatment
system is hampered by the easy availability of drugs and will
ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention program; and good
prevention programs are harder to carry out absent vigorous efforts
directed at international and domestic drug traffickers who are largely
responsible for making drugs so ubiquitous in the first place.
Question 7: In February, I joined with Senator Hatch, Leahy,
Thurmond, DeWine and Feinstein to introduce The Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention and Treatment Act (S. 304). The bill provides about $900
million a year for prevention and treatment programs including drug
courts, prison based treatment, treatment in rural and economically
disadvantaged areas, reentry courts, and treatment for women with
children. The bill has the support of a large number of treatment and
prevention groups, as well as law enforcement organizations including
the National Crime Prevention Council, the Fraternal Office of Police,
and the National Sheriff's Association.
Do you support the bill that Senator Hatch, Leahy and 1 have
introduced to invest additional resources in drug prevention and
treatment activities?
Answer: I am an ardent supporter of effective drug treatment.
During my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw tremendous growth of the
drug treatment budget, including the creation of the Targeted Capacity
Expansion Program that remains a critical component of our treatment
infrastructure. Furthermore, I highlighted drug treatment as a
fundamental component when I helped draft the first National Drug
Control Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with experts in the
field such as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Andrea Barthwell,
and Dr. Herb Kleber. I look forward to reviewing the report President
Bush directed Secretary Thompson to deliver concerning the areas of
specific need for additional treatment services in America to assess
our progress and understand what remains to be accomplished. While not
prejudging the results of that review, areas where improvement may be
warranted include making available the proper treatment modality to the
individual in need, making available appropriate service linkages, and
making available an adequate after care component. I am familiar with
the bill, but before taking a formal position on a piece of important
legislation, I believe I should review these matters with the full
range of interested and knowledgeable parties. I intend to do this
promptly, if I am confirmed.
Question 8: Because Ecstasy is a partial stimulant, it energizes
the user, allowing him or her to dance for hours at a time. As a
result, the drug has become popular at all-night dance parties known as
``raves.''
Raves are usually sponsored by a promoter who organizes the venue,
publicizes the event and hires security. The promoter then charges an
admission fee of between $10 and $50. Though promoters indicate that
they tell their security to crack down on drug use at the clubs,
undercover investigations-including some conducted by the DEA-have
revealed that, in fact, some promoters tell their security guards to
look the other way.
Because many raves are billed as alcohol-free events, parents often
assume that they are safe places for their teenage sons and daughters
to go to dance and be with their friends. Unfortunately, these events
are often quite unsafe.
At some raves, promoters will shut off the water faucets in the
clubs, thereby forcing patrons thirsty from dancing and Ecstasy-induced
dehydration to purchase bottles of water sold for $5 or $10 each.
Shutting off the water faucets is a fire hazard and a health hazard,
not to mention unethical and irresponsible. At some raves, club goers
have to pay a fee before being allowed to go into an air conditioned
``cool down room.''
The U.S. Attorney in New Orleans used the so-called ``crack house
statute'' to go after a major rave promoter in his city. The defendants
cut a deal with prosecutors, agreeing to five years probation, paying a
$100,000 fine and ensuring that future raves are free of Ecstasy
paraphernalia--including pacifiers and glow sticks.
These rave promoters are making money off of the drug trade at the
expense of our kids. Have you thought at all about how you intend to
work to crack down on Ecstasy or raves where it-and a number of other
so-called ``club drugs''--are sold?
Answer: I am deeply concerned not only by the proliferation of
Ecstasy use but also by the inroads pro-legalization groups are making
under the guise of Ecstasy ``harm reduction.'' Such groups use the
dishonest and self-serving argument that kids are going to use drugs
anyway, and they might as well do so ``safely.'' And they are getting
their message across-a recent article in the New York Times was
actually titled: ``For Partygoers Who Can't Say No, Experts Try to
Reduce the Risks.'' I believe that Ecstasy use, and marijuana use,
while less dramatic in their immediate consequences than the use of
drugs like cocaine or heroin, represent the principal drug problem
facing our children, and for that reason must be one of our principal
areas of focus. With regard specifically to Ecstasy and ``raves,'' the
use of special statutes such as 21 USC Sec. 856 sounds like one
sensible way to address this problem. I would have to devote further
study to the matter and, if confirmed, would want to consult with the
Attorney General before making a final policy judgment.
Question 9: The Director of ONDCP has a remarkable power over the
federal budget-if he chooses to use it. This is known as the budget
certification power. Bylaw, every federal department or agency involved
in the National Drug Control Program Strategy must provide the director
with the department's proposed drug control budget request.
If the Director believes that the budget request is insufficient to
fund the department's role in controlling drugs, then he must refuse to
certify the budget. The department must then submit a revised budget
that incorporates the funding levels suggested by the Director.
When he was Director, General McCaffrey successfully used his
budget certification power to force the Pentagon to add an additional
73 million dollars to its fiscal 1999 budget in order to help combat
drug trafficking in the western hemisphere.
What are your thoughts on the budget certification process?
Answer: ONDCP's governing statute provides, as you state, a very
useful tool for maintaining an overall level of quality control and
coherence over agencies' drug-related budget requests. When I last
served at ONDCP we used this authority to increase and shape budgets
for both supply and demand reduction programs. If confirmed, I would
use this important tool again, when necessary, to carry out the
responsibilities of the director.
As Director, how aggressively would you wield your budget
certification power?
Answer: I recognize that the certification tool depends on a range
of factors, including the fiscal environment, and the adequacy of other
agencies' budget requests. If confirmed, I would take a close look at
all agency budget requests, and work hard to ensure their adequacy-in
this the certification power is crucial in my experience and I would
use it.
Question 10: The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program provides
full parity for mental health and drug and alcohol treatment services
in the insurance coverage that it offers federal employees.
As drug czar, would you advocate for the Administration supporting
passage of legislation providing full parity for drug treatment
services covered by private health insurance?
Answer: I believe that it is important for people with private
insurance policies to have adequate coverage for themselves and their
families concerning substance abuse treatment. I believe the parity
issue is an important one. It has grown in prominence since the time I
last served in government and, if confirmed, it would be my intention
to consider the issues related to it seriously in wide consultation
with knowledgeable individuals inside and outside government.
Question 11: Since the mid 1960's, doctors have been using
methadone to treat opiate addiction. Numerous studies have demonstrated
the effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment.
As drug czar, would you work with other government agencies to
implement regulations and programs ensuring the appropriate use of this
effective drug treatment?
Answer: Yes, as I did during my first my previous service at ONDCP.
How would you work to promote the development of additional anti-
addiction medications?
Answer: The President has already committed to increasing the
budget of the National Institute on Drug Addiction, it would be my
priority, if confirmed, to securing that expansion.
Question 12: Because of the stigma associated with substance abuse,
many people who need substance abuse treatment are reluctant to seek
it.
I'm not sure you are going to help this problem. After all, you
have said ``The health people say `no stigma.' I'm for stigma.''
As drug czar, how specifically would you work to reduce the stigma
associated with addiction and encourage people who need treatment to
seek it?
Answer: It takes courage and strength of character to make the
decision to enter a drug treatment program. If confirmed, I would like
to explore ways of giving greater prominence to the stories of
individuals who have been treated and are in recovery. I think the best
way to overcome the stigma that may discourage some individuals from
seeking treatment is to broaden the public respect for those who
confront and work to overcome addiction and those who support them.
With regard to your question about encouraging people to seek
treatment, I should note that during my first tenure at ONDCP, I
oversaw the largest increase in the growth of the drug treatment budget
of any administration--before or after--including the creation of the
Targeted Capacity Expansion Program and increases for treatment-related
research that remain a critical components of our treatment
infrastructure. Furthermore, I highlighted drug treatment as a
fundamental component when I helped draft and implement the first
National Drug Control Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with
experts in the field such as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr.
Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb Kleber. If confirmed, I look forward to
reviewing the report President Bush directed Secretary Thompson to
deliver concerning the ``treatment gap'' in America to assess our
progress and understand what remains to be accomplished.
Do you think that your past statements about addiction as a moral
failing increase the stigma?
Answer: I believe we can successfully defend the overwhelming
consensus that it is wrong and harmful to use drugs and the
overwhelming consensus that if you have a drug problem you should seek
treatment and get into recovery. I do not believe that opposition to
drug use leads to a lack of respect for drug treatment or those who
have faced a problem of addiction and are seeking to overcome it.
Question 13: It is, of course, important for the government to
discourage the use of drugs, underage drinking, and other harmful
illegal behavior. Sometimes this means criticizing and stigmatizing
those activities. But in doing this, we need to be careful not to
denigrate and alienate those who have suffered from the disease of
addiction, particularly if they have sought treatment or are leading
sober and productive lives. Unfortunately, Americans in recovery too
often encounter prejudice and discrimination as they work to obtain or
retain their jobs, homes, insurance and other necessities of life. The
Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and other federal,
state and local laws prohibit this kind of discrimination against
people in recovery who are otherwise qualified.
As drug czar, would you work to reduce stigma and help the
Department of Justice enforce the laws prohibiting discrimination
against people in recovery from alcohol and drug addiction? If so, how
does that square with your previous statements indicating that you are
``for stigma''?
Answer: I agree completely with the distinction you have drawn
between the necessity of attaching stigma to drug use and the
imperative that this stigma not spill over to adversely affect people
who have made a commitment to turn their lives around through
treatment. The federal government can and should play a powerful role
in discouraging certain illicit behaviors and activities. This is the
point I was emphasizing when I said that I am ``for stigma.'' It would
be both counter-productive and wrong to stigmatize people who are
working to escape from addiction. If confirmed I would of course work
to uphold our laws regarding discrimination against people seeking
treatment.
Question 14: Addiction treatment programs and other agencies that
serve people with alcohol and drug problems sometimes suffer from
stigma or discrimination. For example, sometimes treatment centers are
victims of the ``Not in My Backyard'' syndrome, meaning neighbors
oppose attempts to establish treatment programs even when the area is
zoned for such a purpose. And some insurance companies and health
management organizations resist approving adequate payments, levels of
care, or length of stay for treatment of addiction.
As drug czar, would you use the ``bully pulpit'' to ensure that
treatment programs and other agencies that assist people with alcohol
and drug problems are protected from these types of discrimination?
Answer: Yes. The citing of treatment and other public health
facilities has too often led to unwarranted and unnecessary
controversy. I believe that decisions about where to locate such
facilities work best when there has been an effort made to educate
people in the affected communities about the effectiveness and methods
of modern treatment, and I would, if confirmed, use the persuasive
powers of the office to help educate Americans in this regard. I
believe that it is important for people with private insurance policies
and in health maintenance organizations to have adequate coverage for
themselves and their families concerning substance abuse treatment. I
am pleased that insurers who participate in the pool from which federal
employees select coverage have parity for substance abuse treatment.
While insurers are not required to provide coverage for substance abuse
treatment, if they choose to offer that coverage it must be at the same
levels as other conditions requiring medical attention. I believe the
parity issue is an important one. It has grown in prominence since the
time I last served in government and, if confirmed, it would be my
intention to consider the issues related to it seriously in wide
consultation with knowledgeable individuals inside and outside
government.
Question 15: As drug czar, would you anticipate having a role
helping the President to implement his faith based initiatives,
especially in light of the recent departure of John Dilulio--someone I
expect that you know well, having co-authored a book with him--who had
served as the Director of the White House Office on Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives?
Answer: Through my experience as president of the Philanthropy
Roundtable I have learned first-hand how effective and transformational
faith-based programs can be. To the extent that these programs can help
people overcome addiction to alcohol and drugs, I believe they are
worthy of our study and, where constitutional and appropriate,
consideration for some possible support.
Before giving money to faith-based treatment programs would you
want to make sure that these programs have been proven effective in
peer reviewed published scientific studies?
Answer: I believe that federal programs must have objective
measures of accountability. The best measure of accountability for drug
and alcohol treatment programs, whether they are faith based or not, is
their success at freeing their participants from addiction. I have
worked in the past, and if confirmed will work in the future, to build
in standards of accountability that help individuals get into, and stay
in, treatment that works.
Would you insist that treatment professionals--such as the
scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--have a leading role in
the formulation of faith-based treatment programs?
Answer: If we are going to create opportunities for effective
faith-based programs that help people get into and stay in treatment,
we need to have effective standards to evaluate those programs. We must
have objective standards of success and measurement that are
empirically based and evaluated. In establishing those standards, I
would, if confirmed, draw upon the expertise of many sources, both
inside and outside government, and would include scientists and other
staff from NIDA and SAMHSA.
Question 16: I am sure you have heard people express concern about
the number of people who have been sent to prison under mandatory
minimum sentencing laws for drug-related offenses, citing statistics
about the disproportionate number of minorities.
What are your views on mandatory minimum sentences?
Answer: My understanding of the legislative history is that
Congress adopted the current twotiered mandatory minimum sentencing
structure as part of a larger effort both to incapacitate and punish
mid- and senior-level drug dealers. While I believe that these
sentences have been in many ways effective, I also recognize that there
has been some disagreement about their fairness. If I am confirmed as
ONDCP director, I would initiate a review of mandatory minimum
sentences as they relate to illegal drugs, working in close
consultation with the Attorney General. President Bush has expressed
his openness to such a review, as has Attorney General Ashcroft. It
would be my intention to conduct this review in consultation with
interested parties in the executive branch, in Congress, the courts,
and in the public.
Do you believe that mandatory minimum sentences have led to a
sentencing disparity for minorities?
Answer: While I am not of the view that the U.S. Government,
Federal, State, or local, is locking up innocent people for drug crimes
in significant numbers, I do recognize that the mandatory minimum
sentencing structure has fostered among some a perception of racial
injustice within the criminal system. Clearly, the government must
create and administer laws in a fair and equitable fashion, but it is
equally important that the laws be seen as fair by the citizens.
I believe it is critical that we examine the equity and fairness of
the criminal justice system and have already stated my intention to do
so in this regard, if confirmed. In such an examination I also believe
we should consider those who are the victims of criminal acts. In the
Weekly Standard article cited in question 3 above, I wrote: ``In 1998,
of the 7,276 murders in the United States that involved a single
offender and a single victim, 5,133 of the victims were male and 3,309
were black. According to the FBI, 3,565 of the offenders in these
murder cases were black, and 3,067 of the murders involved both a black
victim and a black offender. In 1998, black males between the ages of
14 and 17 were almost six times more likely than white males to be
victims of murder or non-negligent manslaughter; black males between 18
and 24 were over eight times more likely to be victims; and for those
25 and over, black males were murder victims at a rate 7.6 times that
of white males.'' As I sought to explain during the hearing, I believe
we should work to reduce crime, drug use, and addiction as the best way
to help reduce the number of individuals who enter the criminal justice
system and the number who enter prison. I have spent a significant
portion of my time while working at the Philanthropy Roundtable helping
foundations and donors better support not only drug prevention and
treatment programs, but the range of assistance to help disadvantaged
communities improve schools, job training, housing, health care, and
other elements necessary to stabilize neighborhoods and break the
cycles of crime and addiction.
Question 17: A recent report from The National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University showed that of each
substance-abuse related dollar that states spend, 96 cents go to
dealing with the consequences of substance abuse (criminal justice,
health care costs, etc.) and only 4 cents go to preventing and treating
it.
I believe that we need a drug czar who will push the states to
spend more on treatment and prevention, thereby saving money on
incarceration, health care and other related costs.
Given all that you have written in the past questioning the
effectiveness of treatment and prevention programs, what makes you
think that you are the right man for the job?
Answer: I have long recognized that the best approach to our
nation's drug problem is a balanced approach. I agree with you that
states should increase their spending in this area, and if I am
concerned I will strongly encourage them to do so. I have written many
times-indeed I have been criticized for writing-that state and local
authorities should take more responsibility for treatment and
prevention programs. This is not to say the federal government should
do less, rather it is to say that government at all levels should join
together to do more.
Question 18: Some 83 percent of Americans support federal funding
for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Specifically, 83
percent favor continuing current funding or increasing funding for the
campaign. The public clearly favors using $185 million each year--
equivalent to 1 % of the federal drug budget--to guarantee that anti-
drug ads reach kids and parents through the mass media.
Can I count on you to support the media campaign? (Please respond
Yes or No)
Answer: Yes.
Can I count on you to make sure that the campaign will continue to
be administered by ONDCP and not shipped off to another agency? (Please
respond Yes or No)
Answer: Yes, I have no plans to change the current structure. I
believe that the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
has a critical role in assuring that the media campaign is not only
effective, but also thoroughly evaluated.
Question 19: The media campaign's budget is $185 million per year,
which works out to $8 per teen in America. This is a lot of money, but
in the world of advertising it pales in comparison to the General
Motors of the world, who spend $800 million each year to sell their
cars and trucks.
In your opinion, given the influence media can and does have on
youth each and every day in this country, should we be spending more on
the media campaign or less?
Answer: I strongly support the media campaign. I believe it can
make a valuable contribution, and I believe it has already done so. I
would be inclined to look at ways to increase its funding. But in
fairness I do not think it is appropriate for me to commit to specific
funding levels until I have had the opportunity, if confirmed, to
consult with knowledgeable people inside and outside government about
the campaign's effectiveness and strategy.
Question 20: You have suggested that parents--not the federal
government--should be taking the lead in preventing drug use among
kids. While I agree that parents are the leading factor in drug
prevention, research indicates that parents believe that it is everyone
else's kids who are doing drugs, not their own. This includes good
parents, good people, who just don't believe it is their kid.
Can't we use the media campaign to persuade, enlighten, shake up
and motivate parents to take action?
Answer: Yes, I strongly believe that parents are a critical node in
preventing drug use among their children, and that the media campaign
can play an effective and productive role when directed at them. I
believe it is doing this already.
Do you think there is a more efficient way to reach parents on a
daily basis with these types of messages than via the media and the
media campaign?
Answer: While I believe the media campaign is effective for this
purpose, I also believe that we can reach parents through additional
channels, like the Community Coalition, as well as through other
programs that have direct ties to parents groups. Programs that can get
the word about prevention out to parents at the local level-through
service organizations, religious congregations, and workplaces-are also
very promising.
Question 21: You have questioned the effectiveness of the media
campaign. Well, if I only looked at the ``official measurement'' I
would too--because the study of the campaign did not get underway until
18 months into the campaign. That means that the ``official
measurement'' was not even underway when the campaign was making its
dramatic changes--changes which are measured by other research
instruments including the Monitoring the Future study and the annual
tracking study conducted by the Partnership for a Drug Free America.
For example, in February the American Journal of Public Health
published a study, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
which found marijuana use declined by more than 25 percent among
sensation-seeking (high risk) kids who were exposed to heavy doses of
anti-drug advertising.
What are your thoughts on the research regarding the impact of the
media campaign to date?
Answer: I support the media campaign. I believe it is making a
difference. If confirmed I would like to review the way we measure its
effectiveness, both to revise the evaluative tools we now use and to
ensure public support for the efforts we are making.
Have you considered independent research on the effectiveness of
the media campaign in your questioning of the effectiveness of the
campaign?
Answer: I support the media campaign. I have received general
information about the media campaign and its effectiveness. I do not
believe this information is in any way sufficient to allow a director
of ONDCP to make an informed decision about the media campaign, or how
to strengthen it for the future. If confirmed, I intend to conduct a
thorough examination of the campaign and possible future improvements.
Question 22: What is your view of drug dependence? Should it be
viewed primarily as a public health problem?
If not, why not?
Answer: There are components of drug dependence that are undeniably
best viewed and treated as public health problems, just as there are
other aspects that are more effectively addressed as economic, law
enforcement, medical, and social problems. As I have said before, a
balanced approach is the most effective.
Question 23: What are your views on the efficacy of methadone
maintenance? Do you agree or disagree that some individuals may need to
be treated with methadone for life?
Answer: I support methadone maintenance as a legitimate treatment.
I do not know whether some individuals need to be treated with
methadone for life, and would defer on this point to the advice of
qualified experts.
Question 24: You have stated that you are supportive of treatment
provided that it is ``good'' treatment.
How do you define ``good'' treatment?
Answer: I believe that all drug treatment programs, including
faith-based ones, should be evaluated on the basis of how effectively
they help the addicted stop using illegal drugs (and alcohol, if they
are dependent on alcohol as well) and stay free from such use.
What are the outcomes that you believe should be used to determine
whether a treatment program is effective?
Answer: Individuals in need of drug treatment vary tremendously,
and one of the limitations of the present system has been in matching
individuals with appropriate services. Precisely because of the
heterogeneity of the population in need of drug treatment, it is
difficult to make across-the board statements about what constitutes
``good'' treatment and any measure must reflect the range of severity
and related conditions clients present. All studies of treatment
effectiveness also should be grounded in the obvious measure of how
many users desist from drug use and for how long, but a sampling of
other measures could include criteria such as participation in the
workforce, cost effectiveness, appropriateness in matching the client
with needed services, reduced criminal recidivism, and health
indicators.
Question 25: Treatment experts have stated that faith-based drug
treatment programs should be held to the same effectiveness standards
as secular programs.
Do you agree with this view? Should they be evaluated differently
than secular programs?
Answer: I believe that all drug treatment programs, including
faith-based ones, should be evaluated on the basis of how effectively
they help the addicted stop using illegal drugs (and alcohol, if they
are dependent on alcohol as well) and stay free from such use.
Question 26: What is your viewpoint concerning court mandated
treatment in lieu of prison?
Answer: I support such diversion programs.
If you support them, what has happened to change your mind about
these programs?
Answer: I have supported diversion programs in the past. My
reservations in this area was focused on the need to be realistic about
what costs and resources were needed for effective diversion programs,
including sufficient staff for close supervision, the availability of
multimodality treatment services and related support assistance such as
mental health care, and recognition that very few first- or second-
time, nonviolent offenders who may benefit from treatment face actual
prison sentences in many jurisdictions. My concern regarding this last
point did not have to do with the desirability of mandated treatment in
lieu of prison, rather my point was the potential group of first- or
second-time, nonviolent offenders who may benefit from treatment was
likely to be smaller than some believed in the early discussions of
this approach.
Question 27: There is an increasing recognition that drug abuse
occurs in rural areas.
What role, in your opinion, should ONDCP play in helping rural
areas address this important problem in terms of law enforcement?
Answer: While I have not been able to engage in detailed
discussions with the involved parties prior to my confirmation, it is
my impression that some of the HIDTAs are working to provide needed
resources and coordination for drug-related law enforcement in rural
areas. This was true to some extent along the Southwest Border when I
was last in government and it seems to be the case in many more areas
now that the program has grown. I also think that the other programs of
state and local assistance provide by the federal government have been
helpful and I would look to them and the HIDTA programs, in
consultation with state and local leaders, to serve as a foundation for
what needs to be done in the future.
What about in terms of public health issues (i.e., AIDS, Hepatitis
C) and treatment?
Answer: If confirmed, my intention would be to review public health
and treatment assistance related to drugs was a whole and include
particular attention to rural areas. Such a review should involve
current program personnel, knowledgeable state and local individuals,
and consultation with the Congress. In addition, the assessment of
treatment needs by Secretary Thompson as directed by the president
should offer an important component to such a review.
Question 28: What is your view of the role of science in policy
making? In what areas would you use science to guide your decisions?
Answer: Throughout my professional career I have been involved with
public policy issues and sought to find and develop solutions to our
common national problems on the basis of what works-which I believe is
the fundamental empirical standard of science. I believe scientific and
empirical analysis can-and should-be applied to all aspects of drug
control policy from prevention and treatment to law enforcement,
national security, and research programs.
Who are the scientists or doctors on whom you rely most closely?
Answer: In regard to treatment matters I have consulted with: Dr.
Andrea Barthwell, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Herb Kleber, Mark Parrino, Dr.
Laurie Robinson, and Dr. Ian McDonald.
Question 29: In 1995, the Supreme Court, in a case known as United
States v. Lopez, struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which
Congress passed overwhelmingly in 1990--by voice vote in the Senate,
and by a vote of 313 to 1 in the House--and which was signed into law
by President Bush. Shortly after the decision, in an op-ed in the
Washington Times, you hailed the invalidation of this bipartisan
legislation as a victory against ``the intrusion of the federal
government into an area of traditional local authority''--namely, ``the
safety and functioning of our schools.'' As you know, both drug abuse
and drug-related violence have a severe impact upon ``the safety and
functioning of our schools.'' In fact, the Gun-Free School Zones Act,
had it not been struck down by the Supreme Court, would have provided
law enforcement with an additional tool in preventing the violence of
the drug trade from gaining a foothold in our nation's schools.
Given that you feel that the exercise of federal authority to keep
guns out of schools is an ``intrusion'' into ``an area of traditional
local authority,'' do you feel the same way about efforts to keep our
schools free of drugs and drug violence?
Answer: No and I believe my past work on the drug problem, both in
and out of government, reflect my views on this issue. As I also
discussed with Senator. Kohl during the hearing, I have changed my
opinion on the Lopez decision. I believe federal assistance can be
important in these cases--important symbolically as a means of setting
priorities and important substantively in providing resources and
assistance.
Would you leave these problems to be handled by state and local
governments?
Answer: No, although state and local authorities will surely bear
the brunt of the responsibilities for addressing problems of drugs and
violence in our schools and neighborhoods.
Question 30: I have long supported efforts--both at the National
Institute on Drug Abuse and in the private sector--to develop
medications to treat addiction. I am sure that you are aware that there
are only a handful of medications that are currently approved for this
purpose. I am frustrated that more pharmaceutical companies are not
trying to develop additional medications, but I can understand why they
are reticent to invest in this. First, there is the stigma involved
with developing a drug to help addicts. But second--and perhaps more
importantly--we do nothing to make this process easier for them.
The Drug Abuse Advisory Committee--which is the body of experts of
the Food and Drug Administration who have historically been consulted
during the process to approve products to treat drug abuse--has been
disbanded. There is now nobody who knows or cares about addiction
involved in the approval process.
Will you pledge to do everything you can to smooth the process for
the approval of anti-addiction medications, including lobbying to
reinstate the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee?
Answer: I was not aware of the history of the Drug Abuse Advisory
Committee. If confirmed, I will make a review of the approval process
for anti-addiction medications a priority because I too think such
drugs can make important contributions to our ability to help more of
the addicted. I would like to have an opportunity to review this matter
before making a commitment to a specific course of action.
Question 31: When you served in the last Bush Administration,
Director Bennett put together the ``Andean Initiative,'' which provided
both economic and military assistance to the nations of the Andes.
Last Year, Congress and the Clinton Administration worked together
to provide U.S. support to ``Plan Colombia.'' This year, the Bush
Administration's budget broadens that approach to provide increased
assistance to the other nations of the of the region as well.
So in a sense, we're back where we were a decade ago with a
significant assistance program to the region, although I think we are
in a lot better position today in terms of the commitment of the local
governments to this effort.
You have indicated to my staff that you are dubious about Plan
Columbia. What exactly are your doubts? How would you address them?
Answer: I am concerned that public understanding and support for an
initiative the size of Plan Colombia and involving the risks it does is
very limited. If confirmed, I would like to review this initiative with
those implementing the programs, executive and legislative branch
leaders, and some of those in the foreign governments that are a part
of this effort.
What are your views on the current direction of U.S. support for
the Andean region as a whole?
Answer: I believe that our drug control efforts should extend to
our foreign and national security policy in appropriate ways. That does
not mean that our interests in drug control should be considered more
important than all other interests, merely that it should be one of our
interests and its priority should be guided by the varying
circumstances we face. If confirmed, I would seek full briefings on all
aspects of our current policies and programs in the Andean region, but
prior to such having such information, I cannot be sure of the specific
strengthens and weaknesses of the current direction.
Will you work to make sure that there is continued support within
the Administration for Plan Colombia? If so, how?
Answer: I know that many in Congress and in the current and the
past administrations worked to develop Plan Colombia as it exists
today. If confirmed, I will undertake to learn what they believe we
need to keep in mind as we assess the programs and their future. Prior
to such consultations and the completion of a review, I would not make
decisions on how I would specifically proceed following such a review.
What do you see as Plan Colombia's weaknesses and how would you
address them?
Answer: Stipulating that there are specifics related to this
question that I will only be able to address if confirmed, I believe
the chief weakness is in regard to public knowledge of the basic
components of this effort, its objectives, its dangers and costs and
why they are prudent, and, in addition, a foundation of basic public
support. If confirmed, I would see it as my job to ensure that the most
responsible measures were in place and that they were made as clear as
possible to the public at large and supported by the broadest possible
consensus.
Question 32: Some analysts argue that we should provide direct
counter-insurgency assistance to the Colombian military--not merely as
part of the drug war but as a means of assisting a democratic ally. I
don't think there is any enthusiasm for such an effort in the Congress
or in the U.S. military.
Do you have a view on whether the United States should provide
assistance for counterinsurgency in Colombia?
Answer: I believe that should be decided and justified on its own.
I do not have a considered view on that matter.
Question 33: In recent years, U.S. law enforcement have been wary
of sharing intelligence information with their Mexican counterparts.
Gaining the trust of U.S. law enforcement will be a slow process, but
the Fox administration seems to be off to a good start.
Last April, Mexican National Security Advisor Adolfo Aguilar Zinser
met with Attorney General Ashcroft to discuss the United States being
able to conduct security checks on their Mexican counterparts. Aguilar
Zinser has suggested that there should be cooperative security
clearances so that ``if they fool us, they fool all of us.''
What are your thoughts regarding sharing of intelligence with
Mexican police?
Answer: We all want the best possible working relationship with
Mexico and President Fox on matters of drug control. In announcing my
nomination, President Bush stated that his administration will continue
to work with nations to eradicate drugs at their source and enforce our
borders to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. He added that this
makes working in close cooperation with Mexico a priority. The key to
stopping flow is the disruption of major drug trafficking organizations
and in order to accomplish this objective we need improved law
enforcement information sharing with Mexico. It is clear that to work
together in all important respects, we need to share sensitive
information and to do so responsibly we will have to make successful
steps that build confidence and solve the problems that inevitably
arise in such a process, whether it involves two countries or two
agencies. I do not know the specifics of the Mexican National Security
Advisor's proposal, but I will seek to become better informed about it
and any related proposals and plans if confirmed. I would hesitate to
make pronouncements at this juncture that might affect the tactical
activities of U.S. law enforcement.
What kind of a role do you think the U.S. should play in conducting
background checks for vetted law enforcement units?
Answer: I am not an expert on the specifics of background checks
although I know such checks are crucial to national security and law
enforcement management in this country and that we help allies conduct
them and train their personnel to do so. I support such measures that
can help build trust among law enforcement agencies of both countries
and protect judges and other foreign government personnel crucial to
building and protecting democratic institutions and rule of law.
Question 34: President Fox has recently extradited several Mexican
nationals wanted in the United States on drug trafficking charges-
including Kitti Paez who is thought to be a member of the 10-person
``Board of Directors'' for the Tijuana-based Arrellano-Felix
organization. Historically, Mexico has not often extradited its own
citizens-none before 1995 and only 11 before the beginning of the Fox
Administration.
In January, the Mexican Supreme Court handed down a precedent-
setting decision allowing the extradition of Mexican nationals.
What--specifically--would you do to maintain this new level of
cooperation with the Mexican government?
Answer: If confirmed, I would like to support the new level of
cooperation by keeping our two countries engaged on the broadest scale.
In addition to fostering law enforcement and interdiction efforts, I
would work to continue cooperation in reducing the demand for drugs in
both countries. In this regard the fourth U.S.Mexico Demand Reduction
Conference will be held in Mexico City in mid-November. I will
seriously consider making this my first foreign trip. In addition to
participating in the conference itself, the trip will give me an
important opportunity to engage senior GOM drug policy officials. I
believe this will provide a very useful context to enhance the mutual
effectiveness of our work against major drug trafficking organizations.
Question 35: As you know, since the mid-1980s we have had a process
in place by which the President annually ``certifies'' the counter-
narcotics performance of other nations. I had a part in drafting this
statute. It hasn't been perfect, but it has succeeded in getting the
attention of foreign governments and the State Department.
Last spring, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved a
bill sponsored by Senator Dodd to modify the process--on a temporary
basis of three years. Under this bill, the President would
``decertify'' those not living up to their commitments; the process of
giving a formal grade of ``certification'' would end.
What are your current views on the certification process and on the
modification set forth in the Dodd bill?
Answer: I have testified in support of the certification process in
the past because I found it to be an important means of maintaining
accountability in our foreign drug control efforts. I believe the
statutory language which mandates that the executive branch certify
annually that a country is taking ``adequate steps'' to combat drug
trafficking is reasonable and reflects and important standard for
maintaining support for the costs and risks of many of our programs in
this area. I also think it is prudent for the certification process to
include the current waiver so that in the event that the ``adequate
steps'' requirement is not met, the secretary of state, as delegated by
the President, may issue a national interest waiver holding sanctions
in abeyance while still being candid about the limitations of a
country's efforts.
I also recognize that the certification process is intended to be a
tool to help us achieve the best results from our international
programs and policies. In this regard, I support the President's effort
to work with Congress, including Senator Dodd and yourself, to make
adjustments to the certification process to foster greater cooperation
between Mexico and the United States on drug control efforts. If
confirmed, I would like to have the opportunity to review the current
situation and discuss with you, and other leaders in the Congress, and
the key officials in the Administration the range of options in this
area before stating a final conclusion.
Question 36: As you probably know, the provision of U.S.
intelligence for air interdiction to the governments of Peru and
Colombia has been suspended since the fatal accident last spring in
which a plane carrying U.S. missionaries was erroneously shot down
after being suspected of carrying narcotics. The joint U.S.-Peruvian
investigation of this accident revealed a tragedy of errors, including
serious communication problems--both in terms of language (the key
Peruvian on the tracking plane did not speak English) and in
communications equipment.
The Administration is still reviewing a separate report prepared by
former U.S. Ambassador Morris Busby which assessed whether the program
should be resumed.
Do you have any views on whether this program should be resumed?
Answer: I do not have settled views prior to discussing this issue
with the knowledgeable executive and congressional individuals and
reviewing the report of Ambassador Busby, if confirmed.
Question 37: There has long been a debate in drug policy about the
efficacy of source country programs and interdiction programs. The
argument, by the economists at least, is that it is not cost efficient
to devote significant resources to these programs, given the low prices
of the products at that stage of the drug trade.
There are reasons to conduct these programs other than economic
efficiency--they do raise the cost of doing business and they also
support foreign governments which are under siege. But the economists
may not be completely wrong--there may be a point of diminishing
returns in these types of programs.
We devote a lot of money to the drug budget, but we don't have a
lot of excess federal dollars to spend.
What do you think is the appropriate amount of resources that we
should spend--in terms of percentage--on interdiction and source
country programs? Have your views changed as you have looked at these
programs?
Answer: My views on appropriate levels of spending for interdiction
and source-country programs have changed over time, but they have
changed in regard to the results produced by particular programs and
their value in relation to the other programs they are in direct
competition with for funding. We need programs here--as in all areas of
drug control policy that work in reducing the use of illegal drugs. I
favor rigorous evaluation of supply reduction programs and have worked
to improve such measures in the past. If confirmed, I would review
these programs with these criteria in mind.
<F-dash>
Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Bingaman
Question: In September 2000, General Barry McCaffrey released a new
organizational plan for the Southwest Border (SWB) HIDTA, redefining
the current structure and consolidating authority for the SWB H1DTA in
an executive committee based in El Paso, Texas. Currently, the SWB
HIDTA functions as five partnerships--New Mexico, Arizona, California,
West Texas, and East Texas--with administrative oversight based in San
Diego. I am concerned that ONDCP's September 2000 plan would result in
a considerable loss of autonomy and representation for my state of New
Mexico.
Under this plan, the Executive Committee ``shall be comprised of an
equal number of state/local and federal law enforcement members with a
minimum of 16 and a maximum of 20 members with voting authority.'' No
mention is made of state distribution on the Executive Committee. For a
small state such as mine, I find this troublesome.
Moreover, the five current Regional Executive Committees ``shall be
reconstituted as State Advisory Boards. . .representing the Southwest
border designated HIDTA counties within the state of California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.'' No mention is made of what purpose or
authority these Boards would have relative to the newly comprised
Executive Committee.
Mr. Walters, how will you address these concerns that I have
raised? What are your intentions with regard to the organization of the
Southwest Border HIDTA? What steps will you take to ensure that the
State of New Mexico continues to have a considerable voice in decisions
affecting New Mexico HIDTA counties?
Answer: I believe the most essential element of the HIDTA program
is the collaborative management structure it can provide to Federal,
State, and local authorities. This was a hallmark of the program when
we launched it when I last served at ONDCP and we worked diligently to
nurture that feature. The goal of the program is to create a genuine
team effort and I recognize that this cannot be accomplished with
uneven or token involvement by some participants. My past experience
has been that the sheer size and the number of jurisdictions involved
makes the Southwest Border HIDTA both unique and crucial to our drug
control objectives.
I understand the concerns you express and I would propose to
address them by first meeting with the authorities in New Mexico and
the others involved in the management of the Southwest Border HIDTA, if
confirmed. My preference will always be to resolve such issues promptly
and directly with the concerned parties.
<F-dash>
Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Cantwell
Question 1: At your confirmation hearing you expressed your support
for the autonomy of successful regional and local programs. If
confirmed, will you remain committed to structure that gives the local
board of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) discretion
over the use of those funds?
Answer: Although I have not had an opportunity to meet with the key
members of the HIDTA community, if confirmed, my inclination would be
to keep the active state and local management participation as
reflected in the program.
Question 2: In my home state of Washington, we have seen an
enormous explosion in the production and use of methamphetamine
throughout the state. While we are fortunate to have the Northwest
HIDTA to aid our local law enforcement communities in the fight against
meth, the Northwest HIDTA currently includes only nine counties in
Washington, and does not include the heavily affected counties in the
eastern and southwest part of the state. The board of Northwest HIDTA
is committed to expanding the HIDTA to include counties that meet
specified criteria but is reluctant to increase the number of counties
if they do not receive a comparable level of increased funding from
ONDCP.
As Director of ONDCP would you support an increase of funding for
Northwest HIDTA that allows for the inclusion of counties with a
demonstrated methamphetamine problem without a corresponding cut in the
existing programs?
Answer: I think an important strength of the HIDTA program is its
ability to adapt to needs in the states and regions. If confirmed, I
would like to discuss the issues you raise with the Northwest HIDTA
board and others directly involved in the program. I would be inclined
to help under the circumstances you describe, if the resources are
available.
Question 3: Northwest ROTA is unique because it is one of only two
HIDTAs nationwide that incorporates a prevention and treatment
component that is closely tied to the criminal justice mission of the
HIDTA. The funding for the treatment and prevention components is
limited to $1 million, pursuant to the FY 2000 Treasury Postal
Appropriations report and ONDCP policy, and the monies are used to fund
drug courts and to provide community prevention funding in conjunction
with the local police departments. Assuming that the board of Northwest
HIDTA continues to determine that these funds are best used for
prevention and treatment purposes, would you maintain the current ONDCP
policy of allowing $1 million to be used for these purposes?
Answer: If confirmed, I would like to have an opportunity to review
the work of the Northwest HIDTA with the board, and the community
affected by its work. It
has been my experience that programs designed to respect local
authority and management are best preserved by including local and
regional authorities in decisions regarding their work. My inclination
would be to maintain current practice, however.
Question 4: During your nomination hearing, a study by The National
Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia was referenced.
That study found that eighth graders living in rural America are 104
percent likelier to use amphetamines, including methamphetamine, 83
percent more likely to smoke crack cocaine, and 34 percent more likely
to smoke marijuana, than eighth graders living in urban areas. As
Director of ONDCP, what specific efforts would you undertake to address
the growing problem of drug use, particularly juvenile drug use, in
rural communities?
Answer: I think we can best meet the needs of rural areas by
ensuring that our programs for prevention, treatment, and law
enforcement are designed and managed with an awareness of those needs.
From community coalitions, to school-based prevention programs, to
meeting the treatment needs of rural communities, to providing law
enforcement help that is adapted to rural circumstances, all of these
programs provide some resources to rural America. If confirmed, I would
like to work with appropriate Federal, State, and local authorities to
make the assistance better match the need.
Question 5: During your hearing you voiced support for the use of
drug courts. In my state we have also begun to use comparable mental
health courts. Do you also support the use of mental health courts as a
means of dealing more appropriately with the vast number of mentally
ill prisoners who are not currently receiving treatment?
Answer: I am not familiar with mental health courts, but given what
I know about the role of mental health problems among those individuals
entering the criminal justice system and the way drug courts can help
such individuals with drug addiction problems, I can see the promise in
this approach. If confirmed, I would like to meet with some of those
working in this effort and perhaps have them discuss their work with
more of the ONDCP and federal program staff in other agencies.
Question 6: In the past, you have strongly asserted the view that
drug use and crime are largely a result of diminished traditional
values in society.
a. Do you continue to believe that diminished traditional values
are a root cause of the drug problem?
Answer: I believe the arguments against illegal drug use that must
be the foundation of our prevention and treatment efforts can be
supported by traditional views of right and wrong, of acceptable and
harmful, but I also believe those arguments can stand on their own. I
do not believe that drug control policy should be used as a vehicle to
enforce traditional opinions and I know that many, many Americans
holding diverse and untraditional views are opposed to drug use.
b. What specifically do you suggest that parents do to protect
their children from drugs?
Answer: Be a good example. Be a good teacher and tell children that
drug use is wrong and harmful, and why. Help children find constructive
and healthy activities in which they can grow and learn. Ensure that
children and young people are supervised by responsible adults, even
when they sometimes resist such supervision. Make the effort to learn
about the nature of drug problems in your child's school and the other
parts of the community from which your child could face this threat.
Help support community anti-drug efforts.
<F-dash>
Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Durbin
Question 1: When he nominated you to become Director of the ONDCP,
President Bush stated that ``the most effective way to reduce the
supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in
America.'' In the past, you have taken the opposite view-that the key
to solving the drug crisis lies in targeting drug suppliers. I believe
you wrote: ``[T]he only way of reaching the vast majority of heavy drug
users is to drive up the price of drugs. Addicts can only beg, borrow
and steal so much.'' Since you have pledged to support the President's
approach, please describe the evolution in your thinking.
Answer: The article to which you refer, ``Destroyed by Drugs,'' was
written in response to a report indicating a mounting number of drug-
related overdoses during 1995. The full quotation reads as follows:
``For most addicts, the only hope of recovery is detox?. followed by
repeated stays in a treatment facility. Some, sucked into the criminal
justice system, can be coerced into treatment. But the only way of
reaching the vast majority of heavy drug users is to drive up the price
of drugs. Addicts can only beg, borrow and steal so much. Making drugs
expensive forces addicts to spend their limited disposable income on a
smaller quantity of drugs.'' I believe that to be an accurate
statement. The article scored the ``Clinton Administration's imbalanced
drug policy'' because of a reduction in the nation's interdiction
structure, not because of an increase in treatment spending.
I have long supported a balanced strategy involving drug treatment,
prevention efforts, as well as enforcement and interdiction. My views
on the subject are perhaps best summed up in the introduction to the
1990 National Drug Control Strategy, which I helped write, and which
stated, in part, that:
For reasons both political and institutional, much public
discussion has been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile debate over
``supply'' versus ``demand'' solutions. But to repeat what we have been
saying for almost a year, the reality of the drug problem cannot be met
through an exclusive ``law enforcement'' strategy on the one hand, or a
``prevention and treatment'' strategy on the other. Most Americans
recognize by now that we need both approaches. An effective criminal
justice policy needs a good treatment policy; a successful treatment
system is hampered by the easy availability of drugs and will
ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention program; and good
prevention programs are harder to carry out absent vigorous efforts
directed at international and domestic drug traffickers who are largely
responsible for making drugs so ubiquitous in the first place.
Question 2: In your written statement to the Committee, you spoke
of ``the history of strong bipartisan commitment to our shared national
goal of reducing drug use'' and the need to ``transcend traditional
political and party boundaries.'' I could not agree more with these
sentiments. I am troubled, however, by your record of frequent partisan
attacks against the last presidential administration. Please describe
the steps you have taken over the last eight years to transcend
traditional political boundaries and support the Clinton
Administration's anti-drug programs. How do you reconcile these efforts
with the substance and tone of your public commentary during this time
period?
Answer: I have long believed that drug policy is an issue that
knows no party affiliation
and which, in fact, is harmed by any attempt to align it with a
particular party or interest.
I believe that there are serious students of drug policy in both
houses and on both sides of the aisle, including Senators Biden,
Feinstein, Grassley, Dewine, and Kyl, and Representatives Gilman,
Portman, Rangel, and Levin, to name just a few. These are people who
tend to agree on many matters including, with evident differences in
emphasis, the need to pursue a strategy that addresses all aspects of
this multi dimensional problem. With regard to the Clinton
Administration, I should note that, particularly during his first term
of office, I was joined in some of my criticisms by Members on both
sides of the aisle.
Question 3: I take you at your word that, if confirmed, you would
support drug treatment efforts. At your hearing, you repeatedly lauded
the President's commitment of $1.6 billion to close the ``treatment
gap.'' But the job of ``Drug Czar'' goes well beyond doling out federal
funds. As you know, the Director of ONDCP must employ diplomatic skill
and moral persuasion to coordinate the anti-drug efforts of numerous
federal and state agencies and not-for-profit institutions. I am
concerned that some of your statements in the past have alienated
leaders in the drug prevention and treatment community. For example,
you have derided the ``notoriously under-performing drug-treatment
system'' and described the ``therapy-only lobby'' as ``more dogmatic
than ever.'' It does not come as a surprise to me that many proponents
of drug treatment programs have written the Committee to oppose your
nomination. Can you be an effective ``Drug Czar'' without the
confidence of the drug treatment community? If confirmed, what steps
would you take to heal the rift with those who promote drug treatment?
Answer: I am grateful for the many treatment and prevention groups
that supported me and even sent representatives to be at my
confirmation hearing. They include Dick Bonnette, (Partnership for a
Drug-Free America), General Arthur Dean and Sue Thau (Community Anti-
Drug Coalitions of America), Melody Heaps (Treatment Alternatives for
Safer Communities), John Avery (NAADAC), Jennifer Collier (Legal Action
Center), Linda Wolf Jones (Therapeutic Communities of America), Mark
Parrino (American Methadone Treatment Association), Judge Karen
Freeman-Williams (National Association of Drug Court Professionals),
Betty Sembler and Calvina Fay (Drug-Free America Foundation), Judy
Cushing, (Oregon Family Partnership), and Henry Lozano, of Californians
for Drug-free Youth. In addition, to the extent that there has been
criticism of my record from actual treatment providers and
associations, I would seek to address that by correcting the record,
and which has been one of strong support for drug treatment, fighting
for increases in the treatment budget, and supporting improvements both
in how we evaluate the effectiveness of our treatment programs and how
we target needed expansions in treatment capacity.
Question 4: As we discussed at your hearing, I believe that one of
the greatest challenges confronting law enforcement today is restoring
trust and confidence in minority communities. Whether intentional or
not, the nation's prosecution of the so-called War on Drugs has
disproportionably targeted racial and ethnic minorities. Consider the
following statistics from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration and the Department of Justice: African
Americans represent 12% of the U.S. population, only 11% of current
drug users, but 35% of those arrested for drug violations, 53% of those
convicted in state courts for drug felonies, and 58% of those serving
time for drug offenses in state prisons. Please explain in greater
detail why you believe it is a ``great urban myth'' that ``the criminal
justice system is unjustly punishing black men''? Why do you think that
people of color are disproportionably represented among arrestees,
convicts, and prisoners for drug crimes, when whites use illegal
narcotics at roughly the same rates? Do you believe that the practice
of racial profiling is an urban myth?
Answer: I agree entirely with your statement about the importance
of restoring trust and confidence in minority communities. Clearly, the
government must create and administer laws in a fair and equitable
fashion, but it is equally important that the laws be seen as fair by
our citizens. I have stated my intention to conduct a review, working
in close consultation with the Attorney General, of the current
sentencing structure as relates to illegal drugs. In such an
examination I also believe we should consider those who are the victims
of criminal acts. In the same Weekly Standard article you cite above, I
also wrote: ``In 1998, of the 7,276 murders in the United States that
involved a single offender and a single victim, 5,133 of the victims
were male and 3,309 were black. According to the FBI, 3,565 of the
offenders in these murder cases were black, and 3,067 of the murders
involved both a black victim and a black offender. In 1998, black males
between the ages of 14 and 17 were almost six times more likely than
white males to be victims of murder or non-negligent manslaughter;
black males between 18 and 24 were over eight times more likely to be
victims; and for those 25 and over, black males were murder victims at
a rate 7.6 times that of white males.''
As I sought to explain during the hearing, I believe we should work
to reduce crime, drug use, and addiction as the best way to help reduce
the number of individuals who enter the criminal justice system and the
number who enter prison. I have spent a significant portion of my time
while working at the Philanthropy Roundtable helping foundations and
donors better support not only for drug prevention and treatment
programs, but the range of assistance to help disadvantaged communities
improve schools, job training, housing, healthcare, and other elements
necessary to stabilize neighborhoods and break the cycles of crime and
addiction.
With regard to your question about urban myths, with all due regard
for the data and claims that have been advanced on various sides of
this issue, I am not of the view that the U.S. Government, Federal,
State, or local, is locking up innocent people for drug crimes in
significant numbers. I believe that our system is weighted toward
avoiding wrongful convictions, and I hope that continues to be the
case. I think most Americans believe in second and third chances, and
most are profoundly sad at the waste of human potential when a person
of any race is sent to prison for wrongdoing. I also believe that
appropriate prison sentences can serve the greater societal purpose of
punishment and incapacitation. I believe we must continually strive to
balance these aims and insure that our laws and policies are just.
Question 5: At your hearing, you expressed a willingness to
reconsider the stark disparity between criminal punishments for the
possession of crack and powder cocaine, a disparity which adversely and
disproportionably affects racial minorities. Under federal law, those
convicted of possessing only five grams of crack receive a mandatory
five-year minimum sentence of imprisonment, while it takes 100 times as
much powder cocaine to yield the same punishment. How will you go about
reexamining this issue? Will you make a formal recommendation to the
Congress? Will you make a commitment that, if confirmed, you will
return to the Committee and explain your new conclusions?
Answer: As I testified before the Committee, and as you are aware,
the Congress created the current sentencing structure in response to
the urban crack cocaine epidemic that was blamed for stimulating inner-
city violence and crime. The differential reflected the greater
addictive potential of crack when compared to powder cocaine, the
greater violence associated with the trafficking of crack, and the
importance of targeting mid- and higher-level traffickers as opposed to
smaller-scale dealers.
I do recognize that the sentencing structure has fostered among
some a perception of racial injustice within the criminal system.
Clearly, the government must create and administer laws in a fair and
equitable fashion, but it is equally important that the laws be seen as
fair by the citizens.
If confirmed, I would certainly work with the Department of Justice
to review the current drug-related sentencing structure to ensure that
it is fair and just. Before that review and broader consultations with
knowledgeable and affected parties is complete, it would be premature
to indicate either the nature of any recommendation and who in the Bush
Administration would be charged with delivering it.
Question 6: I am pleased you are now open to reducing the crack
cocaine/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, especially because you
have said in the past that it was ``irresponsible'' for the nonpartisan
federal Sentencing Commission to make such a recommendation. You have
denied undergoing what is known as a ``confirmation conversion.'' What,
then, accounts for your change in position? Why did you think it was
not only wrong headed but irresponsible for the Commission in the mid-
1990s to make its recommendation? Why are you open to that
recommendation now?
Answer: My comments above should be understood in light of my
belief that it should be Congress' prerogative to determine whether or
not proposed changes implicating mandatory minimum sentences should
made by the Commission. Simply as a matter of good government, I am
concerned at the potential for disruption that can occur when the
Sentencing Commission passes a guidelines amendment that conflicts with
a statutory mandatory minimum, since Sentencing Commission amendments
take effect automatically after six months, unless blocked by Act of
Congress. Indeed, the quotation you referenced continues that ``the
Commission should be barred from proposing changes in criminal
penalties where Congress has established mandatory minimum sentences,
except in an advisory format that would require affirmative
congressional action before taking effect.''
Question 7: You had the opportunity during the last Bush
administration to work in ONDCP with Judge Reggie Walton, a well-
respected jurist who was recently confirmed to the federal district
court in the District of Columbia. As you know, Judge Walton was
arrested several times as a teenager, and he has used his experiences
to speak extensively about the need for rehabilitating juvenile
offenders. You are on record in support of stringent mandatory minimum
prison sentences, which have subjected youthful offenders, many of them
only marginally involved in nonviolent drug transactions, to years and
years of incarceration. You also have written that the principal aim of
punishment should be to ``exact a price for transgressing the rights of
others.'' How do you reconcile these positions with the life
experiences and views expressed by Judge Walton?
Answer: I had the privilege of working with Judge Walton, a fine
public servant and a man who I am pleased to see has recently been
confirmed for a federal district court judgeship. I visited him several
weeks ago, before his confirmation, and spent time observing the
juvenile-drug court that was a part of his calendar. His work there was
impressive and based on strict supervision and prompt rewards for
carrying out the directives of the court and prompt sanctions for
failing to do so. Judge Walton was considered by many to be a tough
judge and one who is on record as supporting tougher penalties for drug
dealers and violent criminals alike. It goes without saying that
justice must be tempered with mercy, which is why youthful offenders
get the benefit of special sentencing and (where indicated) prison
arrangements. I also believe that serious crime fighting approaches,
which have had punishment and incapacitation as their principal aims,
have contributed greatly to the sizeable reductions in violent crime we
have seen over the past decade.
Question 8: You are on record as opposing needle exchange programs,
even on an experimental level, to combat the spread of HIV. You are
also a strong proponent of federalism and limits on congressional
power. As Director of ONDCP, would you act to restrict state and local
authority to experiment with needle exchange programs? Would you use
your office as a ``bully pulpit'' to campaign against such programs?
Would you interfere with needle exchanges in the District of Columbia?
Why or why not?
Answer: The transmission of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C through
intravenous drug use is certainly a serious problem, and is of course
one of the dangerous and deadly consequences of IV drug use. Needle
exchange programs have been and are likely to remain controversial, yet
we can all agree that effective treatment and support that protect the
IV drug user not only from disease but also from all the other
consequences of drug use, is the place to put our effort. Certainly
various locales and programs will continue with needle exchange
programs, and I plan to carefully monitor and evaluate their
effectiveness. I would prefer to focus Federal resources on outreach
and treatment, because they best address the full range of problems
facing IV drug users and those around them.
Question 9: In 1996, you advocated for greater American involvement
in the efforts of the Peruvian military to shoot down airplanes
suspected of drug trafficking--the same efforts that resulted in the
tragic death of an American missionary and her daughter this April. You
wrote: ``This is an opportunity to save American lives by helping the
Peruvians press their attack on traffickers.'' What lessons should we
draw from the recent incident? Do you still believe that America should
provide logistical support to Peru's program?
Answer: Clearly, the situation on the ground in Peru (and Colombia,
and Latin America in general) has changed considerably since I was in
office, and if confirmed, I would plan to consult extensively with
interested parties in the executive branch, the Congress, and outside
of government to develop plans and budgets for the future of our
international drug control program. My intention would be to conduct a
thorough review of these programs. Prior to the conclusion of such a
review, I do not have settled views on the shape and direction of our
future policy with regard to Peru. With regard to the questions of what
lessons to draw, I am not privy to any of the internal intelligence or
deliberations of the Department of State team investigating the
accident, and I await along with everyone else the findings of
Ambassador Busby's inquiry in the causes of the incident. Based on what
has been in the press, it appears that the flaw in the Peru operation
was less in the agreed-upon procedures than in the failure to follow
those procedures. I would conclude from the tragic events in Peru that
continued, strong oversight of our foreign programs is vital to the
continued success of those programs and to the political support that
makes them possible.
Question 10: Many people, including Former Attorney General Janet
Reno, have advocated the creation of specialized drug courts for
addicts. What are your views on drug courts? As head of the ONDCP,
would you sponsor or support efforts to experiment with drug courts, at
the federal or local level?
Answer: I support making a strong commitment to funding Drug Court
programs, with a focus on the State and local level. I am not aware of
Drug Court programs that operate at the Federal level, but I intend to
look into this matter if confirmed.
Question 11: Last term, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth
Amendment prohibits law enforcement from using thermal imaging devices
to search for heat emissions from marijuana lamps, absent
individualized suspicion. Do you agree with that decision, as a
constitutional or a policy matter? How do you believe we as a nation
should balance advances in law enforcement technology with the civil
liberties of citizens?
Answer: I am generally familiar with the Kyllo case, but would want
to consult with relevant officials both inside ONDCP and at the
Department of Justice before offering an opinion on this matter. I am
not of the view that many investigative techniques of Federal law
enforcement agencies inherently conflict with the civil liberties of
citizens, but when an investigative technique does implicate a privacy
interest, as is in the case with telephone wiretaps, the Congress has
always been quick to establish a principled basis, guided by the Fourth
Amendment and the way Supreme Court decisions have construed it, for
ensuring that the use of the technique is strictly limited to
appropriate instances.
Question 12: Many people, including prominent conservatives like
Congressman Henry Hyde, have taken the position that our asset
forfeiture laws expand federal power at the expense of civil liberties.
For instance, the standard of proof in civil forfeiture cases is
considerably less stringent than the ``beyond a reasonable doubt''
threshold, and the government often seizes property without bringing
criminal charges against the owner. Do you think our forfeiture laws
need reform? What recommendations for reform, if any, do you support?
Answer: Asset forfeiture laws are an indispensable tool in the
effort to go after drug traffickers. One problem with regard to asset
forfeiture laws has been the amount of misinformation suggesting that
the Federal government seizes yachts as a result of finding a small
amount of marijuana onboard. As you know, Federal agencies are not
supposed to seize private property unless it is an instrumentality or
proceeds of an illegal act, a standard that strikes me as reasonable.
You are correct to note Congressman Hyde has expressed concerns about
civil forfeiture. In the context of those concerns, then Chairman Hyde
proposed, and the Congress passed, legislation raising the standard of
proof required to effect an asset forfeiture, from one of ``probable
cause'' to ``preponderance of the evidence,'' and placing the burden of
proof on the government, not the defendant. I support those changes.
Question 13: Recently, federal and local authorities have detected
a disturbing rise in the non medicinal use of the prescription drug
Oxycontin. According to data from the Department of Health and Human
Services, abuse of Oxycontin rose over 80% between 1999 and 2000 alone.
How do you propose combating the abuse of Oxycontin and other legal
narcotics? What lessons should we draw from the rise of Oxycontin as an
illicit substance?
Answer: The growing abuse of Oxycontin is a disturbing trend and
one that demands special attention. If confirmed, I plan to work with
interested parties within the Department of Justice, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the pharmaceutical industry, to seek to craft a
solution that balances the legitimate need of patients to receive
palliative care and the need to restrict the diversion of an important
medication that, used inappropriately, is both dangerous and addictive.
<F-dash>
Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Feingold
Question 1: You have been someone who has advocated strong criminal
enforcement and supply interdiction efforts and downplayed the
essential role of treatment programs. Yet, the President, the DEA
Administrator Mr. Hutchinson, and Senate leaders are heading in a
different direction. In fact, in President Bush's remarks announcing
your nomination on May 10th, he essentially said that addressing demand
should be our paramount concern. President Bush said:
My administration will continue to work with nations to eradicate
drugs at their source, and enforce our borders to stop the flow of
drugs into America. . . .However, the most effective way to reduce the
supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in
America. Therefore, this administration will focus unprecedented
attention on the demand side of the problem.
President Bush continued by pledging $1.6 billion over the next
five years for drug treatment and by asking Secretary Tommy Thompson to
conduct a state-by-state inventory of treatment needs and report back
to the President on how to close the treatment gap in the country most
effectively.
(a) Given your longstanding commitment to supply interdiction and
law enforcement over treatment and prevention, how would you, if
confirmed as Director, reconcile your views with the President's pledge
to give priority attention to demand reduction? Would you seek to
persuade him to adopt your ideas or would you simply carry out the
President's plan?
Answer: I am and I have long been an ardent supporter of effective
drug treatment. During my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw tremendous
growth of the drug treatment budget, including the creation of the
Targeted Capacity Expansion Program that remains a critical component
of our treatment infrastructure. In addition, I highlighted drug--
treatment as a fundamental component when I helped draft the first
National Drug Control Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with
experts in the field such as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr.
Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb Kleber. I look forward to reviewing the
report President Bush directed Secretary Thompson to deliver concerning
the areas of specific need for additional treatment services in America
to assess our progress and understand what remains to be accomplished.
While not prejudging the results of that review, areas where
improvement may be warranted include making available the proper
treatment modality to the individual in need, making available
appropriate service linkages, and making available an adequate
aftercare component.
As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, if confirmed, I
will seek to highlight the importance of a balanced strategy for
reducing our nation's dependence on illegal drugs. My views on the
subject are perhaps best summed up in the introduction to the 1990
National Drug Control Strategy, which I helped write, and which stated,
in part, that:
For reasons both political and institutional, much public
discussion has been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile debate over
``supply'' versus ``demand'' solutions. But to repeat what we have been
saying for almost a year, the reality of the drug problem cannot be met
through an exclusive ``law enforcement'' strategy on the one hand, or a
``prevention and treatment'' strategy on the other. Most Americans
recognize by now that we need both approaches. An effective criminal
justice policy needs a good treatment policy; a successful treatment
system is hampered by the easy availability of drugs and will
ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention program; and good
prevention programs are harder to carry out absent vigorous efforts
directed at international and domestic drug traffickers who are largely
responsible for making drugs so ubiquitous in the first place.
(b) Can you assure this Committee that, if confirmed, you would
fully endorse the President's pledge to increase attention to demand
reduction?
Answer: Yes, I will.
Question 2: I believe it is time for a review of our federal
mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which, in some cases, have resulted
in unjust punishment of non-violent drug offenders. There are currently
over 450,000 non-violent drug offenders serving time in a federal,
state or local prison, accounting for almost one-fourth of all inmates.
Almost 80% of drug arrests in 1998 were for possession-not sale or
manufacture, but possession-of a controlled substance. In 1997, the
average federal sentence for a drug offense was 78 months, over twice
the average sentence for manslaughter (30 months) and almost four times
the average sentence for auto theft (20 months). Possession of crack
cocaine warrants five years in a federal prison with no possibility of
parole. How can you criticize those who look at these numbers and pause
and say that `there is something wrong here, we need a review of these
mandatory minimum sentencing policies'? How do you justify such
inequity in our criminal justice system?
Answer: While I am not of the view that the U.S. Government,
Federal, State, or local, is locking up innocent people for drug crimes
in significant numbers, I do recognize that the mandatory minimum
sentencing structure has fostered among some a perception of racial
injustice within the criminal system. Clearly, the government must
create and administer laws in a fair and equitable fashion, but it is
equally important that the laws be seen as fair by the citizens.
My understanding of the legislative history is that Congress
adopted the current twotiered mandatory minimum sentencing structure as
part of a larger effort both to incapacitate and punish mid- and
senior-level drug dealers. While I believe that these sentences have
been in many ways effective, I also recognize that there has been some
disagreement about their fairness. If I am confirmed as ONDCP director,
I would initiate a review of mandatory minimum sentences as they relate
to illegal drugs, working in close consultation with the Attorney
General. President Bush has expressed his openness to such a review, as
has Attorney General Ashcroft. It would be my intention to conduct this
review in consultation with interested parties in the executive branch,
in Congress, the courts, and in the public.
<F-dash>
Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Grassley
Question 1: One of my continuing concerns is to ensure that rural
communities receive more attention when it comes to resources for
combating drug use and trafficking. Rural communities share many of the
same drug use problems as big cities and the suburbs but they don't
seem to receive much policy attention or resources. I would welcome
your views on how we can have more effective programs for dealing with
drug problems in rural communities.
Answer: The best way to help rural areas derive appropriate
assistance for the drug problems they face is to ensure they remain
eligible for support within federal programs and that efforts are made
to develop and disseminate approaches that are tailored to needs of
rural areas. I believe the hIIDTA program is an example of assistance
now provided in a range of settings. Some of the community coalition
programs also seem to have adapted both support and strategies for
urban and rural settings. I would like to review this issue more
systematically with the knowledgeable and interested parties and build
on the work that has been most successful.
Question 2: The drug Ecstasy has made frequent headlines the last
few years. We are now starting to see Raves in Iowa and efforts to
market this drug to our young people. As Drug Czar, how do you think
that we can more effectively deal with this type of club drug?
Answer: Since my nomination I have spoken to many people who are
particularly alarmed the trends in the use of Ecstasy and some of the
other club drugs. While I would not make any final decisions prior to
being able to consult more widely, my initial view is that we need to
do a better job informing young people and the broader public of the
dangers many already know are associated with these drugs-we need
better prevention efforts. We also need to work with local, state, and
federal officials to reverse the trend of normalizing and accommodating
such drug use as a regular part of social gatherings in some areas. -
Finally; I would like to examine what we can do to reduce the trade in
Ecstasy and related drugs.
Question 3: I am increasingly concerned that the Department of
Defense is not pulling its weight on drug issues. One of the most
important components of that commitment is the support provided by the
National Guard. Do you support the National Guard's domestic demand
reduction and interdiction counterdrug programs? Do you think that DOD
has an active role to play in our national counter drug efforts?
Answer: When I last served in the drug policy office, we made a
particular-and successful-effort to expand the role of the Department
of Defense, including the National Guard, in national drug control
policy. DOD brings unique skills and resources to the effort and I
believe we cannot do as good a job in our demand reduction and supply
reduction goals with them. At this time of new and evolving demands on
our military in connection with the terrorism, I believe we will need
to work closely with DOD to help responsibly manage resources in the
face of multiple threats.
Question 4: I know that you share congressional concern on the
current legalization movement in this country. Would you comment on the
effort to legalized drugs under various guises?
Answer: I have been a steadfast opponent of drug legalization for
many years, both while in government and out. I have written and spoken
on this issue many times. I believe-as do the vast majority of
Americans-that legalizing drug use would be a disaster for our nation
and particularly for our young people. This debate has shifted in
recent years to involve a variety of issues and I believe there is no
substitute for addressing those issues directly and the underlying goal
of legalization. One of the prices of the free society we all love is
that we must be willing to conduct free and open debate on important
issues in whatever form those issues arise. But here too, I think that
when the debate is joined and national leaders and others give voice to
the realities of what legalization would mean-in short, when we push
back-the legalization movement will recede.
Question 5: Methamphetamine is a major drug problem, particularly
in Western and rural States. While there has been talk of a strategy to
combat this, I do not think a lot has actually been done. What are your
thoughts on how we need to address meth production and use?
Answer: I share your concern about the growth of methaphetamine use
and its trafficking. It would be premature for me to make a judgment on
the national efforts against this threat, prior to full discussions
with key people working on the supply and demand side of this problem.
Nonetheless, I would make such a review a top priority because I share
your impression that we need to do much more against this threat.
Question 6: I support the need to reauthorized the Andean Trade
Preference Act to help the Andean Countries deal with the economic
problems caused by drug production. Can you comment on your views on
ATPA?
Answer: I have long believed that expanding opportunities for
legitimate trade with the United States is an important tool in working
with the Andean nations to attack the drug problem, as well as the many
other interests we have in the region. I believe our goal has always
been to promote economic development along with democracy, stability,
and rule of law. The ATPA was helpful in this effort in the past and
should be in the future.
Question 7: What is your position on the Tethered Aerostat Radar
System (TARS)?
Answer: I have not had direct experience with this program since I
left government over eight years ago. For this reason I cannot give an
informed position on the system at the present, but I will look into it
and discuss it with you if confirmed.
<F-dash>
Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy
Question 1: In 1997, you criticized General Barry McCaffrey for
sending ``the wrong message'' when he expressed concern about the high
percentage of African Americans being imprisoned for drug offenses. In
addition to General McCaffrey, many other persons have felt that the
criminal justice system is unjustly punishing young black men. Yet as
recently as last March, you called this view one of ``the great urban
myths of our time.''
The 2000 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse shows that
African-Americans and whites use illegal drugs at the same rate.
Nevertheless, according to a recent report by RAND, while drug-related
admissions to U.S. prisons by whites increased seven-fold between 1983
and 1998, admissions by AfricanAmericans increased twenty-six-fold.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1997 black men
accounted for half of all state drug prisoners, even though they
comprised only 4% of the U.S. population. White men comprised 30% of
the population, but only 16% of state drug prisoners.
Given these flagrant disparities, how can you be so confident that
there is no racial bias in the criminal justice system? Shouldn't the
Director of ONDCP have an open mind about the possibility of racial
injustice in the criminal justice system?
Answer: Racial injustice is intolerable and has no place in our
criminal justice system. I recognize that the statistics you cite
create an appearance of unfairness, and as I said in my testimony, I
believe it is critical that we examine the equity and fairness of our
criminal justice system. I have stated my intention to conduct a
review, working in close consultation with the Attorney General, of the
current sentencing structure as relates to illegal drugs. It is my
intention to conduct this review in consultation with people in
government and law enforcement, as well as with interested parties and
experts from outside government.
In such an examination I also believe we should consider those who
are the victims of criminal acts. In the same Weekly Standard article
you cite above, I also wrote: ``In 1998, of the 7,276 murders in the
United States that involved a single offender and a single victim,
5,133 of the victims were male and 3,309 were black. According to the
FBI, 3,565 of the offenders in these murder cases were black, and 3,067
of the murders involved both a black victim and a black offender. In
1998, black males between the ages of 14 and 17 were almost six times
more likely than white males to be victims of murder or non-negligent
manslaughter; black males between 18 and 24 were over eight times more
likely to be victims; and for those 25 and over, black males were
murder victims at a rate 7.6 times that of white males.''
As I sought to explain during the hearing, I believe we should work
to reduce crime, drug use, and addiction as the best way to help reduce
the number of individuals who enter the criminal justice system and the
number who enter prison. I have spent a significant portion of my time
while working at the Philanthropy Roundtable helping foundations and
donors better support not only for drug prevention and treatment
programs, but the range of assistance to help disadvantaged communities
improve schools, job training, housing, healthcare, and other elements
necessary to stabilize neighborhoods and break the cycles of crime and
addiction.
With all due regard for the data and claims that have been advanced
on various sides of this issue, I am not of the view that the U.S.
Government, Federal, State, or local, is locking up innocent people for
drug crimes in significant numbers. I believe that our system is
weighted toward avoiding wrongful convictions, and I hope that
continues to be the case. I think most Americans believe in second and
third chances, and most are profoundly sad at the waste of human
potential when a person of any race is sent to prison for wrongdoing. I
also believe that appropriate prison sentences can serve the greater
societal purpose of punishment and incapacitation. I believe we must
continually strive to balance these aims and insure that our laws and
policies are just.
Question 2: There are more than two million people imprisoned in
the United States. We have 5% of the world population, but 25% of the
world's prison population. We have the highest per capita incarceration
rate in the world--five times higher than that of the next highest
Western nation. Nevertheless, you recently wrote in-the Weekly Standard
that the war on drugs is losing out to ``the war on punishment and
prisons.''
Many experts across the political spectrum are concerned about this
problem. For example, your one-time co-author and former Bush
Administration official John DiIulio has written that ``two million
prisoners are enough.'' He believes that we should ``aim for zero
prison growth, repeal mandatory-minimum drug laws, release drug-only
offenders, and mandate drug treatment both behind bars and in the
community.'' Do you agree or disagree with those recommendations?
Answer: All Americans lament the wasted potential represented by so
many of their fellow citizens serving time in prison. But at the same
time we are obligated to maintain a lawful society and to protect the
innocent. So as long as people are committing real crimes, it will
continue to be necessary to incarcerate those who break our laws and
represent a threat to society. When considering the genuinely troubling
number of people serving time, it is worth remembering that drug crimes
are only part of the story. As I wrote in the same Weekly Standard
article you cite, ``According to the most current data, in 1997 only
8.8 percent of the 1,046,705 individuals in state prisons were there
for drug possession. Drug trafficking offenses accounted for 11.3
percent of those imprisoned; property offenses 22 percent; and violent
crimes 47.2 percent. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, violent crimes
vastly outpaced drug offenses as the cause of the prison population's
rapid growth. The situation at the federal level is even more lopsided.
In fiscal year 1999, just 2.2 percent of federal drug convictions were
for simple possession.'' I agree that it is important to keep reviewing
the way that law and punishment are working in our society, but I
believe it is not helpful to simply promise a certain level of
punishment or imprisonment detached from the level of actual crime.
Question 3: More than 40,000 people a year become infected with
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Half of all new infections in the
United States occur among drug users. In addition, approximately 4
million Americans have been infected with the hepatitis C virus, and
drug use is responsible for at least 60% of those infections.
Numerous authorities, including:
<bullet> the National Academy of Sciences,
<bullet> the Surgeon General,
<bullet> the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
<bullet> the American Medical Association,
<bullet> the Academy of Pediatrics, and
<bullet> the American Public Health Association
have concluded that needle-exchange programs reduce the
transmission of HIV and hepatitis C without encouraging the illegal use
of drugs.
In a 1996 article, you endorsed the view that needle-exchange
programs facilitate drug use and ``undercut[] the credibility of
society's message that using drugs is illegal and morally wrong.'' You
wrote that ``emotionalism and junk science'' surrounding the needle-
exchange debate has ``obscured the central fact that there is
absolutely no hard evidence'' that these programs actually work in
reducing HIV transmission.
If you are confirmed, will you now support efforts by state and
local communities to reduce I-RV and hepatitis C infection through
needle-exchange programs? Will you support federal funding of such
programs?
Answer: The transmission of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C through
intravenous drug use is certainly a serious problem, and is of course
one of the dangerous and deadly consequences of IV drug use. Needle
exchange programs have been and are likely to remain controversial, yet
we can all agree that effective treatment and support that protects IV
drug users not only from disease but also from all the other
consequences of drug use is the place to put maximum emphasis.
Certainly, various locales and programs will continue with needle
exchange programs, and I plan to carefully monitor and evaluate their
effectiveness. I would prefer to focus Federal resources on effective
outreach and treatment because they offer the best means of addressing
the full range of problems facing IV drug users and those around them.
Question 4: In 1994, you criticized Attorney General Janet Reno for
proposing reductions in mandatory-minimum sentences for certain drug
offenses. Many of the people serving mandatory minimum sentences are
drug-addicts. Some were convicted of drug possession offenses, while
many others were convicted of low-level drug sales or non-violent
property crimes committed in order to pay for their addictions. Are you
still opposed to efforts to reform federal mandatory-minimum laws?
Answer: I have stated my intention to conduct a review, working in
close consultation with the Attorney General, of the current sentencing
structure as relates to illegal drugs. It is my intention to conduct
this review in consultation with people in government and law
enforcement, as well as with interested parties and experts from
outside government.
Question 5: In 1996, you co-authored a book titled Body Count. In
this book, you predicted that the United States was about to suffer a
``new breed'' of remorseless ``juvenile superpredators.'' Even though
juvenile crime rates had already begun to decline at that time, you
wrote: ``Over the next decade or so, the number of young men in the
population will increase substantially. And a large fraction of boys
are likely to be raised in circumstances that put them at risk of
becoming street predators.
In short, America is a ticking crime bomb. . . .A new generation of
street criminals is upon us--the youngest, biggest, and baddest
generation any society has ever known.''
Your ``juvenile superpredator'' prediction was widely publicized.
But the rate of violent juvenile crime did not increase during the
1990's. In fact, arrest rates for young people for homicide, robbery,
and rape fell dramatically--by more than 70% after 1993.
One of your co-authors, John DiIulio, has since expressed regret
about his role in advancing the ``juvenile superpredator'' prediction.
Do you regret your role?
Answer: We are all pleased that juvenile crime rates have fallen.
Of course, there is considerable disagreement about why they have gone
down, but it seems beyond dispute that some of the factors included
strengthening punishment of violent crimes by juveniles, increased law
enforcement presence (supported by additional federal resources), and
additional programs that divert young people from the paths that lead
to violent crime and ruined lives, which I discussed in great detail in
the book I coauthored with John DiIulio and William Bennett. We
consider Body Count a book about prevention first and foremost, and to
the extent that it may have provided people with tools to prevent
crime, that was our foremost hope.
Question 6: A 1999 report by the National Center for Juvenile
Justice concluded that all of the increase in homicides by juveniles
between the mid-1980's and mid-1990's was firearm-related. Similarly,
the U.S. Surgeon General recently concluded that both the decade-long
upsurge in homicides and the downward trend from 1993 to 1999 related
to the use of firearms: ``It is now clear that the violence epidemic
was caused largely by an upsurge in the use of firearms by young
people. . . .Today's youth violence is less lethal, largely because of
a decline in the use of firearms.'' Do you agree or disagree with these
conclusions?
Answer: I do not have detailed knowledge of the trends and rates of
juvenile crime tied specifically to firearms, although I do believe
that the drop in juvenile crime has many causes, as I detailed above.
Certainly, keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have
them should be a key law enforcement priority.
Question 7: In a 2001 report on drug policy, the National Academy
of Sciences found that ``neither the data systems nor the research
infrastructure needed to assess the effectiveness of drug control
enforcement policies'' exists. It concluded that it is ``time for the
federal government to remedy this serious deficiency. It is
unconscionable for this country to carry out a public policy of this
magnitude and cost without any way of knowing whether and to what
extent it is having the desired effect.'' Has this report changed your
views regarding the effectiveness of federal enforcement and sentencing
policies? As Director of ONDCP, what steps will you take in response to
the National Academy's report?
Answer: I have always believed that we need more precise and timely
data to more effectively craft drug policy, both with regard to
controlling demand and controlling supply. It is my intention, if
confirmed, to take particular care in reviewing the Academy's report,
which I have read, and to draw upon their expertise and that of other
experts to create better means of data collection to facilitate more
effective policy.
Question 8: RAND's Drug Policy Research Center recently analyzed
the federal government's increased sanctions and penalties ``applied
specifically to drug felons in a manner consistent with a view of drug
use as a moral problem rather than an illness.'' The report concluded:
These sanctions disproportionately and cumulatively affect minority
communities. While the effects of these polices are difficult to
measure directly, it is not difficult to make the case that these
sanctions serve to damage, rather than enhance, social cohesion in
minority communities. Patterns of drug conviction and community health
disparities appear to be mutually reinforcing. Without adequate
resources to facilitate recovery namely, education, job opportunities,
access to insurance, health care, housing, and the right to vote--the
prospect of recidivism becomes more likely for minority drug abusers
and increases the burden on their communities. We can thus expect the
factors that fostered drug use in the first place to persist.
What is your response to this analysis? Do you believe the federal
government should continue to restrict released drug offenders' access
to health benefits, housing benefits, access to higher education, and
the right to vote?
Answer: One thing that my work as the president of the Philanthropy
Roundtable has shown me is that law enforcement alone cannot come
anywhere close to providing everything that we need to provide to those
communities that have been hardest hit by drug abuse and drug
trafficking. I do not have a settled opinion regarding the specific
restrictions you cite for convicted drug offenders, but if confirmed I
would like to look at these questions in the broad context of an
overall review, in consultation with interested parties and with
experts inside and outside government.
Question 9: In your response to the Committee's questionnaire, you
stated that during your time at ONDCP during the first Bush
administration, you were ``a principal author of a new drug strategy
and federal spending plan that targeted more resources for treatment
than any administration before or after.'' Isn't it in fact true that
the Clinton Administration targeted substantially more resources for
drug treatment than the first Bush Administration did? If you dispute
this, please provide data in support of your position.
Answer: My apologies for the confusion in regard to this issue. I
have attached a table that provides detailed spending information and
is what I relied on for the budget references in my written testimony
before the Committee. I certainly recognize that during the eight years
of the Clinton Administration funding levels devoted to drug treatment
were higher than during the four years of the Bush Administration in
which I served. The point I was making, however, was that the rate at
which treatment spending increased for this important priority was
significantly higher drug the Bush Administration than in the Clinton
Administration. As the table indicates, overall treatment funding
increased 74 percent or $1,041.4 million from FY 1989 to FY 1993
($1,408.9 million to $2,450.3 million) in 1996 constant dollars. This
compares with an increase over eight years for the Clinton
Administration of 17 percent or $407.6 million from FY 1993 to FY 2001
($2,450.3 million to $2,857.9 million) in 1996 constant dollars. It
also compares to an increase over eight years for the Reagan
Administration of 83 percent or $640.7 million from FY 1981 to FY 1989
($768.2 million to $1,408.9 million) in 1996 constant dollars.
Question 10: Please correct the percentage funding increases listed
on pages 13 and 14 of your questionnaire response.
Answer: Again my apologies for the confusion. Rather than the
unadjusted five-year budget period referred to in my questionnaire, I
would prefer to use the adjusted fouryear period in the attached table
as reflected in my written testimony before the Committee. Thus:
a) overall treatment funding increased 74 percent or $1,041.4
million from FY 1989 to FY 1993 ($1,408.9 million to $2,450.3 million)
in 1996 constant dollars;
b) treatment funding excluding research increased 74 percent or
$932.8 million ($1,255 million to $2,187.8 million); and treatment
research funding increased or 71 percent or $109.6 million ($153.9
million to $262.5 million).
Question 11: In describing your accomplishments at ONDCP during the
first Bush Administration, in both your statement and questionnaire
response, you cite National Household Survey of Drug Abuse data for the
period between 1985 and 1992. What is your basis for selecting this
period? Isn't it true that more than two-thirds of the decline in
illegal teen drug use between 1985 and 1992 occurred by 1988--before
you began work at ONDCP? Weren't you responsible for setting federal
drug policy for the year 1993?
Answer: In my statement, I wrote that ``I firmly believe that the
balanced policies and programs we established in that first Strategy,
as well as the supporting budgets the Congress provided, helped make
the efforts of millions of Americans more effective and contributed to
real results.'' I would never claim personal credit for what was
obviously a national effort to reduce drug use. The Household Survey
was conducted every three years. There's a Survey for 1985 and one for
1988.1 chose the year 1985 because it is the closest date to when I
began working on drug policy, at the Department of Education. I chose
1992 because that survey was inclusive of the last full year that I
worked on drug policy for the federal government. While I am certainly
proud of contributions I made to the government's drug policy in 1993,
there were substantial changes made at ONDCP and in national drug
control policy that year at the beginning of the Clinton Administration
for which I was not responsible.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.001
<F-dash>
Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Leahy
Crack-Powder Cocaine and Mandatory Minimum Penalties
Question 1: Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conferences of
all 12 U.S. circuits have called for the repeal of Federal mandatory
minimum sentences. The RAND Corporation found in a recent study of
mandatory minimum drug sentences that ``mandatory minimums are not
justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine
consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.'' I have
found that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are
reconsidering their prior support of mandatory minimum drug sentences.
And Asa Hutchinson, the President's selection to head the DEA, has been
supportive of revisiting our current use of mandatory minimums. (A) Do
you believe that mandatory minimum sentences are effective and
appropriate? (B) Are there any current mandatory minimum drug penalties
that you would support eliminating? (C) Are there any current mandatory
minimum drug penalties that you would support reducing?
Answer 1A: If confirmed, I am committed to conducting a review,
working in close consultation with the Attorney General, of the current
sentencing structure as relates to illegal drugs. President Bush has
expressed his openness to such a review, as has Attorney General
Ashcroft. It would be my intention to conduct this review in
consultation with interested parties in the executive branch, in
Congress, the courts, and in the public.
Answer 1B: As you certainly know, this has been an important and
controversial issue and I would intend to address it by, first,
allowing interested parties to present their views and concerns, and
second, by seeking to build a consensus for an appropriate response.
This approach requires openness to all points of view and a decision
only after the conclusion of the review described above.
Answer 1C: Any proposal to reduce the penalty associated with a
mandatory minimum sentence would have to await the conclusion of the
review described above. Broadly, with regard to mandatory minimum
sentences for crack cocaine, which were discussed before the Committee,
I recognize that the sentencing structure has fostered among some a
perception of racial injustice within the criminal system. Clearly, the
government must create and administer laws in a just and equitable
fashion. It is equally important that the public perceive that the
government is doing so. If some believe that a law discriminates
against a certain population it hinders the ability of the government
to enforce that law for the benefit of all society.
Question 2: In an article you published in the Weekly Standard in
March 2001, you wrote that the idea that we are imprisoning too many
people for merely possessing illegal drugs was ``among the great urban
myths of our time.'' According to a 1999 Justice Department report,
over 100,000 people were in State or Federal prison in 1997 merely for
possession of an illegal drug. (A) Do you believe the incarceration of
over 100,000 people represents an ``urban myth?'' (B) Do you believe
that it is an effective use of existing prison space? (C) Do you have
any reservations about the use of mandatory minimum sentences against
drug offenders?
Answer 2A: No.
Answer 2B: It is difficult to make generalizations about prisoners
in 50 state prison systems absent complete information. As I noted in
the Weekly Standard article you referenced, ``we do not know for sure
how many of those sentenced for a drug possession conviction were
actually traffickers who were allowed to plead guilty to a lesser
charge, or repeat offenders whose record put them in prison for their
most recent offense, or both ....'' Recent data from the Federal
system, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is suggestive: fewer
than half of those convicted for a possession offense were first time
offenders 67.4 percent of Federal drug possession defendants had prior
arrest records, and 54 percent had prior convictions. In addition, 28
percent of possession defendants faced additional charges, and
virtually all (98.5 percent) convictions resulted from pleas,
suggesting bargaining down more serious charges. In addition, prison
sentences for possession amounted to just 1.0 percent of Federal prison
sentences. Nonetheless, if confirmed, I would intend to review this
area as well and consult widely with knowledgeable and interested
parties to determine how we can improve effectiveness and efficiency.
Answer 2C: My understanding of the legislative history is that
Congress adopted the current two-tiered mandatory minimum sentencing
structure as part of a larger effort both to incapacitate and punish
mid- and senior-level drug dealers. If I am confirmed as ONDCP
Director, I would certainly intend to review the regime of mandatory
minimum sentences as detailed in response to question one above.
Question 3: Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to State and
Federal prisons increased almost 16-fold, from over 10,000 drug
admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug
offenses in 1998. During this time, white drug admissions increased
more than 7-fold, Hispanic drug admissions increased 18-fold, and black
drug admissions increased more than 26-fold. (A) Do you believe these
increases are proportionate to increases in drug crimes among people of
each demographic group? (B) What are your thoughts regarding the
remarkable disproportion of black Americans entering prison for drug
offenses? (C) Do you think the general increase in incarceration,
leaving aside questions of race, is problematic?
Answer 3A: I believe that the current state of our data collection
is insufficient to support conclusions about the relative rates of
increase in incarceration because I believe a complete view of
incarceration rates should include information on offenses, original
charges and final pleas, and criminal histories (since they too affect
sentencing).
Answer 3B: I believe it is critical that we examine the equity and
fairness of the criminal justice system and have already stated my
intention to do so in this regard, if confirmed. In such an examination
I also believe we should consider those who are the victims of criminal
acts. In the Weekly Standard article cited in question 2 above, I
wrote: ``In 1998, of the 7,276 murders in the United States that
involved a single offender and a single victim, 5,133 of the victims
were male and 3,309 were black. According to the FBI, 3,565 of the
offenders in these murder cases were black, and 3,067 of the murders
involved both a black victim and a black offender. In 1998, black males
between the ages of 14 and 17 were almost six times more likely than
white males to be victims of murder or non-negligent manslaughter;
black males between 18 and 24 were over eight times more likely to be
victims; and for those 25 and over, black males were murder victims at
a rate 7.6 times that of white males.'' As I sought to explain during
the hearing, I believe we should work to reduce crime, drug use, and
addiction as the best way to help reduce the number of individuals who
enter the criminal justice system and the number who enter prison. I
have spent a significant portion of my time while working at the
Philanthropy Roundtable helping foundations and donors better support
not only for drug prevention and treatment programs, but the range of
assistance to help disadvantaged communities improve schools, job
training, housing, healthcare, and other elements necessary to
stabilize neighborhoods and break the cycles of crime and addiction.
Answer 3C: I think most Americans believe in second and third
chances, and most are profoundly sad at the waste of human potential
when a person of any race is sent to prison for wrongdoing. I also
believe that appropriate prison sentences can serve the greater
societal purpose of punishment and incapacitation. I believe we must
continually strive to balance these aims and insure that our laws and
policies are just.
addiction and treatment
Question 4: (A) You wrote in an article in the Weekly Standard
earlier this year that the idea that ``addiction is a disease'' is an
``ideology.'' What do you mean by that?
Answer 4A: I am familiar with, and understand the expanding body of
research demonstrating the biological and neurological effects of drug
use, including that continued drug use adversely affects brain
chemistry and structure. The research also demonstrates that, for a
significant minority, drug use can lead to the compulsive drug craving,
seeking, and taking behavior we characterize as addiction.
I also recognize that the treatment and management of drug
addiction are in some ways similar to the treatment and management of
chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. For instance,
adherence to a treatment plan is critically important in addressing
chronic conditions. Whether a person becomes a drug addict or is
afflicted with diabetes, he or she must take personal responsibility
for obtaining and following through with treatment. Much like a
diabetic must monitor blood sugar levels in the bloodstream, maintain a
healthy diet, and take insulin, overcoming drug addiction can require
the commitment to taking medication that is a part of specific
treatment programs, working to change behavior and accepting other
services necessary to foster recovery.
I am not a physician, but I believe the consideration of addition
as a disease has wide application. I also believe that a full
understanding should not obscure the nature of the onset of drug
addiction which policy cannot ignore. The repeated, willful use of an
illegal, psychoactive substance is behavior we should seek to
effectively discourage even though drug use, not drug addiction, is the
intent. A comprehensive prevention policy should assist youth in
recognizing their responsibility to avoid drug taking behavior and the
threat of addiction that comes with it.
Question 4B: The American Medical Association classified alcoholism
and substance abuse as a disease in 1957. Do you believe that the AMA
came to that conclusion based on ideological rather than medical
foundations?
Answer 4B: No.
Question 4C: Alan Leshner, the head of the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, has said he believes drug addiction is a ``complex
disease.'' Do you believe that Dr. Leshner is motivated by ideology
rather than medicine? Do you believe that Dr. Leshner should retain his
position?
Answer 4C: I do not believe that Dr. Leshner is motivated by
ideology. I would defer to Secretary Thompson regarding personnel
questions related to those under his authority.
Question 4D: Finally, do you believe that drug dependence should be
viewed as a public health problem?
Answer 4D: The problem of drug dependence has many dimensions,
among them a significant public health component.
Question 5: In a 1996 article you praised Freddie Garcia, a Texas
man who ran the faith-based Victory Fellowship center. You praised
Garcia for ``challeng[ing] the medical model of addiction head-on.''
You also approvingly quoted the following Garcia statement: ``We
believe that sin is the reason why people take drugs. We believe that
drug addiction is a spiritual problem, and that Jesus Christ is the
solution.'' Now, I do not disagree that people must take responsibility
for their actions, or that religion in general, or Christianity in
particular, provides valuable assistance for many people looking to
overcome addiction. (A) But do you believe that drug use is simply the
result of ``sin?'' (B) Do you believe that environmental or any other
factors play a role? (C) What does it mean to you to say that Jesus
Christ is the solution to drug addiction? Do you believe that this is a
generally applicable solution?
Answer 5A: No.
Answer 5B: Yes.
Answer 5C: I believe that when Pastor Garcia said that, he was
referring to the power of religious faith to provide valuable
assistance in accomplishing the transformation represented by leaving
behind a life of drug addition. While I have seen other treatment
programs founded on religious faith that have helped individuals
suffering from drug and alcohol dependence, I have also seen many, many
more treatment providers who operate on secular principles while still
obtaining positive client outcomes. I believe we need all these efforts
and more and I do not believe religious programs should be viewed as a
substitute or opponent of non-religious programs.
Question 6A: You referred in a 1998 article to the nation's
``notoriously under-performing drug-treatment system.'' What are the
strengths and weaknesses of drug treatment in America?
Answer 6A: First of all, I am an ardent supporter of effective drug
treatment. During my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw tremendous growth
of the drug treatment budget, including the creation of the Targeted
Capacity Expansion Program that remains a critical component of our
treatment infrastructure. Furthermore, I highlighted drug treatment as
a fundamental component when I drafted the first National Drug Control
Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with experts in the field such
as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb
Kleber. I look forward to reviewing the report President Bush directed
Secretary Thompson to deliver concerning the areas of specific need for
additional treatment services in America to assess our progress and
understand what remains to be accomplished. While not prejudging the
results of that review, areas where improvement may be warranted
include making available the proper treatment modality to the
individual in need, making available appropriate service linkages, and
making available an adequate aftercare component.
Question 6B: Senator Hatch and I have introduced S. 304, the Drug
Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act. This bipartisan bill
would aid treatment efforts nationally. Are you familiar with S. 304?
Do you support the bill?
Answer 6B: I am familiar with the bill, but before taking a formal
position on a piece of important legislation, I believe I should review
these matters with the full range of interested and knowledgeable
parties. I intend to do this promptly, if I am confirmed.
Question 7: You have said that you are supportive of treatment
provided that it is ``good'' treatment.
(A) How do you define ``good'' treatment?
(B) What standard(s) do you believe should be used to determine
whether a treatment program is effective?
(C) In your opinion, what is the proper role of science in the
development of effective treatments?
Answer 7A: Individuals in need of drug treatment vary tremendously,
and one of the limitations of the present system has been in matching
individuals with appropriate services. Precisely because of the
heterogeneity of the population in need of drug treatment, it is
difficult to make across-the-board statements about what constitutes
``good'' treatment and any measure must reflect the range of severity
and related conditions clients present. All studies of treatment
effectiveness also should be grounded in the obvious measure of how
many users desist from drug use and for how long, but a sampling of
other measures could include criteria such as participation in the
workforce, cost effectiveness, appropriateness in matching the client
with needed services, reduced criminal recidivism, and health
indicators.
Answer 7B: I have tried to address this question in the answer
above to 7 A.
Answer 7C: The role of science in developing effective modalities
and techniques of drug treatment is a large one. The role of science
includes, but is by no means limited to, accurately assessing the
character of individuals' addictions, creating diagnostic standards for
grouping like problems, establishing treatment protocols, measuring the
relative effectiveness of resultant treatment programs and modalities,
and developing promising pharmacotherapies.
Question 8: Experts in the treatment field have argued that faith-
based drug treatment programs should be held to the same effectiveness
standards as secular programs. Do you agree with this view, or do you
believe that these programs should be evaluated differently than
secular programs?
Answer 8: I believe all drug treatment programs should be evaluated
first and foremost for their ability to get their clientele to stop
using illegal drugs and to begin the process of recovery.
Question 9: You wrote in 1996 that ``Washington must get serious
about promoting rehabilitation that works, such as religion-based
programs.'' (A) Do you believe that religion-based programs are the
most effective treatment programs? (B) What is the scientific
evidence--or the effectiveness of religion-based treatment programs?
Answer 9A: No. I do believe that we should encourage all effective
treatment regimes that assist those afflicted to overcome their
addiction. We should not close the door to an otherwise effective drug
treatment program merely because it has a basis in faith or
spirituality. I am not, however, suggesting that Federal funds should
support proselytizing in the name of drug treatment and I do not intend
by saying that religion based programs can do some good to denigrate
secular-based programs.
Answer 9B: The relevant evidence for faith-based drug treatment
programs, while often quite impressive, has tended to be anecdotal or
on a fairly scale small. As noted above, I believe all treatment
programs should be evaluated on the basis of their ability to get their
clientele to stop using illegal drugs and to begin the process of
recovery. We need to find the efficient and inexpensive ways to better
track treatment results in these terms for all forms of treatment.
Question 10: Over 600,000 individuals leave State and Federal
prisons every year. Many of those people were drug users before they
were imprisoned. In prison, many of them had little access to drug
treatment but ready access to drugs. As a result, they are poised to
return to a life of crime when they are released, if for no reason
besides a desire to support their drug habit.
Question A: Would you support providing additional grant money to
States and local communities for the purpose of providing drug testing
and treatment in prisons and jails?
Answer 10A: Yes.
Question B: What else might we do to assist communities in dealing
with the problem of convicts being released from prison with their drug
problems intact?
Answer 10B: Additional programs that bear further consideration in
my view are those that seek to assist reintegration in society of
former prison inmates with a history of substance abuse. I would like
to look at this area with greater care and consultation, but I believe
there is evidence that such reintegration programs in conjunction with
treatment in prisons, substantially improves outcomes.
Question 11: You have written that ``the culture of victimhood lies
at the core of the therapeutic worldview.''
Question A: What do you mean by this statement?
Answer 11A: This passage was not especially clear in conveying my
point, which was that there has been a tendency by some to describe the
drug addicted as ``victims'' in a manner that minimizes the crucial
role individuals play in their own recovery, including sticking with
what can be an arduous treatment and aftercare regimen. Too often the
hard work that individuals put into their recovery is ignored, and the
process of drug treatment is described in a manner that suggests the
participant's role is merely passive.
Question B: Do you believe that drug treatment professionals are
motivated by ``the culture of victimhood?"
Answer 11B: The drug treatment specialists I have had the privilege
of working with over the years have all been motivated by a sincere
desire to help people.
demand vs. supply reduction/interdiction/latin america
Question 12: President Bush has said: ``The most effective way to
reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs
in America. Therefore, this administration will focus unprecedented
attention on the demand side of this problem.''
Question A: Do you agree with the President's statement?
Answer 12A: Yes.
Question B: If so, why have you consistently argued that our
fundamental Federal priority should be attacking the supply of drugs?
Answer 12B: I have not made that argument. As I stated in my
testimony before the Committee, if confirmed, I will seek to highlight
the importance of a balanced strategy for reducing our nation's
dependence on illegal drugs. My views on the subject are perhaps best
summed up in the introduction to the 1990 National Drug Control
Strategy, which I helped write, and which stated, in part, that:
For reasons both political and institutional, much public
discussion has been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile
debate over ``supply'' versus ``demand'' solutions. But to
repeat what we have been saying for almost a year, the reality
of the drug problem cannot be met through an exclusive ``law
enforcement'' strategy on the one hand, or a ``prevention and
treatment'' strategy on the other. Most Americans recognize by
now that we need both approaches. An effective criminal justice
policy needs a good treatment policy; a successful treatment
system is hampered by the easy availability of drugs and will
ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention program;
and good prevention programs are harder to carry out absent
vigorous efforts directed at international and domestic drug
traffickers who are largely responsible for making drugs so
ubiquitous in the first place.
Question 13: A recent National Academy of Sciences report
recommended that the ONDCP work with law enforcement research agencies
to develop a sustained program of research on how drug production,
transport and distribution respond to interdiction and enforcement
activities. What is your response to that recommendation?
Answer 13: I agree, and if confirmed would seek to work the ONDCP
staff, outside authorities, and other interested and knowledgeable
individuals to develop such measures. In my view, the only
justification for any program contained under the National Drug Control
Budget is whether it ultimately contributes to reducing drug use.
Question 14: You've argued that the market for drugs is highly
price-sensitive and that increases in the price of drugs in the
``vulnerable inner city'' reduce drug use, since addicts are unable to
afford more drugs. This theory makes some sense to me as applied to
casual drug users. It seems to me, however, that those who are addicted
to drugs will generally find other means--often illegal means-to obtain
drugs. To what extent do you believe that increasing the price of drugs
by limiting supply will decrease drug use among addicts?
Answer 14: While the evidence is not always as clear as one might
like, there is precedent for observing that drug use--particularly
among those most heavily addicted-is affected by changes in price. For
instance, in 1990, an intense law enforcement crackdown on the Medellin
Cartel by the Colombian government, combined with renewed U.S.
interdiction efforts, paralleled a 43 percent increase in the price of
cocaine (the first such increase in five years) and a 27 percent
reduction in cocaine--related emergency room admissions (the first such
reduction in twelve years). Similarly, in Detroit in 1988, disruption
of the Chambers brothers' organization, which controlled many of
Detroit's crack houses, resulted in a near--tripling of the street
level price of cocaine in that city. Concurrently, there was also a
reduction in indicia of cocaine use, such as emergency room incidents
involving cocaine use.
Question 15: You said in 1996 that ``we need to do more in Latin
America'' in ``[f]ighting drugs at the source.'' You praised the anti-
drug efforts of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimon and our
policy of assisting the Peruvian government in its efforts to shoot
down planes believed to be carrying drugs. As you know, President
Fujimori has since had to flee Peru in scandal, and a Peruvian plane
receiving CIA assistance shot down an innocent plane earlier this year,
killing an American missionary and her daughter. The report on that
tragedy is unbelievable-seemingly everything that could have gone wrong
did go wrong, even though the pilots of the Peruvian plane had
undergone training two weeks earlier.
Question 15A: Has the Peru experience, or the civil war that is
intensifying in Colombia, caused you to rethink our anti-drug strategy
in Latin America?
Answer 15A: Clearly, the situation on the ground in Peru, Colombia,
and Latin America has changed considerably since I was in office, and
if confirmed, I would plan to consult extensively with interested
parties in the executive branch, the Congress, and outside of
government to develop plans and budgets for the future of our
international drug control program. My intention would be to conduct a
thorough review of these programs.
Question B: Do you believe the Bush Administration should engage in
any new anti-drug efforts in Latin America, and if so, what do you
recommend, at what cost, and what results would you expect as far as
the amount of cocaine and heroin entering the United States?
Answer 15B: Prior to the type of review described above, I do not
have settled views on the shape and direction of our future policy.
Question 16: You recently have been extremely critical of Mexico,
calling it a ``narco state,'' and stating that it has become
``thoroughly corrupted'' by drugs, and is a ``safe haven'' for the drug
industry. You have even suggested that the US should impose sanctions
on countries that do not reduce their drug production by 50 percent
over five years, and you were extraordinarily critical of the Clinton
Administration's decision not to employ the certification process
against Mexico. This hard-line attitude seems to be in direct
contradiction to President Bush's policies. President Bush, for
example, has expressed support for a three-year suspension of the
certification process for Mexico. President Vicente Fox, in his recent
address to a joint session of Congress, supported President Bush's
proposal.
Question A: Do you agree with President Bush's position?
Answer 16A: Yes, I support the President's effort to work with
Congress to make adjustments to the certification process to foster
greater cooperation between Mexico and the United States on drug
control efforts.
Question B: If so, how do you square that with your harsh criticism
of the Clinton Administration's policy?
Answer 16B: I believe all Americans are all extremely encouraged by
the prospects of the new Administration of President Vicente Fox. With
regard to my earlier comments, they should be viewed in the context of
statutory language which mandates that the executive branch certify
annually that a country is taking ``adequate steps'' to combat drug
trafficking. In the event that this is not the case, the secretary of
state, as delegated by the President, may issue a national interest
waiver holding sanctions in abeyance while still being candid about the
limitations of a country's efforts. In the comments noted above, the
criticisms were prompted by my desire to see more such candor in
assessing the performance not only of Mexico but our other allies in
this fight.
Question C: In light of your strong criticism of Mexico, how can
you implement President Bush's policy of treating Mexico with respect
and as an equal partner?
Answer 16C: During my previous public service, a substantial
portion of my responsibilities involved working with many foreign
governments in the negotiation and implementation of international drug
control efforts. This work also involved the preparation and resulting
actions from two drug summits. I believe that my record of working with
other governments, including the Government of Mexico, on contentious
and sensitive diplomatic matters, is an indication of my ability to
work effectively in this important arena.
Question 17: You have strongly supported the military's role in US
drug interdiction efforts. Do you believe the Bush Administration
should increase the role played by the military? In what ways? In light
of our current military commitments, do you think an increased role for
the military is realistic?
Answer 17: Pending a review of current programs, and the
opportunity to consult with colleagues both inside and outside of
government, I do not have settled views on this question. The
Department of Defense has a major role to play in any interdiction
structure--a role that is codified in law.
Question 18: Asa Hutchinson, the head of the DEA, recently said
that ``you cannot win the battle against drugs just through
enforcement.''
Question 18A: Do you agree with Mr. Hutchinson?
Answer 18A: As we discussed at several points during my hearing, I
believe in a balanced approach to drug control policy. I believe that
we all agree that, while drug law enforcement is a crucial component of
a successful drug control program, it cannot be the only component.
Question 18B: What are some of the other steps you believe that the
Administration and Congress need to take to reduce drug abuse and its
consequences?
Answer 18B: In addition to the funding enhancements already
discussed with respect to treatment, programs/adjustments I support
include, but are not limited to, establishment of a Parent Drug Corps,
to mobilize parents and families; increased funding for local antidrug
coalitions; increased funding for the National Institute of Drug Abuse;
resources to support a strong commitment to drug courts and other
criminal justice diversion programs; increased support to law
enforcement for methamphetamine lab cleanup; reimbursement for border
county prosecutions; and technology support to local law enforcement
officers.
medical marijuana
Question 19: As you know, a number of States, including
conservative States such as Arizona, have adopted initiatives in recent
years legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Supreme
Court recently affirmed the Federal government's power under the
Controlled Substances Act to prosecute those who distribute (or
manufacture) marijuana, including those who distribute marijuana to ill
people in States that have approved initiatives. I oppose legalizing
marijuana, and I have not taken a position on the initiatives that
these States have passed. But I am concerned about the tension between
State and Federal authority in those States.
Question 19A: Given the many drug cases that Federal agents and
prosecutors can bring, do you think the Federal government should make
it a priority to prosecute people distributing marijuana to ill people
in States with medical marijuana initiatives?
Answer 19A: I support enforcing the law, but as the question notes,
this is to some degree academic, since there are inherent and severe
limitations in the ability of the Federal government to pursue small,
retail-level drug cases that are normally the province of local law
enforcement. The Los Angeles Police Department, for instance, is three
times the size of the Drug Enforcement Administration, which must cover
the entire country with that force.
Question 19B: As head of ONDCP, would you or your staff take an
active role in opposing proposals in other States to legalize marijuana
for medicinal use? Would you advocate spending Federal funds for that
purpose?
Answer 19B: I, like you, oppose the legalization of marijuana. I
expect, if confirmed, that I will asked about the various state
referenda that have been supported by George Soros and others who are
spending a great deal of their own money to advance an agenda of
legalizing drugs. At this time, I do not have specific plans to expend
Federal funds to oppose such initiatives.
Question 20: In a 1996 article in the Weekly Standard, you
advocated that the DEA use the ``public interest'' provision of the
Controlled Substances Act to take away the ``registration'' license
doctors need to prescribe or store controlled substances from
physicians who prescribed marijuana in States that had passed medical
marijuana initiatives. Do you still believe that would be the best
policy? As head of the ONDCP, would you recommend that Asa Hutchinson
employ this tactic?
Answer 20: The Weekly Standard article to which you refer focused
on the pro-marijuana ballot initiative effort in California, where a
doctor's written prescription is not necessary. DEA is authorized by
Congress to revoke the registration privileges of physicians for
various reasons, but I would first want to consult with relevant
officials including those in the Department of Justice. I do not have a
settled view of what might be the best policy at the present, but would
consult widely before recommending change.
Question 21: In 1996, you testified before this Committee on the
issue of medical marijuana. In that testimony, you referred to
supporters of medical marijuana initiatives as ``potheads.''
Question 21A: Do you believe that the majority of voters in
California or Arizona are ``potheads?''
Answer 21A: No.
Question 21B: Do you believe that elderly pain sufferers who
supported these initiatives are ``potheads?''
Answer 21B: No.
miscellaneous
Question 22: There is increasing recognition that drug abuse is a
major problem in rural areas. For example, my State of Vermont is
struggling with a serious heroin problem. What role, if any, would
ONDCP play in addressing the particular problems of rural areas?
Answer 22: It is certainly crucial that the Federal government
focus greater attention on the underreported problem of rural drug use.
Focusing attention on that area could include the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, appropriate use of the ONDCP media
campaign, the support of community coalitions, and assistance in the
form of guides and other prevention resources.
Question 23: You have been very critical of drug prevention efforts
through public service campaigns and educational outreach, saying at
one point that they were ``too little, too late.'' In fact, you have
criticized Democrats and Republicans alike--including Newt Gingrich--
for supporting the Partnership for a Drug-Free America campaign during
the 1990s. You wrote at one point that ``no serious person can believe
that even the best ad campaign is an appropriate centerpiece for the
effort to reverse current trends.'' Yet you were a strong supporter of
First Lady Nancy Reagan's ``Just Say No'' program.
Question 23A: Do you believe there should be a Federal role in
public service campaigns to discourage drug use among the nation's
children?
Answer 23A: Yes, and I was involved in creating one at the U.S.
Department of Education when I served there during the Reagan
Administration.
Question 23B: Do you support the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America campaign?
Answer 23B: Yes.
Question 23C: Would you support increased funding for that program?
Answer 23C: It would be premature for me to make commitments before
consulting relevant program staff, Members of Congress, and other
interested parties.
Question 23D: If not, would you support that funding be maintained
at current levels?
Answer 23D: Again it would be premature for me to make commitments
before consulting relevant program staff, Members of Congress, and
other interested parties.
Question 23E: Do you believe this campaign should continue to be
managed by the ONDCP, or transferred elsewhere?
Answer 23.E: My intention at this time is to continue to manage the
program within ONDCP, mindful however of the need to address the
management deficiencies that have been raised about the program's
execution.
Question 24: You have previously rejected the notion that federal
funding is necessary to prevent drug use, stating that ``federal
funding is neither necessary nor sufficient'' for teaching kids that
drug use is wrong. You have also called for the replacement of existing
individual grant programs with block grants to states, which would
allow States to spend all their federal funding for pure law
enforcement purposes, and none on prevention or treatment.
Question 24A: What exactly is the proper role of federal funding?
Answer 24A: As I testified before the Committee, I no longer take
the position that the best way to support these programs is to convert
them into block grants. I believe that funding should be based on one
criterion: the extent to which it contributes to the overarching goal
of reducing drug use in the United States. I also believe that levels
of support and the shape of such funding should be done after
consultation with the knowledgeable and involved parties in government
and in our communities where most of the resources are put to work.
Question 24B: Shouldn't the federal government impose some
standards to insure that its money is used wisely, to address all
aspects of the drug control problem?
Answer 24B: Yes.
Question 25: In 1996, you proposed that the U.S. Sentencing
Commission be ``barred from proposing changes in criminal penalties
where Congress has established mandatory minimum sentences, except in
an advisory format that would require affirmative congressional action
before taking effect.''
Question 25A: Is that still your view?
Answer 25A: I believe it should be Congress' prerogative to
determine whether or not proposed changes implicating mandatory minimum
sentences should made by the Commission. Simply as a matter of good
government, I am concerned at the potential for disruption that can
occur when the Sentencing Commission passes a guidelines amendment that
conflicts with a statutory mandatory minimum, since Sentencing
Commission amendments take effect automatically after six months,
unless blocked by Act of -Congress.
Question 25B: To be clear, do you believe the Sentencing Commission
should be prohibited from adjusting sentencing guidelines for offenses
that trigger mandatory minimums?
Answer 25B: Again, simply as a matter of good government, I am
concerned at the potential for disruption that can occur when the
Sentencing Commission passes a guidelines amendment that conflicts with
a statutory mandatory minimum, since Sentencing Commission amendments
take effect automatically after six months, unless blocked by Act of
Congress.
Question 25C: Do you believe that Congress should eliminate the
Sentencing Commission altogether?
Answer 25C: No.
<F-dash>
Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Wellstone
Question 1: As Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, how would you work to reduce the stigma associated with drug
and alcohol addiction and encourage Americans with the disease of
addiction to enter treatment and begin their recovery?
Answer 1: It takes courage and strength of character to make the
decision to enter a drug treatment program. If confirmed, I would like
to explore ways of giving greater prominence to the stories of
individuals who have been treated and are in recovery. I think the best
way to overcome the stigma that may discourage some individuals from
seeking treatment is to broaden the public respect for those who
confront and work to overcome addiction and those who support them.
I believe in drug treatment as a central part of our national drug
control efforts. During my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw the largest
increase in the growth of the drug treatment budget of any
administrationbefore or after-including the creation of the Targeted
Capacity Expansion Program and increases for treatment-related research
that remain a critical components of our treatment infrastructure.
Furthermore, I highlighted drug treatment as a fundamental component
when I helped draft and implement the first National Drug Control
Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with experts in the field such
as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb
Kleber. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the report President
Bush directed Secretary Thompson to deliver concerning the ``treatment
gap'' in America to assess our progress and understand what remains to
be accomplished.
Question 2: Do you believe that drug and alcohol addiction is a
disease, and, if so, how will you shape your policies to reflect this
belief?
Answer 2: I am familiar with, and understand the expanding body of
research demonstrating the biological and neurological effects of drug
use, including the fact that continued drug use adversely affects brain
chemistry and structure. The research also demonstrates that, for a
significant minority, drug use can lead to the compulsive drug craving,
seeking, and taking behavior we characterize as addiction.
The treatment and management of drug addiction are in some ways
similar to the treatment and management of chronic diseases like
diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. For instance, adherence to a
treatment plan is critically important in addressing chronic
conditions. Whether a person becomes a drug addict or is afflicted with
diabetes, he or she must take personal responsibility for obtaining and
following through with treatment. Much like a diabetic must monitor
blood sugar levels in the bloodstream, maintain a healthy diet, and
take insulin, overcoming drug addiction can require the commitment to
taking medication that is a part of specific treatment programs,
working to change behavior and accepting other services necessary to
foster recovery.
I am not a physician, but I believe the consideration of addiction
as a disease has wide application. I also believe that a full
understanding should not obscure the nature of the onset of drug
addiction which policy cannot ignore. No one begins to use illegal
drugs with addiction as a goal. However, the repeated, willful use of
an illegal, psychoactive substance often leads to addiction, and so we
should seek to discourage effectively any drug use. A comprehensive
prevention policy should assist youth in recognizing their
responsibility to avoid drug taking behavior and the threat of
addiction that comes with it.
Question 3: In your position as Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, would you advocate for the Administration passage
of legislation providing full parity for drug and alcohol treatment
services covered by private health insurance? Would you advocate for
the Administration to establish parity for drug and alcohol treatment
in other federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. If not, why
not?
Answer 3: I believe that it is important for people with private
insurance policies to have adequate coverage for themselves and their
families concerning substance abuse treatment. I am pleased that
insurers who participate in the pool from which federal employees
select coverage have parity for substance abuse treatment. While
insurers are not required to provide coverage for substance abuse
treatment, if they choose to offer that coverage it must be at the same
levels as other conditions requiring medical attention. With regard to
federally funded programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, President Bush
has pledged to increase the drug treatment budget by some $1.6 billion
over the next five years, a step that will bring drug treatment
resources closer to hand for many of the populations served by those
programs.
I believe the parity issue is an important one. It has grown in
prominence since the time I last served in government and, if
confirmed, it would be my intention to consider the issues related to
it seriously in wide consultation with knowledgeable individuals inside
and outside government.
Question 4: Do you feel the U.S. provides adequate resources in the
private and public health care systems to provide treatment for
addiction? If no, what actions will you take to ensure that adequate
resources are obtained? Do you believe that the ratio of dollars spent
on supply side vs. demand side efforts to eliminate drug addiction in
the United States is appropriate?
Answer 4: With regard to the first part of this question, the
answer is ``no.'' With regard to your question on what actions I will
take, I should note that President Bush has directed Secretary Thompson
to lead a state-by-state review of treatment needs and capacity to make
sure that effective resources are available where the demand is. With
regard to the question about the division of resources, I believe in a
balanced approach to major areas of drug control policy: prevention,
treatment, law enforcement, and national security, and the research
programs related to these areas. This is why areas of demand reduction
were the focus of much of our proposed increases in funding when I was
last in government. I also believe that a full discussion of balanced
spending for drug control needs to include non-federal spending, in
state and local governments and the private sector. My experience is
that the toughest obstacle to gaining additional funds for drug control
programs is not competition between demand and supply efforts, but
competition between particular domestic drug control programs and other
domestic spending priorities. My approach to this problem would be to
prepare the best case possible for the resources we need and present it
to the President, the Congress, and the American people.
Question 5: Do you feel there should be stronger safeguarding
policies on the licensure and certification requirements for the
personnel and the facilities that deliver addiction services?
Answer 5: Answer: I am not conversant with the current issues
related to licensure and certification requirements but intend to
review these matters, if confirmed by the Senate, with the help of
Andrea Barthwell, MD, a specialist in addiction medicine who has been
nominated to--serve as Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, and with
appropriate knowledgeable and interested individuals and groups.
Question 6: President Bush announced he would provide additional
funding for addiction treatment. Is this commitment from the President
still valid? What do you believe are the best and most effective ways
to spend that additional funding?
Answer 6: Yes, the President intends to increase our nation's
treatment capacity with a five-year commitment of $1.6 billion in
additional resources. We anticipate dedicating some of that additional
funding to areas such as targeted programs for teens and adolescents,
as well as other areas where needs are identified in the review being
completed by Secretary Thompson. If confirmed, I look forward to
working closely with colleagues in the Executive Branch as well as
those in Congress and in relevant groups outside of government as we
refine those areas.
<F-dash>
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Betty Ford Center at Eisenhower
Rancho Mirage, California
October 9, 2001
TO: Senate Judiciary Committee Members
RE: John Walters Nomination Hearing
The Betty Ford center is pleased the Senate Judiciary Committee
rescheduled the hearing to consider John Walters as Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. We know how difficult it must
be to focus on, the nomination process in light of the demands placed
on Congress by the tragedies of September 11, 2001.
Mrs. Ford and I are convinced that. Mr. Walters may not have the
confidence in the treatment and prevention strategies that we believe
are necessary for the creation and implementation of a balanced and
thoughtful approach to U.S. drug policy. Now, more than ever, with
increased public criticism of U.S. Drug policies that rely heavily on
interdiction and criminal justice solutions to the drug problem, we
need a director with an unshakable, conviction in strategies to reduce
the demand for drugs in this country. According to a 2000 poll
conducted by Peter D. Hart, three in five adults said that drug abuse
is ``more of a public health problem better handled by prevention arid
treatment programs'' than by the criminal justice system. We believe
that U.S. drug policy that reduces this demand, coupled with limited
strategic initiatives on the supply side, are more likely to reduce the
devastating economic and social consequences of untreated addition.
2Many of our concerns about Mr. Walters first arose from a 1996
paper he wrote for the Heritage Foundation, where Walters denounced
[including addiction treatment in U.S. drug policy] as ``the latest
manifestation of the liberals' commitment to a `therapeutic state' in
which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.'' In
addition, despite Mrs. Ford's offer to longtime friend Dick Cheney to
serve as an advisor on key drug policy positions in the Bush
Administration, Mr. Walters' launched what some are calling a highly
visible campaign this summer to court leaders of the drug treatment and
prevention community to convince them of his ``balanced'' approach to
the nation's drug problem, without placing a single call to Mrs. Ford,
me or any of our allies in the nonprofit treatment field.
While we applaud the announcement of the Administration's Intent to
balance Mr. Walters' supply side experience with Dr. Andrea Barthwell's
expertise in treatment, Mrs. Ford and I urge each member of the
Committee to use the hearing to ensure your confidence in Mr. Walters'
understanding of addictive disease, addiction treatment and individuals
and families affected by the disease.
Sincerely,
John T. Schwarzlose
President/CEO
<F-dash>
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
Alexandria, Virginia
July 30, 2001
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
Senate Judiciary Committee
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Hatch:
On behalf of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) and
our more than 5,000 coalition members, I would like to express how
extremely pleased we are that John P. Walters has been nominated to
lead the Bush administration's anti-drug efforts as Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Throughout Mr. Walters'
decades of public service, he has demonstrated a high degree of
dedication and passion when it comes to eliminating our country's
number one public health problem--substance abuse.
The President's proposal concerning drug policy makes us confident
that he and Mr. Walters share our vision of a balanced approach to
reducing drug abuse that greatly increases emphasis on education,
prevention, research and treatment. We are pleased to see the proposal
includes double funding for local anti-drug coalitions over five years,
providing up to $3.50 million over that period, including an $11
million increase in FY 2002, to support the Drug-Free Communities
Program; adding $1.5billion over 5 years to close the treatment gap;
substantially increasing the funding for research in prevention and
treatment, and providing $25 million cover five years to create a
Parent Drug Corps to mobilize parents and families. We are convinced
that Mr. Walters will implement these programs in an outstanding manner
using his vision and professional abilities.
CADCA looks forward to working along side the President and Mr.
Walters to build safe, healthy and drug-free communities throughout
America. Therefore, we respectfully urge you to support Mr. Walters'
nomination by holding a confirmation hearing and vote as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Arthur T. Dean
Major General, U.S. Army, Retired
Chairman and CEO
<F-dash>
Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida
September 4, 2001
Hon. Patrick Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Leahy:
I am writing to encourage you to move forward without delay in
holding the hearing to confirm John Walters as the new director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. Our nation is drowning in drugs
and we are rapidly falling to permissive drug policies. We desperately
need the direction that would be afforded by filling this position. To
delay any further in holding this hearing is a terrible disservice to
the country.
John Walters is a capable man who will serve his country well in
this position. Our organization has worked with him for several years.
We have found him to be knowledgeable and fair. he understands the need
for a comprehensive, yet firm approach to the drug problem.
National leadership on this problem has been lacking for far too
long. Mr. Walters is an excellent choice for the position and fully
capable of providing this leadership. It is now up to you to do the
right thing for your country and move forward with the hearing and
confirm him so that he can begin with this very serious problem that
plagues our country.
Regards,
Calvina L. Fay
Executive Director
<F-dash>
Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge
Washington, D.C.
September 24, 2001
The Hon. Patrick J. Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Leahy:
It is now seven days past the fateful terrorism attack on America.
On the day of the actual attack I was standing outside 216 Hart
awaiting the beginning of the confirmation hearing for John Waiters,
nominee for ONDCP Director. More specifically, I was standing outside
216 Hart having a heated conversation with members of the pro-drug
legalization Lindesmith Center which is funded by currency trader
George Soros. These young people have been so misguided (I am reluctant
to us the term ``brainwashed.''it is sad beyond belief. For more on
Soros' pro-drug activities, see Reader's Digest, ``High On A Lie''
Exhibit I.
Frankly, Senator Leahy, while I certainly understand the current
delay, I am chagrined that Mr. Waiters' nomination has been languishing
since last May when the only real opposition we have found are those
who would legalize pot and other Schedule I drugs. Of course they don't
want John Waiters to be approved. He understands the drug issue and he
understands why we must not legalize marijuana or the other Schedule I
drugs. I've known John for 15 years. He believes in a balanced approach
with strong interdiction, clear ``no use'' messages and prevention
programs, drug-free treatment, and law enforcement. There is no simple
approach. I direct your attention to the October/November issue, (p.
69) of Cannabis Culture, Canada's premier pro-drug publication which
reports that ``NORML (national Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws) will be an integral part of the effort to challenge the
nominations of John Walters and Asa Hutchinson for the office of drug
czar and DEA head.'' Comment was made by Nick Thimmech, NORML
spokesperson. Cannabis Culture is the Canadian version of High Times
Magazine. A COPY OF THE MAGAZINE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO SENATORS LEAHY AND
HATCH. (Cost is $4.95 prohibiting copies to each member) Please ask to
see it.
We're very concerned that our voices are not being heard, that
we've lost-not the drug war-because parents and grandparents are with
us. We're fearful we've lost the attention of some members of Congress
because so many mothers are working that we cannot effectively visit
and educate them to the fact that the legalizers have reportedly spent
$20 MILLION in a campaign to change America from being a society that
has disdain for drugs to legalizing them. We now have to depend on the
good sense of our elected officials to do the right thing without
constant reminders. We also know that the legalizers have been lobbying
Congress and that some members seem to be listening to people like Eric
Sterling, now with Soros' Lindesmith Center, who said during the Gulf
War the our military should be ``home toking (smoking pot) in the US
instead of cooking in the desert in Saudi Arabia.''
Friends in the intelligence field have told us for years that
terrorism is being funded by drug trafficking. Very recently on MSNBC
an expert said, ``Drugs are now a primary means of funding the overall
narco terrorism movement and its subcomponents worldwide--that is no
longer a debatable or even debated proposition.''
I have been involved in the drug fight for prevention and in
opposition to legalization since 1977 when I witnessed a rock concert
at the Capital Center. My own boys were 5 and 9 years old at the time.
Why was I there? By a twist of fate a young boy in our neighborhood had
recently been picked up for possession and distribution of marijuana. A
thoughtful teacher who knew my husband from his volunteer baseball
coaching called to tell us about it. We called the boy to talk to him
and offered to help him in any way we could. He called a few weeks
later to say he ``needed help.'' When I asked what it was, he said he
had tickets to a ``Rock Concert and no driver.'' Having been home for
several years raising my children and volunteering at their schools,
Scouts, and as a board member of the Girls & Boys Club I knew nothing
about ``rock.'' So, thinking I might turn him around, I agreed to
drive. I was shocked to see 17,000 kids getting ``stoned'' before my
eyes. I demanded and received his money back. (Later, Abe Pollin became
a member of my board.)
The very next morning I called the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration and asked that they ``dean up the Capital Center.'' I
was told, that was not their jurisdiction but that I ``had a much
larger problem on my hands.'' When I asked ``What?'' He informed me
that my own congressman was trying to legalize pot which would make it
far more available to all kids. I asked, ``Who's my congressman?'' He
told me. It was Montgomery County Republican, Newton Steers. I called
him and stated my case. He refused to withdraw the bill. I called two
more times. He refused again and I made him a promise. I promised that
my congressman was not going to pass a bill that would endanger all
children and that I was going to dedicate the next six months of my
life to finding him a new job. With the help of two other mothers we
set out to inform the public-especially senior citizens. They were
shocked and promised not to vote for him.
However, a few days before the election, a local paper predicted
Congressman Steers would win by a landslide. We started a telephone
chain asking mothers to ``paint a sign and come to Steers' campaign
headquarters.'' Nineteen (19) mothers showed up with signs saying, ``A
drug pusher cheers for every vote cast for Steers.'' The media also
showed up and the evening news reported, ``This could change things for
Mr. Steers.'' It did. We spent less than $30.00. He lost by a landslide
and went back to selling insurance.
Congressman Steers wrote an article for the Montgomery Journal
saying he ``was wrong about marijuana.'' He called me to congratulate
me on ``making democracy work.'' There are reams of other similar
stories including dosing drug paraphernalia shops in Maryland and, with
the help of folks like Carol Burnett, Alma Rangel, JoAnne Kemp, Carolyn
Mattingly, Rosemary Trible, Kathleen Smith, Priclla Mack, Jo Zschau,
Norma Lagomarsino, Debbie Dingell, Marilyn Quayle, Jean Lujan, Rosemary
Boulter, Caroline McMillan, Gail Tauzin, Kim Seindall, Marcia Coats,
Dolores Beilenson, Suzie Dicks, Marian Lewis, Joyce Chandler, Rhoda
Glickman, Cece Zorinski, Christine DeLay, Doris Matsui, Laura Bateman,
Catherine Stevens, Luwana Shumway Nancy Reagan and others, we closed
them in all 50 states.
We received the President's (station for Private Sector Initiatives
``for outstanding service to the community and finding innovative
private solutions to public problems.'' The only thing different today
is that most of us are grandmothers and feel even more strongly about
the issue. Well win but we need this Drug Czar and we need you and
every member of Congress on our side.
*****It was this battle against drug paraphernalia that brought us
up against the narco network that includes the likes of Keith Stroup,
Founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
(We have designated Stroup as the Father of the Adolescent Marijuana
Epidemic in America and significantly responsible for the deaths of
tens of thousands of teens who believed him when he wrote in High Times
Magazine, ``. . .there is no particular evidence that even those few
young people who smoke a great deal of marijuana necessarily hurt
themselves or reduce heir level of performance, academic or
otherwise,'' or, ``research very convincingly suggests that those who
do smoke marijuana and drive shortly thereafter are in no way
incapacitated to the degree as those are who drink alcohol and drive.''
(Exhibit II) NORML was investigated by two former congressmen, Robin
Beans and Billie Lee Evans, and reported to be ``to a certain extent
connected even to traffickers.'' (See letter enclosed dated September
7, 1979.Exhibit III) We also met Eric Sterling, former Hill staffer,
whose colleagues at the Drug Policy Foundation developed the ``Safe-
Crack Smoking Pipe'' described in the enclosed article (Exhibit IV),
Kevin Zeese, long-time legalization advocate, Marsha Rosenbaum who
received funding from the National Institutes on Drug Abuse and used it
to produce a pro-drug brochure called, ``Just Say What?'' and yes, even
George Soros. I met ``George'' soon after he gave $5.2 million to the
Drug Policy Foundation (the safe-crack pipe boys). I was naive enough
to think ``George'' didn't know who he was giving his $5.2 million to
so I decided to help him understand. I confronted him at Georgetown
University where he was speaking to 300 or so top American businessmen.
I told him. the group he was funding had colleagues who testified
before Congress that they wanted a ``completely open market (for
marijuana) with no age controls and no street controls'' and regularly
wrote letters to the editor in youth-oriented magazines telling kids
there ``was no evidence marijuana would hurt them academically or
otherwise.'' (See letter from High Times. Exhibit II) George left by
the side door and the rest of the folks waiting to ask questions sat
down. Given his track record of destabilizing national economies
(Britain & East Asia), would this be the time to question George Soros'
monetary activities and goals?
Remember, those from the narco network are not considering children
or the future of this nation. They are only interested in their own
freedom to do drugs. We are asking for a unanimous vote confirming Mr.
Walters. We have waited too long.
Respectfully,
Joyce Nalepka
President, Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge
HISTORY:
Following are some important historical facts that may be of
interest. Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Thurmond will remember, I'm
sure, December 4, 1979 when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to
table a vote on the Federal Criminal Code Revision that erroneously, in
my opinion, included a text to legalize pot. At our request, former
Senator Charles Mathias had returned from a trip to lead the way for
us. Some of the comments around that table would be shocking today.
Senator Mathias asked for and was granted permission to table the issue
and hold hearings about whether marijuana was harmful or not (Health
Consequences of Marijuana Use, Committee on the Judiciary, January 16
and 17, 1980, Serial No. 96-54)
(IN FACT, SENATOR LEAHY, I JUST PULLED OUT THE HEARING RECORD AND
NOTE THAT YOU, TOO, WERE A MEMBER OF THAT SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
YOU WERE LIKELY PRESENT FOR THE DECEMBER 4, 1979 MEETING AND HEARD
SENATOR KENNEDY'S COMMENT THAT ``WE HAVE MORE PROOF OF THE TOXICITY IN
MOTHER'S MILK THAN IN THE CASUAL USE OF MARIJUANA.'' I'm sure he knows
differently today and we've all learned a lot since then.
A MUCH YOUNGER SENATOR THURMOND COMMENTED TO SENATOR KENNEDY, AFTER
READING OUR MATERIALS ``SAY, TEDDY, IT SAYS HERE MARIJUANA CAN HARM
YOUR TESTICLES.'' This was followed by raucous laughter. We know today
Senator Thurmond was more right than Senator Kennedy. The reproductive
damage caused by marijuana is well documented. It is interesting to
note that seven members of that Judiciary Committee are still in the
Senate. (Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Byrd, Baucus, Thurmond and Hatch)
Senator Mathias chaired two days of hearings. Carol Burnett's
husband and his son testified along with doctors and experts from
across the nation. The marijuana that Senator Thurmond was reading
about was probably only 2% THC content The marijuana that is available
to our kids today is 25 to 30% THC content. In fact, the University of
Maryland research shows more kids going into emergency rooms for
marijuana problems than for--heroin.
Later, Senators Mathias and Biden held two days of hearings for us
in Baltimore on the drug paraphernalia issue. The paraphernalia
manufacturers were summoned. They showed up with haircuts and three-
piece suits, some with the price tags still dangling from under their
arms. They told the Senators, ``There's no point in closing us down,
you can make a bong from an apple, a toilet paper roller and aluminum
foil or ``THE BEST COCAINE SPOON IN TOWN IS FREE. IT COMES WITH EVERY
CUP OF COFFEE AT MCDONALD'S.'' He pressed the spoon against his nose to
show how well it fit I didn't get to testify until the next day;
however, I was outraged with their tactics. I rushed home, tracked down
the headquarters for McDonald's. Fortunately, McDonald's was in
Illinois giving me an extra hour. I called the office of Ed Schmidt,
President. His secretary was off for the day and her replacement
naively put me through to him. I told him my story and what the
paraphernalia pushers were saying. He replied, ``What do you want from
me?'' I said, I want you to redesign that spoon and let me go back
tomorrow and announce it to the Senate committee, proving you will not
allow them the privilege of using a legitimate business for their narco
scheme.'' He said, ``Lady, we have 4,500 stores.'' I asked, ``How many
children do you have? He told me and I said simply, ``Don't do it for
me. Do it for them.'' He asked me to call him back in 15 minutes. I
did. He said, ``We'll do it.'' The incident got media coverage around
the world. It didn't stop the drug epidemic but it was testimony that
the good guys will do anything to stop drugs.
FUTURE:
We plan to keep on winning starting with getting John Walters
approved as Drug Czar.
We plan to pass an Express Preemption bill to 1011 the effort to
pass the medical marijuana cigarette scam. We have already distributed
information on the Express Preemption bill to EVERY member on four (4)
different occasions. Senators Hatch and Feinstein have actual copies of
the bill. Congressman Mark Souder, who introduced the bill last
session, has a copy of the new version. Please contact them for a copy
and help lead the effort to protect the future of this nation's
children.
We plan to work for school drug testing.
We plan to stop all forms of illegal drug legalization.
We plan to do major fundraising to empower us to fight back against
the multimillionaires mentioned in the enclosed Reader's Digest
article.
We plan to continue organizing especially parents who have lost
children and the tens of thousands of grandparents who are forced out
of retirement to raise their grandchildren because their parents
believed the legalizers. They are focused and determined that other
parents don't have to walk down that road. Wait till this group gets
moving.
We invite all members of Congress to walk with us.
<F-dash>
Drug Free Schools Coalition, Inc.
Flemington, NJ 08822
September 10, 2001
Senator Kyl
Senate Judiciary Committee
Dirksen Bldg. Room 224
1st and C Sts. NE
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator
The Drug-Free Schools Coalition is an organization of parents and
schools dedicated to helping schools become drug-free. We have members
in over 21 states.
We strongly urge you to support the nomination of John Walters to
the Director of ONDCP. We believe that he has the experience and the
skill to do an outstanding job as our Drug Czar.
We know that he will support strong drug-free school programs
including treatment, education and drug testing.
Please do all you can to support him.
Sincerely yours,
David G. Evans, Esq.
Executive Director
<F-dash>
Drug Prevention Network of the Americas
Alpine, Texas 79830
September 7, 2001
The Hon. Patrick Leahy
Senate Judiciary Committee
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Leahy:
I am writing to highly recommend John Walters as Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. Our nation needs a strong,
experienced, Drug Czar as never before. Drug use by America's youth is
too high, pressure from the drug legalization lobby to make harmful
drugs legal and available is mounting and the dangers from
narcotrafficking threaten U.S. borders and our international neighbors.
John Walters has the experience, vision, and leadership necessary to
marshall the forces and to turn the tide against this insidious scourge
to society. He has a proven track record with his leadership at ONDCP
and with the anti-drug movement, which resulted in such dramatic
declines in drug use in the 1980's and early 1990's.
Mr. Walter's approach to the drug problem is solution-oriented,
balanced, and centered on the prevention of drug us. He recognizes the
need for a well-coordinated strategy invloving education, treatment,
enforcement, and cooperation with the international community. He was
one of the authors of ``What Works? Schools Without Drugs'' which
inspired the nation and the drug-free schools and communities
initiative. He is recognized and well-respected by substance abuse
professionals and community anti-drug leaders and grassroots
organizations across the nation.
The Drug problem can be dramatically reduced, as has been proven;
it is not hopeless and inevitable. America needs the leadership,
wisdom, and inspiration which Mr. Walters will provide. I respectfully
urge you and all Senate Judiciary Committee members to strongly support
John Walter's nomination.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Haynes
<F-dash>
Jeanette McDougal, MM, CCDP
St. Paul, Minnesota
September 7, 2001
Hon. Joseph Biden
Members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
I am asking that you SUPPORT JOHN WALTERS as the Director of the
Office of Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) for the following reasons:
First of all, for his stellar record in support of policies which
promote and support a drug-free America.
Next, I am assuming that you and your Committee are interested in
promoting the good health and welfare of all US citizens, and therefore
oppose the use of illegal drugs, especially by youth.I would further
assume that you would disassociate yourself from those who would ``push
a drug-use philosophy,'' again, especially to youth.
I direct your attention to the latest issue (Oct/Nov 2001 pg 69) of
Canada's premier pro-drug publication, CANNABIS CULTURE (their version
of USA's HIGH TIMES) which reports that ``NORML (National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) will be an integral part of the
effort to challenge the nominations of John Walters and Asa Hutchinson
for the office of drug czar and DEA head.'' This comment was made by
Nick Thimmesch, NORMAL spokesperson.
It is telling that NORML is opposed to John Walters--and should be
revealing to this Committee.
NORML has promoted and lobbied for the legalization of marijuana
and other drugs for over 30 years. I trust that the members of this
Committee will not align themselves, either philosophically or by vote,
with those who aim is to weaken and undermine our protective drug laws.
It is also telling that NORMAL scheduled their annual conference
this year on the 4/20 to coincide with 4:29 which is recognized by the
drug culture all over the world as the ``time to make marijuana''. In
fact, the normal conference opening date was described in many prog-
drug publications as ``National Get High Day.''
Some might say, ``Guilt by association, that's not fair.'' I would
remind this Committee that:
``We are known by the company we keep''--a more delicate way of
saying--``When we lie down with dogs we get up with Fleas.''
I am confident that when the members of this Committee and the
members of the U.S. Senate carefully review the evidence, you will vote
to confirm John Walters.
<F-dash>
Grand Lodge
Fraternal Order of Police
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109
July 25, 2001
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Member
Cimmittee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hatch:
I am writing to inform you of the strong of the Fraternal Order of
Police for nomination of Mr. John P. Walters to serve as the Executive
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
The F.O.P. first got to know John in 1989 when he served as Chief
of staff to William Bennett, the first ``drug czar.'' As the Deputy
Director for supply reduction from 1991 to 1993, he helped law
enforcement, in 1992, achieve the lowest levels of drug use in the past
twenty-five years.
As a nation, we need to recommit ourselves to winning the drug war.
The F.O.P. supports a balanced approach to the insidious drug epidemic.
Prevention, effective treatment, and diligent and aggressive
enforcement are necessary elements of any national drug control
strategy. The strategy must include the high Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area (HIDTA) and the Edward Byrne Memorial funding programs. These two
programs are essential to a comprehensive and coherent attack on drugs.
2We must also be aware that some in this country believe the war on
drugs is a failure. Governor Gary Johnson in my home state of New
Mexico has, in the past three years, become a high-profile spokesman
for those who believe that we have failed and the ``war'' is unwinnable
and not worth fighting. I agree with Mr. Walters, the war is winnable
and worth fighting.
Like the Fraternal Order of Police, he recognizes that we must have
a balanced attack--prevention and treatment for addicts along with the
interdiction of drugs by law enforcement. John's success at ONDCP was a
result of his balanced approach to our nation's problems with crime and
drug use. In his tenure at ONDCP, funding for drug prevention programs
increased three hundred and thirty-five percent (335%) and funding for
treatment programs increased two hundred and fifty-nine percent (259%).
John Walters has the experience, the leadership and the knowledge
to lead our nation's anti-drug efforts. Also, he is highly respected by
those of us on the front lines of the drug enforcement effort. He will
be an asset to law enforcement at the local, state and federal level.
I have every confidence in his qualifications and believe he will
make an outstanding Executive Director at ONDCP.
Please do not hesitate to contact my Executive Director Jim Pasco,
or me at 202-547-8189 if you need further information.
Sincerely,
Gilbert G. Gallegos
National President
<F-dash>
Congress of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20515
September 6, 2001
The Hon. Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman
Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington, DC 20510
The Hon. Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member:
We write as members of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free
Force for a Drug Free America to express our strong support for the
President's nomination of John P. Walters to be Director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). In the area of drug policy, we
are at a crucial time in our nation's history. As such, we applaud the
President's nomination and the President's decision to maintain the
ONDCP Director as a member of his Cabinet.
There is substantial consensus among members of the U.S. House of
Representatives that we must pursue an aggressive counter drug strategy
``balanced'' among demand reduction and supply reduction to adequately
address our nation's illegal drug problem. The President and his
nominee are committed to such as approach. As former Deputy Director
for Supply Reduction and former Chief of Staff to the ONDCP Director,
there is no question that John Walters knows the inner workings of the
office. This coupled with his extensive work at the Department of
Education give him the experience he needs to tackle this most
difficult assignment. But beyond his background, we believe John
Walters brings renewed energy, Vision and the right approach to this
critical position.
We appreciate your Committee's leadership on narcotics control
programs in the past and we respectfully urge your Committee's
expeditious confirmation of John P. Walters as our nation's next ONDCP
Director.
Sincerely,
J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
Signatories:
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert,
Representative Mark Souder,
Representative Rob Portman,
Representative Mark Kirk,
Representative Sue Myrick,
Representative John Peterson,
Representative Ben Gilman,
Representative J.D. Hayworth,
Representative Joe Barton,
Representative Porter Goss,
Representative Kay Granger,
Representative Bob Barr,
Representative John Mica,
Representative Frank Lobiondo,
Representative Anne Northup,
Representative Doug Ose,
Representative Mike Rogers,
Representative Henry Bonilla,
Representative Howard Coble,
Representative Dan Burton,
Representative Hal Rogers,
Representative Frank Wolf,
Representative Melissa Hart,
Representative Nathan Deal,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81443.007
<F-dash>
National Families in Action
Atlanta, GA 30329
September 10, 2001
The Hon. Joseph Biden, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510
Dear Senator Biden:
Tomorrow you will preside over the confirmation hearing of John
Walters to serve as Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy.
As executive director of a 25-year-old national organization that helps
families prevent drug abuse among children, I write to tell you that
America's families strongly endorses Mr. Walter's candidacy. For the
first time in the history of this office, Mr. Walters has selected a
deputy who comes from the prevention field, Deputy nominee Mary Ann
Solberg, and those of us in prevention applaud him for doing this. We
are equally pleased with his selection of Demand Reduction Deputy
nominee Andrea Barthwell, M.D., an expert in addiction treatment. Both
are women who have long-term, practical experience in their respective
fields. Families who are deeply concerned about keeping children away
from drugs, and about improving treatment to help all who have become
addicted recover, greatly appreciate the wisdom of Mr. Walters'
choices, for they signal that he will truly seek to balance demand
reduction with supply reduction, both of which are necessary components
of effective drug policy, but neither of which is more important that
the other.
You have already heard, and will continue to hear, loud voices
opposing Mr. Walters' candidacy. This is an organized protest that
comes straight from the drug-legalization movement, which insists our
drug policies have failed, that the drug laws do more damage than drugs
themselves, and that we should therefore legalize drugs. Legalization
would be a disaster for this country and its citizens. Currently 105
million Americans regularly use alcohol and 67 million use tobacco, our
two legal addictive drugs, compared to just 15 million who use all
illegal drugs combined, according to the 1999 National Household
Survey. These levels of use produce 530,700 deaths a year from alcohol
and tobacco, compared to 16,000 deaths a year for illegal drugs,
according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's newest report,
Substance Abuse: The Nation s Number-One Health Problem. If drugs were
legalized, new legitimate revenues would be used to mass produce and
mass market drugs to increase consumption, and use of drugs that are
now illegal would quickly rise to levels similar to alcohol and tobacco
today. Legalization proponents are simply wrong, both in their analyses
of the problem and their solutions for it. The only people listening to
them are drug users, dealers, and traffickers, and many in the press
who sympathize with their views.
The policies this Congress has overseen since before and after it
created the Office of National Drug Control Policy have not failed:
since 1979, our nation has cut past-month drug use by nearly half (from
25 million Americans to 15 million Americans). More importantly,
between 1979 and 1992, past-month drug use among adolescents and young
adults fell by two-thirds. The crime rate has dropped to the lowest
levels since the 1960s. So has the murder rate. Before such drug
polices, adolescents suffered so many alcohol- and drug-related deaths
in the 1970s that their life span as a group actually decreased, while
the life spans of every other age group lengthened. Thanks to our
nation's drug policies, this is no longer true: far fewer adolescents
use drugs and alcohol today compared to the 1970s, and far fewer suffer
all the problems that drug use generates.
Perhaps the greatest anxiety that parents and families feel about
legalization efforts is the changes proponents are trying to make in
drug-education for children and adolescents. Drug use is not a
``fundamental human right,'' as Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of
the George-Soros-funded Lindesmith Center asserts. Nor, God help us,
will it ever be appropriate for parents to ``model the safe use of
heroin, cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, methamphetamines, and other drugs
around the dinner table,'' as Mr. Nadelmann insisted in a debate with
the author of this letter at the 1998 Vail Valley Institute (a debate
at which John Walters and I served as the opponents of legalization).
Nor should we ever teach children they can use harmful, addictive
drugs ``safely,'' as Mr. Nadelmann's colleague Marsh Rosenbaum,
director of The Lindesmith Center West, asserts in her drug-education
guide for teachers, Safety Rust., A Reality-Based Approach IV Drug
Education. At a Drug Policy Foundation conference, Ms. Rosenbaum warned
against sending recovering addicts into the classroom. They are
``failed drug users,'' she said, and .we should be usurp ``successful
drug users as good role models for children.'' At a conference her
organization sponsored in 1999, Ms. Rosenbaum featured Healthwise, a
British company, whose drug-education curricula tell parents that their
children are safer using drugs than participating in outdoor
activities.
Parents also worry about the efforts of another legalization
organization, the Harm Reduction Coalition, whose newsletter explains
how to enter schools as ``drug educators'' to surreptitiously establish
``user groups'' to support students' drug use. Gain access, the
newsletter advises, with a ``proposal that clearly outlines a harm-
reduction approach, but uses language that bridges the gap between
traditional prevention and harm reduction. One hysterical parent may be
enough to get you program thrown out of school.'' The coalition advises
advocates to ``cast a wide net to include alcohol, tobacco, caffeine,
chocolate, and sugar to breakdown stigma by showing that drug use is
the norm, not an aberration.''
John Walters will not let these kinds of assaults on school
children happen. His experience as Deputy of Supply Reduction in the
previous Bush Administration gave him the opportunity to take the
measure of the re-emerging drug. legalization movement and the
destructive policies it advocates. He will help America's parents and
families reduce drug use and addiction among their children and in
their communities. We wholeheartedly endorse his candidacy and ask you
to confirm him quickly so that he can get on with the critically
important task of shaping effective drug policy for our nation.
Thank you for considering our request.
Very truly yours,
Sue Rusche
Co-founder and Executive Director
National Families in Action
<F-dash>
National Troopers Coalition
Albany, N.Y. 12207
July 11, 2001
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4402
Dear Senator Hatch:
The National Troopers Coalition, (NTC), represents this nation's
state police and highway patrol law enforcement troopers and retirees.
Our membership includes all ranks, inclusive of Trooper through the
rank of Colonel. State and local law enforcement efforts account for
over 90 percent of criminal arrests and troopers do the majority of
highway drug interdictions. Our troopers are on the front lines daily
arid some of them are seriously injured and killed in the performance
of their duties.
On behalf of our Chairman, Trooper Scott Reinacher, and our
membership it gives me great pleasure to give our highest
recommendation and support for the nomination of Mr. John P. Waiters to
be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. From
1989 to 1993, Mr. Waiters served in the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) under the tutelage of William Bennett.
During his service at ONDCP; he was responsible for helping guide the
development and implementation of anti-drug programs in all areas of
prevention, treatment, education and law enforcement.
Prior to his service at ONDCP, Mr. Waiters was a founder of the
Madison Center, a public policy organization devoted to advancing
improvements in education and related fields, including early childhood
education and drug abuse prevention Mr., Waiters began working on drug
policy matters at the U.S. Department of Education in the mid-1980's.
He was a major designer of the largest federal funding increases for
drug treatment and treatment research in U.S. history. He has always
been a major supporter of innovative drug prevention programs and a
steadfast advocate of a balanced anti-drug effort.
John Waiters is an articulate advocate, an able administrator, old
a man of deep and reasoned convictions. The National Troopers Coalition
believes that a successful effort depends on a thoughtful and
integrated approach with strong law enforcement in conjunction with
treatment, prevention and educational programs. John Waiters is the
right man, and the best man, to lead America's anti-drug efforts. In
addition to endorsing addition to endorsing John Waiters, the NTC would
like to publicly commend him for the fine work he has accomplished in
the anti-drug arena.
The NTC hopes the Senate Judiciary Committee will review the record
of John Waiters, which is strong and unwavering and that an early
Senate judiciary Committee confirmation will be forthcoming.
Sincerely,
Johnny L. Hughes
Director, Government Relations
<F-dash>
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
New York, NY 10174
July 2, 2001
The Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
SR-221 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0802
Dear Senator Biden:
Thank you for your years of commitment and leadership to drug
prevention and-treatment. Your advocacy has been critically important
to all of us working to reduce levels of drug use in America.
Recently I had the opportunity to meet with John Walters, the Bush
administration's nominee for Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP). I first came to know John when I Joined the
President's Drug Advisory Council in 1989, the same year I became
Chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA). At that
time, John was Deputy Director of Supply Reduction for ONDCP. While
most of toy dealings with ONDCP then focused on demand reduction
issues,, it was my impression that John was an insightful and outspoken
supply reduction advocate.
In our recent conversations with John, he assured us that if he is
confirmed the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign--a collaborative
effort between ONDCP and the Partnership--would have his continued
support.
Further, he made clear he would honor the administration's stated
objective of pursuing a balanced approach to the nation's drug policy,
one that focuses on reducing demand through prevention, education and
treatment as well as on reducing supply through interdiction and law
enforcement.
Given the above, I ask you to support the confirmation of John
Waiters as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Sincerely,
James E. Burke
<F-dash>
PRIDE Surveys
Atlanta, GA 30326
September 7, 2001
The Hon. Jon Kyl
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Jon Kyl,
Over the past two decades I have had the opportunity to work with
John Waiters on issues surrounding youth, parents and drug use.
I know there are many other issues he must deal with if confirmed
by your committee to direct ONDCP but I cannot believe there is a issue
more important than preventing drug use among Americas youth. John has
always proven to be knowledgeable and truly concerned about use of
drugs by our youth.
More importantly, John has shown strong leadership when issues on
policy were in conflict during past administrations. His support for
America's youth has never wavered.
I want to give my strongest endorsement for the confirmation of
John Waiters as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Gleaton
President, PRIDE Surveys
-