<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:62537.wais]
OVERSIGHT OF THE 1999 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-82
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-537 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska JIM TURNER, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Robert B. Charles, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Margaret Hemenway, Professional Staff Member
Sean Littlefied, Professional Staff Member
Amy Davenport, Clerk
Micheal Yeager, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 25, 1999................................ 1
Statement of:
McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy........................................ 26
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 118
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio:
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Prepared statement of the family of Detective Robert
Clark II............................................... 3
McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of................. 32
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida:
Chart on counterdrug funding statistics.................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii, prepared statement of..................... 17
Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement of....................... 23
OVERSIGHT OF THE 1999 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Souder, Hutchinson,
Ose, Mink, Cummings, and Kucinich.
Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director/chief
counsel; Margaret Hemenway and Sean Littlefield, professional
staff members; Amy Davenport, clerk; Michael Yeager, minority
counsel; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Earley Green,
minority staff assistant.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of
the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
Subcommittee to order.
Our business today is to hear from the Director of the
National Office of Drug Control Policy.
Before I get into my opening statement and before the
regular order of business, I am pleased to recognize the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, for a special introduction
to our panel.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
express my appreciation to you for giving me this opportunity.
The topic of this hearing, of course, is so serious, and
the chairman is to be congratulated for his focus on this.
I know how these issues become local. In Cleveland, OH, a
police officer was killed in the line of duty while attempting
to execute a drug-related arrest. The officer, Robert Clark,
was a decorated police officer, a husband, and father of three.
As part of the street crimes unit, he routinely participated in
coordinated antidrug operations. He was shot during a drug
arrest by an individual that had an extensive criminal record
in several States, an individual that seemed to have slipped
through the criminal justice system, but may not have had
greater coordination and information been made available to
local law enforcement professionals.
Mr. Chairman, Officer Clark's sister, Mary, and her husband
John, who is with the U.S. Custom's Office, are here today. I
would ask them to stand so that I can recognize them.
Stand up, please.
And I would also ask for unanimous consent to submit a
written statement from them into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of the family of Detective Robert
Clark II follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.003
Mr. Mica. We are, indeed, honored to have you with us and
appreciate the tremendous sacrifice your family has paid in
this terrible crisis that our Nation and law enforcement
officials face in executing their responsibility under the laws
of this country.
So, without objection, we are pleased to recognize you
today, and also make that part of the record.
Mr. Kucinich. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And,
if I could ask the indulgence of the Chair, if the Chair and
those in the audience could join in a round of applause in
appreciation for the sacrifice of the family.
[Applause.]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.005
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much. It does bring to home the
reason that we are here today trying to find solutions so that
a tragedy such as that we have heard about with this family can
be avoided in the future.
We had a vote, and right now have the swearing in of a
Member, but we are going to go ahead and proceed with our
regular order of business this morning, which is, again,
testimony from our Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy.
I am going to start with an opening statement.
I will ask unanimous consent that it be submitted for the
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.007
Mr. Mica. Let me just try to spend a few minutes, as our
members join us, to express some of my concerns outside that
official statement about my review of the proposed drug
strategy, the 1999 strategy that has been submitted, and some
of the accompanying documents. In light of a trip that the
ranking member, myself, Mr. Souder, and some of the
subcommittee just took, I would like to look, just for a few
minutes, at an overview of where we are and what I believe are
some of the shortcomings of this proposal before us.
First of all, I want to publicly acknowledge the tremendous
job that General McCaffrey has done. I think he has had a very
difficult assignment. I think he has handled himself in a
manner to be praised by this subcommittee, by the Congress, and
by the administration.
That being said, I do have some so-called ``bones'' to pick
with the proposal before us, and I am sure he'll have an
opportunity to respond.
One of my major concerns is that we look at the cost-
effectiveness of our approach to this problem. We are now
spending, this past year, $17.9 billion taxpayer dollars, not
to mention almost a quarter of a trillion dollars in cost, just
dollars and cents, to the taxpayers on substance abuse and drug
expenses that our country incurs every year.
So you have to look at the most cost-effective approach.
Maybe some of these items are more on our minds, since we have
just returned from some of the major drug-producing countries,
but it doesn't take a whole lot of education or information to
figure out exactly where the core of the drugs are coming from.
By the estimates of this report, we have got 60 percent, maybe
as much as 70 percent of the hard drugs coming through Mexico,
and most of the cocaine and heroin is now produced in Colombia.
We learned through our trip that Colombia has now become
the major source of cocaine production, with the tremendous
efforts that have been made by President Fujimora of Peru and
by the President of Bolivia, Hugo Bonsar. So we know that drugs
are being produced--the hard drugs, heroin and cocaine, in
Colombia.
We still have the problem of getting the resources--
helicopters, ammunition, eradication programs--underway in
those countries.
We know that 100 percent of the cocaine is being produced
in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Now 50 percent has switched
over to Colombia. We know that heroin is trafficking up through
Mexico, and that's 60 to 70 percent of it.
I point this out because the strategy does not appear to me
to be focused sufficiently to deal with these source countries.
Now, in Peru and Bolivia a few million dollars extra could make
a big difference. They have shown some dramatic intentions and
actions to eliminate, not just cut back, but potentially
eliminate production in those two countries.
So it seems that a lot of our resources should be to stop
drugs at their source. What disturbs me about the budget and
the strategy is that it does not seem to focus enough attention
there. In fact, I think over last year's actual total dollar
expenditure we see decreases.
So I have some serious concerns that we are putting a few
dollars where they can do the most good, in Bolivia and Peru,
and also in Colombia.
What is even more disturbing is the situation with Mexico,
where most of the drugs are transiting. Today's newspapers make
me even more concerned, General McCaffrey. We had the testimony
yesterday of Tom Constantine, the head of our Drug Enforcement
Agency, and he testified in the Senate. In my lifetime, I have
never witnessed any group of criminals that has had such a
terrible impact on so many individuals and communities in our
Nation. Mr. Constantine said they have infiltrated cities and
towns around the United States, visiting upon these places
addiction, misery, increased criminal activities, and increased
homicide.
There is no doubt that those individuals running these
organized crime, drug trafficking syndicates today are
responsible for degrading the quality of life, not only in the
towns along the southwest border of the United States, but
also, increasingly, cities in middle America. That disturbs me
greatly.
The headlines are, ``Drug Corruption in Mexico Called
Unparalleled,'' again, by our Chief Drug Enforcement Officer of
our Nation.
Further, what concerns me is a lack of organization that
the ranking member and I observed, first in Panama, which has
been our major reconnaissance center. Today is almost the end
of February. Monday is the first of March. We have March and
April. It does not appear that we have any coherent plans for
relocating those surveillance and incredible volume of
equipment that now is in Panama. It seems disorganized, at
best. It looks like we got out-negotiated by the Panamanians,
and we are turning over $10 billion in assets, and you have $73
million to relocate in your budget, which, again, is probably
an expensive policy failure by the administration.
So I am very concerned about what we are going to do. We do
not have anything in place. Our folks told us that our troops
may be living in tents or in temporary quarters if and when an
agreement is reached for relocating them. This also opens a
huge gap in our reconnaissance, surveillance, and interdiction
activities.
We then went to the southwest border and met with border
officials and some of our ATF folks there. We were basically
told, Sir--and correct me, Mrs. Mink, if I am wrong--that there
is no one in charge of the southwest border program, that it is
greatly fractionalized, that there is no direction and no or,
at best, little coordination.
Certainly, the southwest border, given the chart that I
have here, has to be one of the major entry points. The border
patrol told us--and correct me again if I am wrong, anyone out
on the panel--that we have not restarted our efforts of having
the reserve and military do proper surveillance. They said they
can detect most folks coming across the border through sensors.
The local border patrol folks have requested, in fact, that
that be reinstituted, but nothing in Washington has been done
to, again, provide the sensors at the border which are so
important.
Then, I know that you and the administration have been
strong advocates, and the Congress, Mr. Portman, strong
advocates of education and prevention and our Drug-Free
Communities Act that passed the Congress. I find that we do not
have adequate resources in this budget to even fulfill the
minimal needs.
Mr. Portman told me last evening it took 16 months to
appoint board members, and most of it was a fight. The delay
was a fight between HHS and DOJ in trying to decide who would
run the program.
So I have some very serious concerns about what is in the
proposal, about what I read in the newspaper today, about the
possible certification by the administration of Mexico in the
next couple of days, and that we do not have coordination and
action on a couple of these fronts.
Now, I do not mean that all in a critical vein, Mr.
Director. I am wondering if maybe we need to give you
additional authority. We certainly can do a better job from our
perspective in applying the financial resources where they need
to go to get the job we think needs to get done.
Those are my candid, open remarks. We have learned from the
past that if we do not put the proper emphasis on these areas--
multi-faceted eradication, source country programs, and
international programs on interdiction, education, treatment,
and prevention--that it does not work. And there is no question
that it does not work if we do not have that emphasis.
So those are some of my concerns today. I think we have
most of the members of the panel back. I apologize for taking
time.
Again, I do not give that totally in a critical vein, but
hopefully in a constructive vein that we can find answers to
some of the problems as we move along here.
With those comments, I am pleased to yield to the ranking
member, the distinguished lady from Hawaii, who also
accompanied us on our first initial visit. We are anxious to
hear her remarks. I recognize her.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to you,
General McCaffrey, to this hearing.
I occupy a new position as ranking member of this
subcommittee, and the entire subject area, although in many
ways is something that I have been concerned with my entire
political life, nonetheless, there is so much in this whole
area that requires concentrated, detailed attention in order to
understand all the inner workings and ramifications of the
problem. It is an immense task that you have assumed, and I
want to take this opportunity first off to commend you and your
staff for the exceptional work that you have done since this
organization was established.
There are so many fronts to this issue, and perhaps coming
onto it initially I would have underscored the particular
attention we have to pay to our young people, who are the real
victims of this crisis, and organize efforts to educate them
and their parents and their families about the dreadful
consequences of becoming a user and an addict; the cost to the
family, as well as to the community and to society and the
Nation, as a whole, and so we concentrate our efforts.
I serve on the Education Committee, and we concentrated our
efforts in the educational aspects and the prevention aspects,
and then, when you look at the health area, you know that there
is a whole arena of health services and treatment, and some of
the debate that goes along with those issues.
Then, traveling with this subcommittee to Central and South
America, you understand that much of it is outside our realm of
control. These source countries have total responsibility to do
the things that are necessary to curb the source, to interdict
the smugglers, and to do everything they can to prevent the
traffic into our country. To some extent we are dependent upon
their will and their determination to get at the source
question and all the crime and other kinds of corruption that
occur in societies that are governed by the law of drugs.
We know significant achievements in some of these countries
that we want to pay special tribute to for their new efforts--
Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia, in particular--and all of us are
concerned about the developments in Mexico.
But, in looking at this overall picture about our drug
strategy, what comes to my mind as something that I would have
always considered self-evident was that we knew exactly what
was happening within the United States in terms of where the
drug syndicates were located, who ran them, who was in charge
in what city, with respect to the wholesale activities of these
drugs, and managing and controlling the flow in and out of our
cities and our communities.
I have looked over a number of the reports and descriptions
of the various functions of agencies, and I am not really quite
sure that I have a grasp of what our efforts, in terms of our
own law enforcement, are within this country.
That is an area I would like to pay special attention to as
we begin our inquiry on the scope and strategy for the
eradication of the drug abuse in our country.
I would like to know, frankly, where these people are and
what their names are. I would like to put a face to these
names. I would like to know where they are located, to what
extent the intelligence within this country can identify them,
know their operations, and, if so, why they have not been
arrested and put in prison.
That's the short view of my perspective of one small corner
of this immense subject area.
I would like to share those concerns with you, General
McCaffrey, and hope that in the ensuing months we have an
opportunity to engage in discussion about this far-reaching
activity that those concerns of our enforcement part of this
huge operation are fully understood, because, to a large
extent, I think my community, my District that I represent has
sort of given up on this thing. They say, ``Well, what can you
do about it? It is there.'' We do not see many results in terms
of the whole traffic.
I am alarmed because my State is listed here as one of the
major growers of marijuana, which is the leading illicit drug
trafficking in this country, and I want to know who these
people are that are bringing it in or growing it or picking it
up and shipping it and where it goes and who these people are
throughout the country.
I think that most families want to have that information--
the knowledge, the belief that everything is being done that
could be
done to help engage this Nation in this very, very critical
problem for the sake of our children and our families.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that my
statement be entered into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.011
Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize now the vice chairman
of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, General McCaffrey,
it is always a pleasure and an honor to have you here. You have
always and continue to distinguish yourself as one of our true
leaders in the antidrug movement, and I very much appreciate
that, as do the citizens of the 7th District of Georgia that I
represent.
I think primarily, through no fault of your own but through
some of the policy decisions that the administration makes, the
effectiveness of your personal efforts and those of the people
that serve with you, and, in particular, the brave men and
women of the DEA have not enjoyed as much success as I know
they would like and as you would like, and as, certainly, we up
here would like to see, problems with regard to Mexico being
one of the foremost problems, an effort by some, I think, in
the administration not to be quite as strong on the marijuana
legalization effort, as I know you are, and on needle exchange
programs.
I guess what I am saying is I think we would be a lot
better off if you were President and not just head of ONDCP,
because then you would be in a position to make the broad
policy decisions and dictate many of the steps that we would
like to see and that I know you, personally, would like to see.
But I do look forward to the questions and answers today in
your statement, and you are always very, very frank and
forthcoming with us, and I appreciate that, and I know you
appreciate where we are coming from in terms of sometimes some
very tough questions.
Again, it is always an honor to be with you and with the
brave men and women that you represent in the forefront of the
war on drugs.
We had, through one of our subcommittees, a very
interesting discussion yesterday with Mayor Guiliani of New
York, and I may have a question or two to ask you, comments on
some of the positions that he has taken. I think he has really
done many of the things that we would like to see done. Of
course, he is the chief executive for New York City and can
make those decisions and dictate that they be carried out.
But, again, it is a pleasure to have you here. I look
forward to the testimony and to the questions and answers, and,
again, look forward to working with you in fighting the war
against mind-altering drugs in the coming Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank you and now recognize the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I just want to thank General McCaffrey for
being here and look forward to getting into the questions and
comments.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Hutchinson, the gentleman from Arkansas, you
are recognized.
Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will yield for my opening statement.
I have started reviewing the report, General McCaffrey, and
I look forward to your testimony.
I will take the opportunity just to make one remark. I
believe in the importance of educating teenagers about tobacco
use and the dangers of that. I always have believed, though,
that we should distinguish the case of illegal drugs, the
narcotics, the methamphetamine--the message on that, you know,
from the antidrug message on tobacco.
Sometimes I think we just sort of meld all of that
together, and so I just wanted to express that comment to you.
I have raised four teenagers, and I think you have got to
distinguish that message out there. Both are important, but I
hope that we can really put the focus on the illegal drugs--I
think that is the greatest danger in our country--and then we
can have a separate message for the antismoking campaign.
I look forward to your testimony, General McCaffrey, and,
likewise, I thank you for your hard work for our country.
Mr. Mica. The gentleman from California, Mr. Ose, you are
recognized.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing and the opportunity to go with you this past week. I am
very interested in hearing what General McCaffrey has to offer
here this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the Federal funding for
the war on drugs has increased for fiscal year 2000, however
nominally or however much we might think it needs to be more.
The questions that I have deal with how can the Federal
Government assist localities and communities in reaching their
drug prevention goals. It is the details of this that I am
looking forward to hearing from General McCaffrey about this
morning.
I also want to comment on a statement that General
McCaffrey made to the Community Anti-Drug Coalition's
newsletter this past winter. The General commented that the
responsibility of combating minor use of drugs, alcohol, and
tobacco falls on communities and coalitions and not on the
local police chief and sheriff.
My specific question--and I hope you address this--is: how
can the Federal Government encourage and equip local
communities and coalitions to actually participate effectively
in this effort?
Again, these are just a few of my concerns. With respect to
the time, I will yield back whatever I have left in favor of
listening to General McCaffrey.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.012
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Just to make sure we correct the record before we recognize
the General, on page 89 of the National Drug Control Policy I
want to present a national award for graphics liberties, which
is the National Drug Control budget funding trend up, which
last year the total expenditures were $17.9 billion, and this
year they are $17.8 billion, $109 million less, and it is
cleverly done with the graphics that are represented, breaking
out the supplemental as a separate expenditure. But, in fact,
there are decreases in some of the areas which I pointed out
and expressed concerns about, and I have this awesome chart
that the staff has prepared, which I am going to ask be
submitted to the record. It shows the fiscal year 2000
expenditures for international dropping 43 percent from 1999 in
the proposal by the administration, for total dollars spent in
interdiction, which would be down 18 percent. These are the
exact figures, in spite of the classy fashion in which the
information is prepared.
Without objection, that will be made part of the record and
tidy it up a bit, I hope.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.013
Mr. Mica. With that, General, we are pleased to have you
here. We apologize for the delay. We look forward to your
testimony and look forward to working with you as we tackle
this tough problem.
You are recognized, Sir.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL BARRY R. McCAFFREY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
General McCaffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to appear in front of this committee and try and
not only lay out what the administration's strategy and budget
entail, but also to listen very carefully to your own comments
and respond to your questions.
Let me also thank Representative Mink for her leadership. I
look forward to working with you as a partner in the coming
years in this committee, and for the many others in the
committee who I have worked with over the last several years.
A lot of the people who are vital to the national drug
effort are here in the room with us, and I would not be able to
mention all of them, but I would be remiss to not note Dr.
Linda Wolfe Jones, Therapeutic Communities of America; Jennifer
Collier McCall of the Legal Action Center; Sara Cason from the
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; of
particular pride to have here Sue Thau representing Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, more than 4,000 coalitions
across the country; Tom Hedrick from Partnership for Drug-Free
America.
I will try and show a smattering of this enormous effort.
Mr. Mica. General, would you mind repeating them and having
each of them stand so we can recognize them.
General McCaffrey. Yes, I would be glad to.
Dr. Linda Wolfe Jones, Therapeutic Communities of America;
Jennifer Collier McCall, the Legal Action Center; Sara Cason
from the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence;
Sue Thau from Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the
umbrella organization all across the country; Tom Hedrick from
Partnership for Drug-Free America. I know all of you know Jim
Burk and the absolutely brilliant work they have done on the
antidrug media campaign. I am always proud to have DARE America
present. Jim McGivney is here representing the biggest antidrug
prevention program in the country, 26 million kids and 9
million now in the international community. Susan Weinstein,
from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, is
here. There were 12 drug courts 3 years ago. There are almost
500 now, either operating or standing up. Johnny Hughes is here
from the National Troopers Coalition; and Dr. Bob Balster from
the College on Problems of Drug Dependency. Many of the most
serious academic researchers associate themselves with that
program. I thank him for being here, along with Joe Peters, who
has newly joined us as our HIDTA Director. He is a very
experienced assistant U.S. attorney from Philadelphia, where he
is chief of narcotics and organized crime, and we thank Joe for
joining us.
Mr. Chairman, if I can, let me ask your permission to enter
into the record a written comment.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
General McCaffrey. We tried to pull together and provide
you the facts that may help guide your own deliberations.
Let me also run through very briefly, just laying out, so
you can see it and hear it, the principal subcomponents of our
national effort.
[Simultaneous slide presentation.]
General McCaffrey. There are four volumes, one of which you
have already referred to, the national drug strategy. You just
changed the law last session. You reauthorized ONDCP. The
Speaker of the House was heavily involved in it, along with
Denny Hastert, who was his quarterback. This now represents
long-term commitment on the part of the U.S. Government,
because you told me to do this with a 5-year or longer
perspective.
We have also now, by law--this is no longer collegial
participation by my 50 associations in the executive branch.
This is the 5-year drug budget that I am mandated by law to
submit each year. It is still not very good, but it is now
subject to your analysis and debate and the scrutiny of the
news media and these other representatives from the principal
national antidrug elements so that we can start getting into a
dialog on prevention, treatment, law enforcement, interdiction
over time. I commend this to your attention. We put enormous
energy into it.
We have also submitted performance measures of
effectiveness. We have revised them again. Last year we thought
it was a dramatic breakthrough in trying to hold the executive
branch accountable over time with achieving results.
There are now 12 outcomes that are defined by an algorithm,
and there are 82 subordinate variables that we will measure,
and I will report to this committee each year what we achieved
with the money you gave us in the earlier year.
The 1990 report makes the first attempt to give you a
report on what we claim we have achieved, and we welcome your
own questions on that.
A classified volume, which is available to you in the
normal controlled manner, is the national drug control strategy
classified annex, which is classified ``secret'' and tries to
outline the interdiction and international law enforcement
policy and programs. This is the second time we have put it
out. It is better. It is more useful now to help govern our own
internal dialog among, particularly, the intelligence and law
enforcement agencies.
If I may, let me briefly show you a few charts to tell you
the principal elements.
The first chart, to your front here, again reiterates that
we have organized this effort around five goals. There are now
31 objectives. They were designed in consultation with
literally thousands of individuals and institutions across the
country. We think it is a solid piece of work. As you read it,
it will make sense to law enforcement, educators, health
professionals, coaches, and the men and women of the Armed
Forces--the Coast Guard and other agencies. We think this is a
good way to organize ourselves.
This is also, I underscore, not the Federal drug control
strategy, it is the national drug control strategy, so I am
putting a lot of effort into it, along with my colleagues, to
make sure that States and local governments and NGO's see this
conceptual architecture and try and talk about the issue and
organize programs and budgets in some common way.
We have got to acknowledge it is possible to do something
about drug abuse in America. We are persuaded by Partnership
for Drug-Free America data, by Columbia University, by the
brilliant work at University of Michigan Survey Research Center
that youth attitudes drive drug behavior.
We are persuaded that the number of adolescents using
gateway drugs, the degree to which they become involved in pot
smoking, alcohol abuse, cigarettes, and the rest of this
stuff--and when I say ``the rest of this stuff,'' I acknowledge
more 8th graders than 12th graders use heroin in today's
America. That is the second year in a row I have said that. It
is still a minute aspect of the problem, but it is an
indication that if we want to see 10 years from now what will
be the drug abuse problem we are debating, watch the middle
school kids.
As we look at the middle school kids, we think we are
beginning to see the turning point in what will have to be a
10-year struggle to grab each group of adolescents as they hit
those years and persuade them that drug abuse is harmful to
their own health and development. And we are starting to see
youth attitudes in the 8th grade, 10th grade, and 12th grade
have all definitively, from a mathematical correlation point,
turned around from 5 earlier years of running the wrong way.
These are modest changes in behavior and attitudes, but, if
continued, and if we focus on that age group, in my judgment
and the judgment of most of us--Dr. Allen Leshner, in
particular, our Director of NIDA--this will be the payoff.
Having said that, there may be a decade lag between an
adolescent who becomes a compulsive drug user--and I know you
understand this. Kids actually get addicted when they are 15,
16, 17, and 18, and some of them are completely wrapped up in
drug-taking behavior; 10 years or 15 years later they are in
the hospital emergency rooms or in the prison system, they are
HIV positive, they dominate the crime scene.
And so, if you look at the 4.1 million Americans who are
chronically addicted to drugs, they are doing enormous damage.
That is who is in the hospital emergency room.
Social cost--there is a lot of money involved in this.
These are huge dollar amounts. And I put alcohol in there to
underscore the fact that in today's America we are talking
about poly drug abuse. It is rare to see somebody who is in
serious difficulty who is not using heroin and alcohol, cocaine
and other drugs. These are poly drug abuse situations, and if
the treatment system is not adequately focused on the client,
you end up with one behavior being modified and the addict goes
to other drug-taking methods. But $110 billion is the bottom
line to the damage done in the criminal justice system, the
health system, industrial accidents, et cetera. It is a huge
problem. It dominates some aspects of our society, and we are
going to talk about its impact on criminal justice.
This assertion I would say is scientifically unarguable. If
you do effective drug treatment, if you target this drug
treatment on this modest percentage of the population which is
addicted, 4-million-plus people--that is probably the most
useful estimate of its size--their malevolent behavior, their
malignant behavior, their impact on society will change
dramatically.
You cannot cure a 31-year-old heroin addict, but you can
change their behavior, and so one of the two studies that I am
most likely to cite, the DATOS and ENTIES study, both tend to
show, using large numbers of the addicted, that if you get them
into treatment you modify their behavior dramatically. And most
of those numbers essentially say there is a 50 percent
reduction in the behaviors that are most dangerous to us.
The next one again talks about criminal activity, rather
than just drug-taking activity. If you look at things like
selling illegal drugs, shoplifting, assault, beating somebody
up--down a little more than 77 percent. Treatment pays off, and
there is a cost, of course, in the criminal justice system to
all these deviant behaviors.
Here is a point I think we need to make most strongly.
Donna Shalala, our Health and Human Services Secretary, I would
argue is the most knowledgeable about being opposed to the use
of marijuana combined with other drugs, particularly by young
people. She has seen it all her life as a college president and
professor.
It is inarguable that, although we do not claim causal
linkages, young people who smoke marijuana a lot--and you will
also find other drug-taking behavior associated with this--that
their tendency to be involved in criminal behavior, deviant
behavior, failure to learn, dropping out of school, sexually
transmitted diseases, all of them are higher. And so we say
that this is harmful to the physical, emotional, and moral
development of young people. Physically attacking people,
destroying property, almost across the board there is a
relationship between pot use and these activities.
Let me also again make the point--and this is University of
Michigan data of Survey Research Center. It has been going on
since the 1960's, in which we tried to follow youth behavior,
self-reported, to track their attitudes. There are two
attitudes that are key: to what extent do I disapprove of drug
use? The second attitude is: to what degree do I fear drug use
for me?
When those attitudes go back, drug use goes up. When the
attitudes start to change, their personal behavior begins to
reflect it.
What we are seeing clearly, having seen a spectacular and
extremely threatening 5-year rise, these behaviors, almost
across the board, most dramatically among 8th graders, least
dramatically among 12th graders--which is what you would
expect--the curves are beginning to turn around. It is still,
obviously, unacceptable. We have got one out of four high
school seniors in this country regularly using drugs, one out
of four, and that is the population that will generate the
chronic addicts of America 10 years out.
Let me just again remind you that if you go to the serious
law enforcement people--Lori Robinson, Assistant Attorney
General, is the basis for a lot of our studies, along with
Jeremy Travis, but also the experienced law enforcement,
leadership, Louis Freeh, Tom Constantine, Ray Kelly, and
others--this huge number of Americans behind bars, costing $36
billion. It is growing. It will go up another 20 percent in the
coming years if we do not do something differently.
If you look at that population, if you buy Joe Califano's
Colombia University data, 80 percent of them are in there
because their behavior is contaminated by alcohol and drug
abuse. My guess is 50 percent is probably a more demonstrative
statistic, but people end up unemployed, sick, and involved in
criminal behavior, and then behind bars, resulting from the
abuse of alcohol and other drugs.
If we get at that behavior--and there really are not that
many of them--1.8 million people--50 percent of them clearly
are addicted to compulsive drugs. That is the population that
we have to bring under control, and I think there has to be a
tough love element to it. It is not enough to have a $3 billion
treatment effort. It has to be linked to the criminal justice
system.
Thanks very much.
Let me, if I may, end by also stating that our drug budget,
the fiscal year 2000 budget, which was also sent over--we will
have hearings on that next week. I would, however, underscore
my appreciation for the rather dramatic increase in funding
that the Congress has given us between fiscal year 1996 and
2000. That is the piece of it that I have focused on. In that
period of time, Mr. Chairman--and I thank you for your personal
support--international programs went up 120 percent. That is in
raw dollars. That is not a sound bite. That is fact--a 120
percent increase in international programs.
You have increased interdiction funding by 47 percent in
those budget years. You have increased law enforcement funding
by 24 percent.
Now, in addition, I would underscore my appreciation that
prevention dollars are up 55 percent, if you would take the
fiscal year 2000 submitted budget. Treatment dollars are up 25
percent, and research money--most importantly, many would
argue--up 35 percent. So we are moving to respond to the
dictates of our own strategy, of our own rhetoric, and we think
it is going to pay off over time.
I would also add, however, I share--you listed six
concerns, Mr. Chairman, and I think you are right on the money
on all six of them. I think there are ways to put it in
context, and I would appreciate the chance to lay out what we
are doing, but I think you are quite correct being worried
about cost-effectiveness, lack of organization, what are we
going to do in the interdiction effort once we lose Panama,
what are we doing on the southwest border, corruption and
violence in Mexico, drug-free communities, are they adequately
funded, yes or no. And your concerns about the certification of
Mexico I think are all quite valid.
With your permission, let me show you a minute-and-a-half
of video, and I would welcome your questions on the media
strategy.
We went, in 2 years, from a 12-city test with 12 control
cities to national implementation using Partnership for Drug-
Free America material. Now we have got the big guns involved.
Some of the most sophisticated people in this country are
involved in the effort.
We, again, are grateful that more than 200 advertising
companies do this work for free. We pick up production costs,
but this work is nonprofit for the ad agencies involved. The
Actor's Guild wave their fees. So what we are doing with our
precious dollars is targeting access where kids and adult
caregivers are involved.
We have made, we think, initial and rather dramatic impact.
Our target was four times a week adolescents in America, with a
90 percent target penetration, would see or hear or read our
material. In fact, we are about seven times a week with 93
percent target penetration. It is almost unprecedented in this
area.
Kids see the ads, they notice them, they are responding,
the calls to community coalitions have skyrocketed, even though
only 10 percent of those initial ads had a telephone number on
them, and the calls into Secretary Shalala's information
clearinghouses have gone up dramatically.
By the end of the summer I hope we will be online in 11
languages. When we started Spanish, it went from 4 calls a day
to more than 60 per hour when we got online with targeted ads.
We are going to work, essentially, substrategies in 102
different media markets.
We are quite proud of it.
And, on top of that, in accordance with the law, we
negotiated 100 percent or more matching access, and we have
done it with a very conservative algorithm on measuring what
constitutes matching. We actually have achieved 107 percent
increase in access with the dollars Congress gave us.
On that note, if you will, let me just end by showing you
this video on work that is being done by the networks to
reinforce our own PDFA efforts.
[Videotape presentation.]
General McCaffrey. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the chance
to make these statements and look forward to responding to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of General McCaffrey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.076
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. McCaffrey. I appreciate your
testimony and want to take just a minute, if I can, to
introduce a couple of additional guests that we have with us
who are visiting from Bolivia. One is Juan Francisco Porque,
who is the antinarcotics minister for that country; Naguida
Nayar, who is the minister of government. If you gentlemen
would stand up, I would like to recognize you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Mica. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Bolivia has
embarked on an unprecedented eradication and crop substitution
program, through the efforts of some support from the United
States and some international support. They have just done an
incredible job of eliminating coca production by very
significant percentage, and have a plan that we discussed with
President Hugo Bonsar during our visit to try to get almost all
production eliminated by the year 2002. Bolivia is a small
country with a big determination and some young, aggressive
leaders who show what people can do when they want to turn a
situation around, a model for all of us.
We are pleased to have you with us.
General, I have several questions. I support the treatment
effort and the prevention effort and the education effort. We
put tons of money in it.
I have a little chart here that shows the national drug
control policy from 1991 through 1999. We have just about
doubled the amount of money in enforcement. In prevention, we
have gone from $1.4 billion to $2.1 billion. In treatment, we
have just about doubled the money from $1.8 to $3.1. And in
these three areas I notice that we have significant increases
over this period of time.
However, in interdiction we still are not at the 1991
levels, and in our international efforts we still are not at
the 1991 efforts.
Also, over the total funds that we increased last year, as
I said, we have a 43 percent reduction in international and an
18 percent reduction in interdiction.
The trafficking pattern, as you know, has changed. We are
not seeing as much cocaine. We are seeing heroin,
methamphetamines, and dramatic increases across our Nation.
I think we are being engulfed in new drugs that are coming
across the border, and our strategy is not flexible enough to
deal with this new marketing and with the incredible volume of
drugs that is coming in.
Can you answer why we are not looking at putting more into
international and interdiction programs?
General McCaffrey. Well, I chose 1995 to 2000. If you go
back to 1991, your data is entirely correct. I certainly have
an open mind to hearing a different viewpoint on how we could
more effectively use additional dollars in both interdiction
and international programs. It is clear that Colombia, in
particular, is encountering enormous difficulties, and so the
support, which we doubled last year for Colombia, is going to
be money well spent in standing with a fellow democracy.
The one caution I would have on 1991 funding levels versus
2000 is for us to make sure we understand that when President
Bush's team went after the Caribbean initiative and we first
got spun up on this, a lot of that money was accounting for
train-up costs for the United States Navy, who were working up
for Med deployments in the Caribbean out of Guantanamo. So I am
not persuaded that a lot of those dollars actually reflect
smart drug policy, but, instead, are initial attempts,
particularly in DOD, to respond to the President's
instructions.
But I think you are quite right, you know. We have a
responsibility to stand, not just with Colombia and Mexico, but
to continue the support to Bolivia and Peru and other nations
as they succeed in their eradication program.
I think your comment is a good one, as long as we spend
money smartly when we do this.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, we must stop drugs at their source,
and it is so few millions of dollars that these partners are
asking for.
Some of the other concerns I have are the levels of
funding, and I am not sure what you submitted to OMB or what
your recommendations were, but I will give you a few areas that
are of concern to me: the micro-herbicide program, the R&D
program, the Customs and interdiction program, the counter-
intelligence program.
I have become more and more convinced that intelligence can
help us in this whole effort of stopping drugs before they ever
reach our country.
The Coast Guard operations and maintenance budget, and the
United States-Mexico border security funding, can you tell us
on those areas what your recommendation was and why these are
not funded at congressionally approved levels?
General McCaffrey. I would be glad to submit the working
documents, because I do certify agency budgets and I certify
department budgets, and so that is all public record, and I
would be glad to show it to you.
Mr. Mica. Were your recommendations higher in these areas
than----
General McCaffrey. Some are a little tough. The micro-
herbicide we fully support. We are going to go at it. The
problem right now is not money. I would, indeed, argue right
now the problem is we have got more money than I can safely
spend. In future years, we are going to have to bring that
program online, ensuring that we bring along with it answers to
the environmental questions and we involve the multi-national
community in its execution.
So we do not have a problem with micro-herbicides. We are
going to move on that, a very intelligent program.
Mr. Mica. Do you believe that only $29 million additional
for the Mexico/Andean countries and international strategies is
sufficient?
General McCaffrey. Probably not. I mean, these are tight
budget decisions. There are unsatisfied demands in the Andean
Ridge.
I would argue we have made rather substantial increases in
funding, and particularly in Colombia. I would also tell you
that some of the countries--Mexico is less interested in our
money than in our training, less interested in equipment than
in intelligence sharing. So in some cases the answer is not
money.
Mr. Mica. My final question, then----
General McCaffrey. The Coast Guard is another one.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Will deal with training in Mexico. I
went down there and offered to extend any assistance possible,
and members of our subcommittee did in our visit last week, but
I have some concerns.
Let me read from an account today, as reported in a
magazine article,
In September last year, DEA officials were snubbed by
Mexican authorities when they offered their aid in
investigating a vicious drug slaying in Baja, California, that
left nearly two dozen people dead, including a toddler and a
pregnant teen. One of the reasons for the refusal could well be
that the killers, according to a U.S. intelligence document,
may have been Mexican lawmen attached to one of four elite
antinarcotics units trained by the DEA and FBI. They are
suspected of having ditched their Elliott Ness-like untouchable
status in favor of moonlighting for the Felix Brothers, the
blood-drenched bosses of the Tijuana Cartel.
I am concerned, and I have heard reports now that, even
when we go back and see these people, that more than 50 percent
of them are failing the lie detector test, and now I am
concerned that people that we are training may be involved in
some of the terrorism which is--we have gone from corruption to
terrorism in Mexico, and this is a concern to me.
Would you like to respond?
General McCaffrey. I would not want to comment on our
intelligence appreciation of that incident or others in a
public hearing. What is unquestionable is that there is a
massive threat of corruption and violence directed at Mexican
institutions, in general, and law enforcement and the military,
in particular.
There are serious shortcomings in training and reliability,
and the Mexicans are struggling to build new institutions.
My own assessment, as I read Mr. Constantine's proposed
testimony before they all came down here yesterday, I really
did not factually have any substantial disagreement with any of
them.
Mr. Mica. We have 10 minutes. This, I understand, is going
to be the last vote of the day. Why don't we go ahead and vote,
and we will be back in exactly--well, we will try to make it 15
minutes, and hopefully finish up by 12:30 or 12:45.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to call this meeting of the Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee back to
order.
This seems to be the day for introductions, but I would
like to take a point of personal privilege and use this
opportunity to introduce my local sheriff, who has done an
outstanding job in heading up our HIDTA activities in central
Florida. Many of you have seen--they carry around this
headline, ``Drug Deaths Top Homicides in Central Florida,'' and
we are trying to do something about it, and the person who is
leading this charge just happens to be with us today, Sheriff
Don Eslinger from Seminole County.
Don, welcome.
[Applause.]
Mr. Mica. I have finished my questioning, at least in the
first round, of General McCaffrey, and I would like to yield
now to our distinguished ranking member, Mrs. Mink, for
questions.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to assure your sheriff that I am going to do everything I can
to get him more money. How is that? Can you top that?
Mr. Mica. Working together, we can spend enormous funds,
thank you, in a bipartisan effort.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you. I have only 5 minutes, General
McCaffrey, and there are really so many parts of your strategy
that are important, and they are all inter-related.
Coming new to this subcommittee, I wonder if you could just
give us a brief rundown of the difference between this 1999
strategy and the one that was prepared previously. What are the
significant points of differences in terms of the strategy that
you--I think it was 1996 when you put out your first report.
General McCaffrey. Well, of course, Madam Congresswoman,
there have been nine strategies, if I remember, starting over
the space of four ``drug czars.'' In 1996, we went to 4,000-
some-odd people around the country. We listened carefully to
them. We put together a strategy that we have been retooling
over the last 4 years.
Mrs. Mink. So what are the major differences?
General McCaffrey. There are no dramatic changes, except,
as you look at it, we have tried to tighten up the language. We
actually switched two of these objectives among goals. We
eliminated one objective. We were trying to satisfy the demands
of some pretty knowledgeable people in law enforcement, drug
research, prevention, treatment, et cetera, and I think we have
gotten there.
This strategy is widely applauded and accepted across this
country by the people involved in this effort.
Mrs. Mink. Now, going to that, on page seven of this
strategy, where you have the goals of 1999, I am searching for
the words in any of those goals, five goals, which relate to
what I was trying to say in my opening statement, and that is
emphasis on the local, national, State efforts to identify the
drug syndicates, the drug lords who are operating within the
United States and have--what have we done in terms of that
effort, because, as I read the goals, there is not one of them
that singles out that particular effort, and yet I know that a
significant portion of your budget is devoted to that effort.
My question really is: why is not it elaborated in one of
your five goals?
General McCaffrey. Well, I had an opportunity to meet with
Congresswoman Mink for an hour or so this past week and took
her comments to heart, and I certainly share your belief that,
although prevention and education of youngsters is the heart
and soul of this strategy, at the same time we owe the American
people the most effective defense possible to keep drugs out of
the work place, the school place, the home, and the community,
and we have not adequately done that in the past.
Now, having said that, it is unquestionable that--I mean,
thank God for U.S. law enforcement. If they give up on us, our
prevention and our treatment will fall apart. You cannot
operate in a quasi-legalized fashion and succeed.
I would also suggest to you that their effectiveness in
going after organized crime inside the country is
extraordinary. We arrested about a million-and-a-half people on
a drug-related offense last year. We have behind bars--these
data are somewhat soft--about two-thirds of the people in the
Federal prison system, which is where most traffickers will end
up, serious ones, if you look at that number it is almost
60,000, are drug-related offenses, two-thirds of it. And, of
that group, 86 percent are significant trafficking offenses.
Even when you go to simple possession, Federal prosecution
guidelines, we will not even prosecute if you do not have more
than 100 pounds of marijuana on you, so you look at simple
possession--normally it is up in the ton or more if you are in
the Federal prison system.
Literally, we have locked up thousands of people, and it is
hard to find gringos who survive long in interstate criminal
conspiracy involving drugs or money laundering. Half those
people we locked up in the Federal system are Americans. The
other half are foreigners, roughly.
And if you go to the State system, the number we use, there
is about 900,000 people behind bars at State level. Probably
half of them are compulsive alcohol or drug users, or more, and
22 percent of that 900,000 people are drug-related crimes. It
is trafficking. It is that kind of activity. And so State-level
authorities have been extremely aggressive in going after it.
The shortcoming probably is--and, although we are doing
better on it, it is things like money laundering. If we believe
our own data, if we are really spending $57 billion a year on
illegal drugs, where is the money going? And so we have done
some--I would hope you would have a chance to visit the
Financial Enforcement Center right outside of Washington. The
Secretary of the Treasury runs it. It is an attempt to use a
$200 million bank of computers up in Detroit, the Bank Secrecy
Act, suspicious transaction reporting, and commercial data
bases to go after money laundering. And it is really beginning
to pay off.
The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury run
a joint operation which is sensitive in New York and L.A. and
in other places, targeting--one of them was in the press,
Project El Dorado up in New York City--targeting money
laundering.
A lot of very clever things have been done. They use what
is called ``GTOs,'' which restrict the use of set amounts of
currency, and it is starting to pay off.
I think what is happening now is these criminal
organizations are trying to use other than the U.S. banking
system. I mean, you can hide $1 million. You cannot hide
multiple billion dollars. You have got to get it into something
where there is a paper record. And they are going into other
ways, trying to stay away from U.S. law enforcement.
I think U.S. capabilities in the DEA, FBI, and Customs
supporting local law enforcement have been extremely aggressive
confronting urban and rural drug-related criminal
organizations.
Mrs. Mink. Our budget figures how much the Federal
Government is spending in the national Federal level in terms
of law enforcement. Can you give us a best estimate or guess in
terms of what is being spent in the local and State areas for
drug law enforcement efforts?
General McCaffrey. If I may, let me provide it to you on
the record. Two years ago the number I was using--and it is
important that I get the question written down so that the
answer matches the question--but the Federal effort, which was
about $17 billion at the time, the national effort I was
listing at more than $32 billion. So most of the law
enforcement capability in this country against drug-related
crime, the overwhelming majority of it is municipal police and
sheriff departments. That is where our citizens are protected
from this criminal activity. It is not Federal.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the ranking member.
I am pleased to yield now to our vice chairman, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One thing that Mayor Guiliani and those of us on the
subcommittee discussed yesterday was relating not directly to
his work in the city of New York as its chief executive officer
and the tremendous gains that New York has witnessed through
primarily his leadership in violent crime, crime, generally,
and certainly drug usage, but he also touched a little bit,
based on his extensive knowledge on fighting the war against
drugs on all fronts, he also touched yesterday on some of the
foreign policy aspects of drug control policy.
And Major Guiliani, who I have great respect for, as I know
you do, General, said that, in his view, at the very top, not
just as a priority, but at the very top of the list of the
questions that our President and our foreign policy officials
ought to ask of foreign leaders in any discussions or
negotiations with foreign leaders, those that are involved in
the drug control business, is: where are you on helping us
fight the war against drugs? And before we move on to question
No. 2 or No. 3 or No. 4 or No. 8 or assistance or what not,
that question ought to be answered satisfactorily; otherwise,
we do not reach the other questions.
I think the mayor is right on target. I think that the
history of our Government's--not just this administration, but
our Government's efforts in dealing with these matters,
antidrug matters with foreign nations, does not follow the
mayor's advice. I hope that one day it does.
I think that we are witnessing very serious problems in
Mexico, partly as a result of this administration's policy
decision not to place that question at the top of the list, and
anything that you can do to move them in that direction would
certainly be appreciated.
I would like to specifically, General, address an issue
that we have had a number of discussions on in the past, and
that is legalization efforts.
The language in your report with regard to marijuana is
very similar to the language in last year's report. I am
somewhat intrigued by this year's report having a separate
section for countering attempts to legalize drugs and
countering attempts to legalize marijuana. I am wondering what
sort of message that sends to people that legalizing marijuana,
even though it remains a Schedule One controlled substance and
is a mind-altering drug, why that is somewhat different, why
there is not just a very short statement that the
administration will continue to resist all efforts to legalize
mind-altering drugs. I do not know why the administration has a
hard time just making that statement and separating out
marijuana legalization.
To treat it differently I think sends a very contradictory
message that is not lost on young people. They look at this
report, and it will be cited by all sorts of legalization folks
out there, and our delightful friends, George Sorros and so
forth, who are in the forefront of the legalization movement,
and I think it will undermine your efforts, the way you all
have dealt with this.
Why cannot the administration just come out and boldly say,
``We are against mind-altering drug legalization. We are not
interested in participating in studies to see if marijuana can
be legalized''? Why not have the entire burden and have it a
very high burden on those that seek legalization? Why should
we, our Government, which is against mind-altering drug usage,
why should we spend any taxpayer dollars? Why should we even
care about efforts to legalize marijuana?
If somebody wants to come forward and say, with a
scientific certainty, that marijuana does, indeed, have
legitimate medical uses and ought to be removed from Schedule
One, why not put the burden entirely 100 percent on the
legalization proponents, have them propose legislation to move
it off of Schedule One? Why are we involved in any way, shape,
or form with these what I consider very almost contradictory
statements on legalization of marijuana?
For example, if, in fact, somebody comes forward or one of
these studies shows that, well, maybe there is some medical
benefit for the use of marijuana, which I disagree with, does
that mean that the administration would seek to move it off of
Schedule One, even though there are other drugs on the market
and more coming on the market, as I understand the research,
that can more than adequately handle the purported beneficial
uses of marijuana?
General McCaffrey. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
Let me join you in saying that Mayor Guiliani has been, of
course, an extremely effective mayor, and there is a lot to be
learned. I go up there all the time to look at what Howard
Safer and the NYPD do in community policing, and there are some
very effective linkages of drug treatment.
New York City, of course, has a gigantic addicted
population, and, whether it is from Phoenix House, Dr. Mitch
Rosenthan, or from Dr. James Curtis in Harlem with his method
on maintenance programs, there is just a lot of good thinking
up there and I have great admiration for them.
I would also agree that drug policy should be a preeminent
concern of the United States dealing with our international
partners. One of the challenges is that the biggest drug
problems that we face--Afghanistan, Laos, Burma, eastern
Colombia, some of the mountainous regions of Mexico,
southeastern Turkey, the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon--it is places
where organized governments have little or no control over
their own territory, and where the criminal elements in the
area--the FARC in Colombia is such a lethal threat to democracy
that their battalions have more automatic weapons and better
pay than the Colombian army. That is one of the challenges.
So when you deal with the President of Colombia, you have
to take into account the degree to which he can do something
about it.
But your point is well taken, and I could not agree more.
Let me, if I can, talk about the legalization issue. I had
not heard the comment about separating them and the way that
one could interpret that, and I thank you for that comment.
Now, let me tell you what our own intent was.
We, the administration, are unalterably opposed to the
legalization of marijuana, directly or indirectly, and it is
clear, from listening to our repeated public statements by
Attorney General Reno, Secretary Shalala, and I, in particular,
but also Mr. Constantine and others, that we are adamantly
opposed to the legalization of marijuana, and it is not open to
debate.
Now, I think what has happened is the legalization people
are about as cunning a group as I have ever seen. I do not
think there are many people involved in it. As far as I can
tell, there are about five of them that pay for most of it, and
about 300 of them on the Internet that help organize it. They
have done extremely well with limited money--$15 million or
whatever to intervene in California. I think it was under $8
million in the State of Washington. So now we have ended up
with eight States and possibly the District of Columbia that
have passed some form of medical marijuana act. In Arizona it
was most sweeping. Five of them are literally the same act. It
is the same TV ads that turned the States around.
Added to that is the kind of clever dealings with
industrial hemp, which is the other piece of this, and which,
as I am fond of saying, noted agronifs like Woody Harrelson are
speaking out to have industrial hemp save America's forests.
So we have focused on that issue and pulled it out so that
we can directly confront the notion that medical pot is off
limits to this discussion.
Now, why do we investigate medical marijuana's claims? I
think, just as a matter of principle, starting in the 1980's,
any drug that alleges it has benefit, if it can demonstrate to
the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration under clinical
trials that it is safe and effective for the purpose
prescribed, then the door is wide open, and under that logic
methamphetamines are available to physicians, cocaine products
are used for eye surgery, and, indeed, in the mid-1980's,
marijuana was pulled apart, 435-some-odd compounds. THC, 1 of
the 30-some-odd active cannaboids in marijuana, was isolated as
having potential medical benefit, and it was produced
commercially as synthetic THC marinol, which is available with
a doctor's prescription in a pharmacy today, and it is
available for use, to include control of nausea from
chemotherapy.
It is not used much because it is not effective compared to
other drugs, but it is there. And we have said, ``Well, we are
perfectly willing to have these bright people in NIH fund
controlled studies where other components of smoked marijuana
could be looked at as potentially beneficial, and, indeed, if
smoked marijuana can demonstrate that it is useful, then it
would presumably be made available to America's medical
community under controlled conditions.
I do not personally believe that is going to happen. I do
not believe somebody is going to have a joint stuck in their
face in an ICU. My daughter works in ICUs in Seattle, and I do
not believe that is going to be the pain management agent for
prostate cancer 10 years from now. I think it is nonsense. But
it is potentially possible that there are other compounds in
marijuana that might have some payoff, and if there are, fine,
provide them to American medicine.
I think we have to confront this issue directly. I share
your anxiety. I think your concern is valid.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, General.
Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thanks. I have a series of things here, some of
which can be followed up later if you want to get into more
detail. Our office will be in touch with your office.
I have one thing directly that came up right in my District
in the Drug-Free Communities Act and leads me into some policy
questions, and I am going to go through and name a couple of
these different categories, even though some of them are
different from each other.
In the drug-free communities program, I worked aggressively
with all these different groups in our District. A number of
them got their proposals in. One of them was from a smaller-
sized county, where the biggest city in that county is roughly
12,000 people, and they had been very active in community
things and got a grant. They informed me that they have been
told that their grant is going to be reduced 25 percent next
fiscal year and 50 percent the following 3 years because of a
policy change because we did not, in the past Congress or in
your budget that is in front of us, fund it at the level that
we authorized the program.
Combined with that, to try to reach more different
programs, now the programs that already have been told this is
how much money--in the case of this one in Noble County,
already hired the personnel, started the program--are suddenly
faced with having to raise $25,000 to $50,000 a year
additional. In this community, they do not have it. Maybe in an
urban area there are those kinds of resources, but in the rural
communities, if they got the grants, and probably in some inner
city communities, as well, there is not, particularly once you
have started the program, the ability to suddenly change that.
I have some concerns about what, in effect, they are going
to do, most likely, around the country is weaken the programs.
And part of our problem in the drug-free schools, which I
want to touch on next, is that sometimes we seem to give these
schools just enough to run an ineffective program but not
enough to run an effective program.
It is a dilemma that we have of how to spread the reach
without compromising the integrity of it. But what is
particularly upsetting in this case is the program started out
assuming they had that and may not have the resources to go
ahead.
We can followup with that with your office, but I would
like to at least get a preliminary on the record as to why we
changed this after we started, or should we make that a
priority in our funding that this program needs additional
dollars.
On the Drug-Free Schools Act, I am on the Education
Committee and I am going to be working with this directly and
have battled the last 2 years because this program has had a
very tenuous existence in our appropriations process, partly
because, while you cited in your research a few studies that
have suggested there has been some success, the truth is, the
studies with this are very mixed.
What we know is they are not doing any harm; it is just not
clear how to make these programs more effective.
I carefully went through your national strategy, and, while
you give some things in it that you did last year, there is not
a whole lot of suggestions for us to grab hold of as we retool
this program, and I would appreciate working with your office
as we look at this, as we go through our hearings, and try to
target this program, in particular.
So that is open ended. We need to work together because
this is a--we are all saying we need to do demand reduction in
education efforts, yet the facts are the studies are very
mixed. A lot depends, even in the DARE program, which I, when I
worked for Senator Coates, helped with Senator Wilson at that
time do the first funding bills. It really depends a lot on the
commitment of the particular officer. It is so erratic.
And then we have tracked in every school in our District to
see how they are using these moneys, and some of them are
having health clinics and some of them are doing self-esteem
courses, and some of them need to get hold of, if we are really
going to turn, rather than slightly turn, and particularly in
the youth, we have to have a more-aggressive strategy directly
in the schools with the youth.
Which then leads me, I completely agree with Congressman
Barr. Unless we can get a hold of this medicinal use of
marijuana, when I go into schools and talk about this you get,
``Well, it is medicine'' back in your face. And the more
particular referendums we are losing, it is like, no matter
what else we do, we are going to be overwhelmed with that.
I have a couple of things I just want to throw out. One is
that in your documents that you produced, one of my questions
is you have a, ``Marijuana Facts for Teens,'' a ``Marijuana
Facts for Parents,'' and I am wondering whether the question of
medicinal use of marijuana is integrated in these documents in
an informational way.
Two, there is no doubt that the partnership ads are the
most effective thing we have on the market. Has the PDFA or a
combination of similar advertising experts been asked to look
at printed materials that are going into the hands of kids in
school, or is that something we should look at in the Drug-Free
Community Schools Act and something we should be aggressive at?
And how can we do creative things or integrating some of the
people we see in these TV ads into a print format, rather than
just have dry fact booklets or scare type booklets? Some sort
of way in the schools to reach these kids, particularly--I saw
we had at least one Hispanic ad there--one of our weaknesses
has been how to reach the populations that are highest risk.
Everybody is at risk in drugs. I understand that basic
principle. But some, quite frankly, are higher risk than
others. Are our programs aimed at trying to do that type of
thing?
I am also looking for creative ways, both in medicinal use
of marijuana and in the Drug-Free Schools Act, to say, ``What
about tying in not only the commercial television, but how can
we use the video systems in the schools to get this information
out on the partnership ads and other things inside the
schools?'' Are there creative things we can do with the Drug-
Free Schools Act? Also, should we have medicinal marijuana
information and education parts as a mandatory component of any
school that wants drug-free schools money, they have to have
something? And then do we have materials to give them?
I threw far more than you can probably handle here, but I
threw that more out as a stimulus, and I do have a particular
concern with the Communities Act that I worked with Congressman
Portman to do.
One other thing. I want to commend you for this drug
treatment conference and prevention that you are going to work
with Mexico. I think one of the ways we can--while we are not
likely, in the short term, to drop certification, reaching out
to these countries now that have their own treatment problems
and working together in treatment and prevention is an
important step, and I wanted to commend you for that.
General McCaffrey. Thank you for those comments. I will try
and ensure that our staff responds to each one of these
concerns in turn, the four of them you have expressed.
The Drug-Free Community Act, it is interesting to me to
watch the reaction of that. That was a tiny program, thank God
for Rob Portman and Sandy Levin and Senators Biden and Hatch
and others that gave us that money. It is not much money. It is
about $180 million over 5 years, and it was going to ramp up 10
million, 20 million, et cetera.
It was seed money. It actually, if you look at the
algorithm, it was 435 Districts times 100,000. That is sort of
where we started in on it. But there was no intention to do a
large program. It was an HHS block grant, one time, fund these
guys, allow them to hire people, rent buildings. That was seed
money to initiate a new coalition.
They are fighting over it now. There was no guarantee that
if you got a grant approved year one you would get it for 5
years. It was never the intention, never mind that it would
remain at standard funding level.
And in every case Congress wisely required matching funds,
unlike most HHS programs. So we said, ``If you want to come in
and get some of this startup money, you have to be--'' there
were several criteria listed. You have to be in existence 6
months, you have to have matching funds, et cetera.
We will sort it out, and I will certainly listen to the
intent of Congress. If there is a lot more money there, we
could do it a different way. But our intention was, 5 years
from now, instead of 4,000 community coalitions, there would be
more than 15,000, to try to incentivize getting new coalitions
to stand up and not pay for manpower.
I would also tell you that the drug-free schools program--
Secretary Riley and I have been working on it. We agree people
are too all over the map. The law has no controls on it. There
is no requirement to report what you spent the money on, there
are no constraints on what you can spend the money on.
Some of these programs are mismanaged. The GAO found out
about that, the ``Los Angeles Times'' did, and my own view of
it is that we are paying for some programs that do not work.
Two years ago, Secretaries Riley and Shalala and I called
in the educators of America, and we again gave them a tutorial
that NIDA--National Institute of Drug Abuse--spent a half
billion last year on research. We do have studies that talk
about prevention guidelines. There are ways to go about this
that do work.
I might add, the DARE program, which I am an absolute
supporter of, has revalidated their curriculum and is asking
the officers to go through training and follow the curriculum,
and if they do it will help.
So we have got to get U.S. educators to understand and use
prevention guidelines.
I would also tell you I do not think we are going to solve
this until the Governors get involved. We have got to have
Governors figure out where this money is going and internally
ensure that it is well spent, and right now Secretary Riley has
tried to get, as I remember, a 20 percent set-aside to begin
that process, and some States are really jumping into it, and I
applaud their leadership.
Pot use in schools--are we talking to kids in the
classroom? Mr. Congressman, we are doing that in a big way.
This is an integrated campaign. We have got Ogilve Mather doing
the advertising, a firm called Fleishman-Hillard trying to
integrate the thing and make sure that it is not only inside
the Entertainment Industry Council, but it is inside the
school, it is inside the Internet. I have Porta Novelli, which
has a tremendous amount of experience in health-related
campaigns, advising me personally.
We have talked to the producers, the writers of the major
TV networks of America. We are on Fox Family TV. We are on the
Learning Channel. Secretary Riley has got an enormous amount of
information going in written form, and we are supporting other
institutions that are influencing that educational process.
So I could not agree with you more. When they are in
school, they should be subjected to a scientifically correct
message about drug abuse, and it should not come from some
outsider. It ought to be their own health teacher, the coach,
the social studies teacher. That has to be who communicates to
young people.
There is an enormous amount of printed material going out,
and some of it is first-rate.
I, by the way, just approved the second generation and have
seen the beginnings of the third generation ads, so we are
going to start developing materials that are extremely
effective.
And I thank you for your comments on conferences with
Mexico on demand reduction. We have made the argument that
Mexico's drug abuse problem is a fraction of ours, but theirs
is going up and ours is going down. No society is immune from
drug abuse. The drug abuse problem in Caracas is abysmal, and
Rio de Janeiro is disastrous, in Bogota, in Lima. The Bolivian
authorities who were here have learned that the drug abuse
problem down in Shapari Valley region among their own kids is
skyrocketing.
I think it is healthy for us to all understand that this is
the important dimension to the drug program, and no one who
handles this stuff gets away free.
Thanks for those comments. I will try to respond
practically to your concerns about the Drug-Free Community Act,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman, and I would like to
recognize now the gentleman from California, Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Briefly, I would like to request that the record be left
open so I can submit questions for the General to respond to. I
do not have time to do this verbally. I am going to have to
submit questions.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, we will make your questions
part of the record, and also submit them to the General, and
the responses will be part of the record.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from
Maryland, my former ranking member who I miss tremendously on
the Civil Service Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings from Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. I was just floored by your statement, Mr.
Chairman. I miss you, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I first of all want to thank you for all you are
doing to address this problem--and it is a major problem. And I
just have a few questions.
Yesterday, Mayor Guiliani came before the subcommittee and
criticized the use of methadone as a long-term solution to
heroin addiction. I just want to know what your view is on that
and what you think of methadone maintenance therapy.
And I want to--I mean, in my discussions with addicts that
have recovered, I must tell you that most of them have a
problem with methadone. They pretty much agree with the mayor.
They feel as if it is just transferring to another drug.
I was just wondering what your feelings are on that, and
whether or not there are any other drugs on the horizon that
might be able to address the problem. I just want to know where
you stand on that right now.
General McCaffrey. Mr. Congressman, the problem of heroin
addiction is a pretty tough one. The number we now believe is
accurate--there are probably 810,000 of us addicted to heroin,
and they, indeed, cause more damage to American society,
arguably, than any other group. They do not flame out and die
younger, as violently as the crack cocaine or methamphetamine
compulsive users, but it is just a disease. They live on until
their 50's, and they steal $60,000 a year and commit literally
hundreds of felonies, and they cannot help themselves, and they
are in misery. They get HIV. They cost us a quarter of a
million dollars a head when they go HIV positive. They are a
disaster.
A lot of them are not in treatment. The capacity to deal
with them has been limited. It is clearly the viewpoint of the
Attorney General, Secretary Shalala, and I that you have got
to--and they flow through the criminal justice system. They end
up clearly behind bars. And at that point we have got to get
them, if we have not got them early, and get them into
treatment, stabilize them.
One important tool available to treatment is methadone and
LAM, LAM just being a longer-acting variant of methadone. There
are about 175,000 heroin addicts that are involved in about 900
nationwide clinics.
Some States have no methadone maintenance at all. Other
States prescribe dosage rates by law. Other States do not
supervise it very well. And so you end up with just methadone.
There is no assessment. I am a 16-year-old, I am a 30-year-old,
I have reported into the clinic as a heroin addict, I am now
under methadone maintenance, when, in fact, perhaps I should
not be. Perhaps I should have gone to therapeutic communities
and an abstinence-based treatment modality.
So we have got to, it seems to me, have a broad-gauged
approach. We do have to make methadone available, though, to
that community. When people are on methadone, they use less
drugs, commit less crimes, and work more, and in some cases it
is dramatic ability to sustain this behavior for a good period
of time.
I also am very uncomfortable when I hear people talk about
substituting one addiction for another. I think, both
clinically and practically, that does not help. Clinically, it
is incorrect. You do not substitute a heroin addiction. You are
using a compound that, although it is addictive, allows you to
function not in euphoric state, not stoned, dazed, incapable of
relating to people you love or the work force. It is quite a
different product.
Now, I would also argue, you know--and I personalize it. I
have a dear friend who is a very impressive artist. He is a
sculptor, a painter. He is in recovery from severe alcoholism.
He is clinically depressed. He is using Prozac. And those of us
who admire his work and appreciate him as a friend are grateful
that Prozac exists and that he is able to use it and function.
And so if you ask me do I hope he gets off Prozac, I am not
sure I would see that as the right question to ask me. I think
in a theoretical sense I would say, yes, probably. But I am
more grateful that each week he goes to work and he is living
at home.
And I feel the same way about methadone and LAM. It is a
tool that physicians should use where appropriate, as part of a
total package of therapeutic care, of social services, and of
linkages to the criminal justice system.
Mr. Cummings. I could go on with that, but I hear you, but
we will talk about that some other time.
You probably talked about this, but what are we doing with
regard to treatment beyond methadone? What are we doing?
General McCaffrey. Well, NIDA and SAMHSA have put out some
pretty decent products. There now is scientific basis to
understanding various treatment protocols. It is in writing. If
you are the administrator of a plan and you look at the
scientific studies that are done, you should be able to
replicate, if you follow those guidelines, treatment
methodologies that do work.
That was a study I put up. These are thousands of people.
In my view, it is inarguable, from a policy perspective, that
treatment will pay off. We do not have enough of it. Though I
have carefully not used the word ``treatment on demand,'' it is
clear, if you are a heroin addict in Baltimore and you are
waiting for a slot in treatment, you hit bottom, you are under
arrest, and if you do not put me in treatment during that
timeframe and tell me to come back in 90 days you do not
understand the nature of addiction.
So we do need to get our capacity where it can deliver
services for mayors and county executives and hospitals and
drug treatment providers. We have done better. We have got more
funding going into it. The number is so soft I almost hesitate
to use it. I say we have eliminated a 300,000 addict piece of
the gap, but we essentially have still got half the people who
are compulsively addicted cannot get access to treatment.
If you are a doctor and you go to the Talbot Marsh Clinic,
a year after treatment there is a 93 percent chance you will
not be using drugs. If you are an adolescent and you can afford
$14,000 for 28 days in the Hazelton Institute, where I would
send my kid if they were compulsive drug users, the chances are
excellent, if you go from that 28-day program to NA, AA
attendance and follow-on community care, you will be drug free.
That is what we need to provide.
Mr. Cummings. Before my time runs out, the reports that you
just mentioned--you know, in Maryland one of the things that we
have been looking at is trying to figure out what is effective
treatment. There is a difference. I think we have got some
folks who are not being effective. I think they know they are
not being effective. And I think the addict comes out worse
off.
And so I think what we are trying to do--as a matter of
fact, the Lieutenant Governor and yours truly are going to be
holding some hearings with former addicts, 10 years clean, to
talk about what works and what does not work, because a lot of
the former addicts are very concerned about whether money is
being wasted in certain types of treatment.
So I assume the reports that you just referred to analyze
treatment, various types of treatment, and what is effective
and what is not; is that right?
General McCaffrey. Although, again, there are gaps in it--
we are doing a lot of research right now on methamphetamine
addiction--there is really nothing published, per se, right
now. They are using the same treatment protocol that they do
for cocaine addiction. And I am not sure that we are going to
get there until we have some therapeutic tools, medical tools
to use on cocaine products, for example. So there is a lot of
research where I hope 5 years from now we can give doctors a
way to stabilize those addicted to cocaine.
Catalytic enzyme blockers out of Columbia University, Johns
Hopkins has some research going on--we lack some tools for the
treatment community.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas,
Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I know you are growing weary, so I will try to be
brief, but I did want to followup on some questions.
I was reading your testimony, and there were some
statements on page 3 about drug availability. You do not need
to turn there, but your testimony indicates that in 1992 the
drug availability of cocaine was 529 metric tons. In 1997, this
has been reduced to 289 metric tons but you make the
statement--and that is almost a one-half decrease in the
availability of cocaine since 1992--that in the 1980's it was
even lower. And you go ahead and talk about the prices that are
significantly lower now than in 1981. We had, I assume,
interdicted, or we had done something right that would raise
the price on the streets.
My question to you is: that appears to me to be a drastic
difference in cocaine from the present back to the 1980's. Was
there something that we were doing right then that we are not
doing now? How do you explain the difference in regard to that
and what appears to me some statistical indications of growing
success in the 1980's that suffered a lapse in the 1990's and
we are trying to regain territory, but what is your analysis of
that?
General McCaffrey. I have some wonderful support out of the
Defense Intelligence Agency over cocaine trafficking flows, and
the CIA has a wonderful officer over there with a substantial
amount of manpower.
We spent the last 3 years where now maybe our reporting is
consistent and they match up in that the drug production of
cocaine matches what we claim is moving, and then matches what
the DEA and others report is arriving. I am still enormously
suspect of my own data.
The only thing I am sure of is we have got a very good
handle on coca production hectarage, and then we go in and do
crop samples, and we know the alkaloid content. So we have got
a good idea on what is being made, and we follow the rest of it
pretty closely.
Mr. Hutchinson. My question, though, is the contrast
between the 1990's and the 1980's. Now, if I am understanding
you right, there is a statistical variation and there is not
any difference in the level of success, but I think that is
contrary to the overall statistics, particularly the poll
numbers on the use and experimentation of drugs by minors.
So are you saying there is not any difference? That we did
not slide from the 1980's?
General McCaffrey. Well, let me tell you, for 8 years
cocaine production went up, went down, did not vary by much. It
was between 700 and 800 metric tons a year for 7 or 8 years. It
did not change any. And the amount of drugs coming to the
United States grossly exceeded the demand.
In the last 10 years, that demand, in terms of the number
of us who casually use cocaine, has gone down enormously. The
number we use is 6 million down to 1.3 million, the numbers who
casually use cocaine. There is another 6.3 million of us who
are compulsive cocaine users, and we consume most of the
cocaine in America.
Supply still grossly exceeds demand. Demand is going down.
The drugs are, therefore, by simple economic law, you would
expect purity is up, cost is down. There is no shortage of
cocaine products anywhere in America, even though the supply
now is also going down.
We actually, for the first time in modern history, have a
dramatic reduction in tons of cocaine produced in the Andean
Ridge. But if you are a police officer or a hospital emergency
room physician, it is hard for you to believe that because the
population that is addicted is older and sicker and as
dangerous as ever.
Simply put, supply grossly exceeds demand. It did in 1982,
it does today, and there are less of us fooling around with
cocaine today than there were 10 years ago.
Now, I would bet when we come back here in 5 years, you are
going to find cocaine use has continued to go down and
compulsive drug users will go into treatment----
Mr. Hutchinson. One of the objects is to make the price
higher so that it is less available to teenagers.
General McCaffrey. In my view, not doable. What is doable
is to make it less available. The casual cocaine user will
respond to availability. I agree. The chronic addict will not.
Mr. Hutchinson. Let me just ask a couple questions before
my time runs out. I thank you for your comments. And these are
sort of unrelated questions.
In reference to mandatory minimum sentences, in your
opinion, has the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences been
helpful to our country in making strides in the war against
drugs?
General McCaffrey. I am basically an engineer and a systems
analyst, and, from a systems perspective, in general, it has
not been helpful, because we are spending more money locking
people up who have compulsive drug using problems, $36 billion,
than the payoff we would get from investing some money in
prison-based drug treatment and had sentences where I go behind
bars for a year, I am in treatment, I am out with a suspended
sentence hanging over my head.
And so I would argue the drug court system on the front end
of it and the break-the-cycle program, which is in this 2000
budget, again, on the prison piece of it, is the way to go
about dealing with compulsive drug users.
At one extreme, you would have the kind of notion, the
Rockefeller laws, that, as I look at them, they also--they are
not dealing with compulsive drug users, by and large. They are
trying to deter young men from selling drugs for enormous
profits through exaggerated sentences. So I do not think they
work.
Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you.
Do you believe that the drug war is winnable?
General McCaffrey. I do not like to call it a war. I call
it a cancer. I think we can reduce the rates of drug abuse in
America dramatically in the coming years. Yes, I do.
Mr. Hutchinson. That really sounds like a defeatist's
attitude. That distresses me. I know that terminology was used
before, but I was just with some gentlemen in the anteroom and
they referred to a quote that was attributed to you that you
did not believe the drug war was winnable. That just seems to
me really the wrong message. So I would urge your office--I
mean, you have got to be the cheerleader, you have got to be
optimistic. We have to have hope in America. That just really
is troublesome to me to term it as a cancer. I believe that we
can win this. I believe that law enforcement has that
commitment, and we are undercutting them when we do not have
that message.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General McCaffrey. Well, let me, if I can, say I have great
respect for your opinion on this. I am not a cheerleader. I
never have been. I am trying to produce results. And I do
believe--again, let me underscore a very optimistic message.
The message is, in 15 years we have brought drug abuse in
America down by 50 percent, cocaine use by 70 percent. We have
got a big problem out there in our children. They are using
drugs again. We never adequately got the addict population
under control, which means treatment and coercive pressure.
If we do those things, in 5 or 10 years when we are talking
about this issue, drug use will go from 6 percent of our
population to well below 3 percent. America will be happier,
safer, and have less crime on the streets.
Now, if you ask me the question: will there be a total
victory akin to the Gulf war attack, the answer is no. But you
should not be discouraged about that. I think we need to
understand the nature of the dilemma we face and stay at it.
I am all for vigorous law enforcement, and I am also an
optimist.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield for a couple of
final questions to Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, one of the many problems that is brought to my
attention back in the District, in talking with some of our
local government officials, as well as our Federal and State
and local law enforcement officials, is illegal aliens. I know
the problem is not unique to the 7th District of Georgia, but
it is a serious one in our District.
Recently, we have heard and I have heard also from INS
personnel that out in the field, down in Atlanta and other
parts around the country, the enforcement effort is not only
not being increased, which it ought to be, pursuant to
congressional mandate--we have vastly expanded the number of
dollars authorized and appropriated to INS for enforcement in
our communities, in our regions, in our Districts, yet, not
only apparently--and I have seen the figures on this to
substantiate it and the memos on it that reflect it--are some
of those Districts not seeing any increases, the money is not
getting down there. They are being directed to cut back their
enforcement effort, and this is having a very profound effect
on local law enforcement, who have always looked to the
assistance of INS to be able to keep and deport illegal aliens.
The particular problem right now is methamphetamines in the
illegal Mexican communities in our area.
We also understand that the INS Director is indicating that
INS will start releasing aliens, including those who are
charged with drug offenses.
Do you see this problem? And is there any assistance you
can be, as the Director of ONDCP, in this regard?
General McCaffrey. Well, I do not know the specifics, Mr.
Congressman, of the decrease in budget you have commented on. I
will find out and respond to your question. Nor do I believe
directly that the illegal aliens, for example, crossing the
southwest border represent a significant component of drug
smuggling. The drugs essentially come in in 18-wheeler trucks
and fast boats out of Colombia and rail cars and welded in the
compartments in vehicles, along with every other way--
backpacking across the border, mule trains, the goofiest ways
imaginable. But, by and large, it is not illegal migrants who
carry drugs.
Having said that, they are a tremendous component of local
drug-related crime in some midwestern communities, and so they
are a problem--and we have substantially increased funding for
law enforcement. There is clearly more money in there, perhaps
inadequate. We need to listen very carefully to your own ideas
on it.
I will make sure I will go look at the deportation
statistics on drug-related crime. I hope we never release
anybody drug related.
Mr. Barr. But we know that Doris Meissner is proposing
that. Does it make any sense, from a policy standpoint--and
that is really your role as, essentially, the implementer of
national drug control policy and the coordinator thereof, and
INS is a part of that. Does it make any sense to you to say,
``OK, Congress, reflecting the will of the people of this
country to crack down on illegal drug usage, including by
illegal aliens--'' I am not talking primarily border
interdiction. That effort is moving forward and is paying some
results, some positive results. But in the interior of the
country, Congress has appropriated substantial increases in
moneys over the last few years for the interior enforcement
effort by INS, and one of the components of that is for INS to
assist other Federal agencies and local agencies in getting
illegal aliens who are using the drugs and engaging in
methamphetamine traffic, or whatever, off the streets, not in
putting them back on the streets.
Does it make sense, given the fact that our Government,
through Congress, and laws and appropriations bills signed by
the President, has directed that more money go to that effort,
to see memos to INS regional and district directors telling
them, ``Not only are you not getting any more money; you are to
cut back overtime, you are to cut back travel, you are to cut
back positions, you are to cut back cell phone usage.'' Does
that make any sense? Does that seem consistent with our drug
control policy and with congressional mandate?
General McCaffrey. Well, I will take your words and go find
out what the situation is and do something about it.
Mr. Barr. Let us say hypothetically that I am correct.
General McCaffrey. I do not want to answer a hypothetical
question. Let us go find out what the situation is.
Mr. Barr. General, it is not a hypothetical.
General McCaffrey. Mr. Congressman, I have got your point.
I will look into it and give you an answer.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, because it is apparently a fairly
serious problem.
Just a couple of other quick points.
With regard to tobacco, I agree it is bad for kids to smoke
tobacco. I am somewhat intrigued by the section on the youth
tobacco initiative. Apparently, the CDC is distinguishing
itself in assisting in the tobacco initiative.
I would be interested if you could get me the figures on
what the CDC is doing with regard to the terrors of tobacco
versus the CDC involvement in and resources directed to illicit
drugs. I would really be interested to see those areas in which
it is active in the tobacco initiative, because apparently they
are very active in that, contrasted with their involvement in
what I think probably all of us here agree is the more serious
problem of illicit drug usage.
General McCaffrey. I think almost all of our Nation's
funding on any illegal drug program is in NIDA, and NIDA's
budget has increased substantially in the last 3 years, so I
think that will be the answer, Mr. Barr, that CDC does a lot of
things--youth violence, youth tobacco, that kind of thing.
Mr. Barr. Right.
General McCaffrey. But when it comes to drug-related abuse
problems, it is NIDA funding. And Dr. Leshner has tremendous
support out of Congress.
Mr. Barr. OK. Finally--and I think this is something that
the chairman is interested in, also, in terms of the targets,
the hard targets in last year's ONDCP drug reauthorization
bill, could you just briefly describe how you are going to meet
the current and former Speakers--Speakers Gingrich and Hastert
now are very, very concerned and, as you know, very active in
setting targets that can be met and that will be met,
hopefully, with regard to the drug war.
How are you going to meet those targets, the hard targets
set by both former Speaker Gingrich as well as Speaker Hastert
over the next 5 years?
General McCaffrey. Well, this is one of the areas where
arguably we have made the most progress. We do have some
extremely well-researched and, we believe, achievable goals set
out in the PMEs. There are numbers there, IOU annual targets,
and I have required the administration's 50-some-odd agencies
to tie their budget to those targets.
Now, in addition, the Speaker and others have added
congressionally mandated viewpoints, which we have cranked into
the drug strategy. It is there. It is a target. Those targets
Congress will use as a measurement against the funding that we
request, and that it is your viewpoint that the funding is
inadequate to achieve the congressionally mandated targets,
then presumably you are going to change our budgets.
So I think we look forward to working in cooperation with
Congress and seeing what your own ideas are. If there are
substantial increased resources required to hit those
congressional targets, then I welcome your own involvement and
advice.
Mr. Barr. Would you submit to us a plan to meet those
targets and that plan representing a 5-year? What would you
need to meet those targets within 5 years? That seems to me the
starting point for us to make a determination what resources to
provide you should be, 5-year targets.
Now, you have made current projections, and the targets you
all are using may be 10-year, but would you provide us what
resources you need, along with a plan, to meet targets by 5
years?
If you can--I cannot speak, obviously, for all Members of
Congress, but I think you would find considerable support in
the Congress for meeting your needs if you can put together,
obviously, what would have to be a very vigorous, very
proactive, very aggressive campaign to meet those targets
within 5 years.
Will you do that for us?
General McCaffrey. Let me say----
Mr. Barr. And we will take that to the Speaker and work
that as a top-priority issue this year.
General McCaffrey. Mr. Barr, let me invite a continuing
frank dialog on this.
We have got a 5-year budget on the table. That will be the
administration position. And I would add that it can benefit
from congressional debate.
Having said that, the budget has gone up 32 percent per
year in the 4 budget years I have been involved in this. There
are enormous resources flowing into this across the board, and
I plan on continuing to be adamant with the administration to
provide increased funding, which, fortunately, I got again in
fiscal year 2000.
Now, I do not believe it is logical to conclude that there
will be a separate budget submitted for congressionally
mandated guidelines. The budget on the table is the
administration position.
Mr. Barr. OMB is not terribly supportive of it, I do not
believe.
General McCaffrey. Well, now, again, I came out of there
with some substantial increase in funding over what I got last
year from them.
Mr. Barr. Right. But below what you requested.
General McCaffrey. It was 32 percent per year over 4 budget
years, so----
Mr. Barr. I understand, but----
General McCaffrey [continuing]. I am hard-pressed----
Mr. Barr [continuing]. But it was below what you requested?
General McCaffrey. Sure. I can give you those figures.
Again, because I certified the agency budgets, we certified----
Mr. Barr. I would appreciate it if you would send us those
figures.
Again, the administration may have a particular policy and
that policy may be oriented toward a 10-year meeting of
targets. What we are asking for--and I cannot speak for the
chairman. He can speak for himself, and he may want to weigh
in--is for you to furnish us--and this is not contradictory or
antagonistic to any policy of the administration--we would like
to see what you believe would be necessary to meet specific
hard targets over a 5-year period as opposed to a 10-year
period.
General McCaffrey. That is on the table. We absolutely have
submitted--you have now available the budget and the numbers to
go with targets in 5 years. You got that in the PMAs.
Mr. Barr. The targets, for example, as set forth on page
44, that is what I am talking about.
General McCaffrey. There are congressional targets that do
not match up with the PMA targets that are on the table. I have
developed----
Mr. Barr. We want to see them matched there. That is what
we would like to see. Will you send us your assessment of that?
Will you submit that to us?
General McCaffrey. Well, in terms of developing another 5-
year budget, no. You have on the table the OMB position over
the coming 5 years to achieve those targets.
Mr. Barr. We are not terribly interested right now in OMB's
position. We are interested in the position of the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
General McCaffrey. I understand, and what I----
Mr. Barr. Which I much prefer.
General McCaffrey. I am standing behind the OMB position.
Mr. Barr. You may do that, but would you be responsive to a
specific congressional request, regardless of what OMB may
eventually do with it? They may say, ``This is terrible.'' That
is fine. That is OMB position. But we would like to have hard
targets, those reflected on page 44 of your report, matched up
against a 5-year calendar.
General McCaffrey. There is a 5-year calendar, again, hard
targets.
Mr. Barr. And what you would need to meet those.
General McCaffrey. Again, Mr. Barr, I do not believe that
it is logical to assume that I am going to produce another
different 5-year budget to achieve a separate set of goals. The
5-year budget on the table is actually our position.
Mr. Barr. And you can send that up to us and say you do not
like this, but we would like to see your best judgment on how
to meet these targets within 5 years.
General McCaffrey. Yes. Well, I hear your concern and I
look forward to learning from the staff or from the principals
your own viewpoints on whether you believe the budget that was
submitted adequately responds to your own concerns. I have
great respect for your opinion.
Mr. Barr. Are you saying that you will not submit----
General McCaffrey. Correct. There will not be----
Mr. Barr [continuing]. A response to the request we just
made?
General McCaffrey [continuing]. A different 5-year budget
than the one that is on the table. That is it. I would be
welcome to let you see the evolution of our thinking internally
in the government. That is certainly legitimate.
But, again, I would be cautious about some notion of
arbitrarily being able to match resources with self-mandated
targets. I am very uncomfortable----
Mr. Barr. Any targets in a theoretical sense are going to
be somewhat arbitrary. We are projecting----
General McCaffrey. No. Ours are not arbitrary.
Mr. Barr. They may not happen.
General McCaffrey. Yes. The ones I have developed were a 2-
year process----
Mr. Barr. Every target is, to some extent, arbitrary except
yours. That is fine. All I am saying is: why would you not be
able to be responsive to a request which I am making and which
the chairman may make to give us your best judgment of how to
meet the Speaker's targets over 5 years and what would you need
to meet that?
General McCaffrey. Yes. Well, I think----
Mr. Barr. Let me just ask this question. If you had the
opportunity and the resources to meet goals in 10 years as
opposed to 5 years, why would you choose 10 years?
General McCaffrey. Of course we would not. But what we need
to do is----
Mr. Barr. Then why cannot you give us your best judgment in
writing as to how we could meet those in 5 years?
General McCaffrey. Well, Mr. Congressman----
Mr. Barr. And then we can take that and----
General McCaffrey. Let me give you an answer to the
question. The answer to the question is there are nine
appropriations bills dealing with 50-some odd agencies of
Government. And when you are talking about machinery, people,
optempo, and dollars, and creating capacity in treatment and
prevention programs involving 52 million kids, 900,000 cops,
hundreds of thousands of people in the Armed Forces, I am not
going to make it up on the back-of-the-envelope analysis.
Mr. Barr. I do not want an----
General McCaffrey. Let me finish the response. You asked
the question. I will have to lead the governmental process to
give you prudent, well-thought-out solutions that I think are
achievable, and that is what you have got in front of you.
Mr. Barr. Do you think meeting these targets in 5 years is
not achievable?
General McCaffrey. The ones that Congress mandated, many of
them are not achievable.
Mr. Barr. In 5 years?
General McCaffrey. Right.
Mr. Barr. What we would like to do is help you make them
achievable. You have a Speaker, Denny Hastert, who is extremely
interested----
General McCaffrey. Sure.
Mr. Barr [continuing]. And believes that they are
reachable, and is willing, I believe, to work very closely with
you and the administration in making them achievable.
General McCaffrey. Yes.
Mr. Barr. But if we go into this and you are saying they
are not achievable and we are not even interested in working
with the Congress to try to make them achievable, then maybe we
have a problem. I would hope we would not.
Mr. Mica. If I may, I am going to interrupt. I did promise
the General that we would get him out around 1. He has another
obligation. And I do want to try to conclude the hearing.
First of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
submit to the general questions from Mr. Blagojevich and also
have your responses made part of the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I have a statement for the record, which we will submit
without objection from Mr. Gilman, chairman of the
International Relations Committee.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.078
Mr. Mica. We will also, without objection, leave the record
open from this hearing for a period of 2 weeks for additional
comments.
General McCaffrey, we appreciate your coming with us today.
As we conclude, I have a couple of immediate concerns.
First of all, we know where the heroin is coming from. You
talked a lot about cocaine. It has really been supplanted with
heroin and meth and designer drugs, and we know where this
stuff is all coming from.
We were in Colombia, and we found that some of the funds
were diverted because of their natural disaster. We might want
to get something in the supplemental, and we would like your
assistance in seeing that Colombia, which is the source of a
lot of these hard narcotics coming into the country and through
Mexico, that we address that.
Also, the ranking member has asked that we have an
additional closed hearing or a closed briefing session, which I
have agreed to. We will try to do that in the next 2 weeks. I
think next week we are occupied. But, according to your
schedule--and we will have some of the other folks in--maybe we
can discuss the issues that Mr. Barr has raised about trying to
speed up and adequately fund--if it takes another supplemental,
whatever it will take.
There are still some unanswered questions relating to the
organization and disorganization on the southwest border, the
Mexican question, the question of Panama, and what we are doing
as far as relocating our forward reconnaissance efforts in the
drug war, so I think there are a whole bunch of areas that we
need to work on, plus the big problem of Mexico and its
possible decertification or how we get that situation under
control.
So we will reconvene in a closed session at a date mutually
acceptable in the next couple of weeks here to help resolve
some of these, and also develop, in a cooperative fashion, a
strategy and a finance plan to make these things happen on a
sooner rather than later basis, if that is acceptable.
General McCaffrey. I will look forward to that. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. There being no further business--Mr. Ose, you did
not have any comments----
Mr. Ose. No, Sir.
Mr. Mica. There being no further business to come before
this subcommittee, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.087