<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:84333.wais]
THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY FOR 2002
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-149
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
84-333 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JANICE D. SCHAKOWKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Christopher Donesa, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Nick Coleman, Professional Staff Member and Counsel
Conn Carroll, Clerk
Tony Haywood, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 26, 2002................................ 1
Statement of:
Walters, John, Director, Office of National Drug Control
Policy, accompanied by David Riviat, Budget Chief, Office
of National Drug Control Policy............................ 13
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 11
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 4
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 44
Walters, John, Director, Office of National Drug Control
Policy, prepared statement of.............................. 18
THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY FOR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002
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 2:33 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(member of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica and Cummings.
Staff present: Chris Donesa, staff director and chief
counsel; Sharon Pinkerton, senior advisor and counsel; Nick
Coleman, Jim Rendon, and Roland Foster, professional staff
members; Conn Carroll, clerk; Tony Haywood, minority counsel;
Asi Ofuso, minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa,
minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Mica. Good afternoon. I would like to call this
subcommittee meeting to order. Today the Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee is conducting the first
oversight hearing of the 2002 National Drug Control Strategy.
I'm pleased to welcome, I think for the first time before the
panel, on drug strategy by the new administration, Mr. John
Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. The order of business will be, first, opening
statements by myself, Mr. Cummings, the ranking member, or any
other Members who join us, and then we'll go directly to Mr.
Walters, and I will proceed with my statement at this time.
I was really delighted to recently attend, along with Mr.
Cummings, a White House ceremony which announced this strategy
just a few days ago at which the President of the United States
gave a very inspiring speech about the importance of the issue
of illegal narcotics and drug abuse and prevention to our
Nation.
It's most heartening for me personally as former chair of
the subcommittee, member of this subcommittee for a number of
years, to find a change in strategy, a change in messages, no
longer the mixed message that we heard unfortunately, and I
think for the first time leadership is being exercised by our
Commander in Chief and he is taking a very personal and direct
interest in this issue. We're now unfortunately paying the
price of the strategy of mixed messages, and at the national
level the statistics on drug use, particularly among our young
people, continue to be worrying and sobering.
Drug overdose deaths continue to plague our metropolitan
areas, our suburbs and our schools. Drug use is highest,
unfortunately, also among our young people. Our 12th graders
now proclaim, 54 percent of them, having tried an illicit drug
within the past year. The monitoring of the future studies show
a sharp increase in Ecstasy and while we may see some
reductions in some traditionally difficult illegal narcotics,
the Ecstasy explosion by eighth, 10th and 12th graders point
that almost 12 percent of the 12th graders tried Ecstasy last
year, and again we're experiencing an explosion across the
board, and this new drug, serious narcotic, is a serious
challenge to our young people.
So while I'm encouraged by President Bush's choice for a
new Director, and also I might point out just for the record,
too, that having the new Drug Czar, Director of Office of
National Drug Policy, having him here is long overdue and it's
not his fault or this administration's fault. In fact, he was
nominated by the President on June 5, 2001 and not confirmed
until December 5, exactly I guess it's 6 months or longer, 184
days. I just want to make certain that's inserted in the
record.
I'm still concerned, however, about the legacy of the
previous administration and recognize that much more work needs
to be done and glad that finally we have the new Director in
place.
Some of the strengths in the White House drug strategy
include a budget increase for the Drug-Free Communities Act,
which has had wide bipartisan support in Congress. Grant
recipients under that program worked hard to win matching funds
and should in fact be rewarded for their successes and
realization that much of this work falls on the--as a
responsibility of local groups and communities.
The 105th Congress passed an ONDCP reauthorization bill
with hard targets for reducing drug use. This year's strategy
document lays out a 2-year goal of a 10 percent reduction and a
5-year goal of a 25 percent reduction in drug use. Sadly the
previous administration failed in reaching the performance
levels it set. I'm anxious to see some movement in these
figures and hope that we're more successful with the current
administration in its efforts and also in achieving its goals.
I also continue to be concerned by the medical marijuana
phenomenon. In this last election cycle more States fell prey
to ballot initiatives sponsored by wealthy out-of-state drug
legalizers. We must do more to show that inhaling marijuana is
simply not good for anyone's health.
Additionally, many of us here in Congress have wrangled
with the previous administration for more than several years
over properly equipping the Colombian anti-narcotics police
with helicopters and other equipment capable of conducting
heroin eradication, as President Pastrana has now stepped up
his resistance, and some of that I think is long overdue.
President Pastrana rightfully attempted a number of peace
initiatives over the past 3 years, and unfortunately terrorists
who were financing their illegal terrorist activity with drug
money don't respect anything but sheer force and now I think
President Pastrana has woken up to that reality, unfortunately,
in the last days of his term, but we must do everything
possible to assist him in his fight against narcoterrorism,
another form of terrorism that's afflicted more than 35,000
deaths on a great country and great people.
The previous administration's response to the heroin
epidemic was more treatment dollars and expanded methadone
maintenance. In reading through this new strategy, I was
pleased to see the introduction of the principle of
compassionate coercion, which is listed in the treatment
section. I'd encourage the Director to visit the DTAP, that's
an acronym for Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Program, in
New York, which we had an opportunity to visit and one of the
most successful programs I've seen in the country, and we've
also modeled legislation which I hope we can get passed to
initiate a Federal program.
This DTAP program uses the prosecutor's leverage to put
nonviolent offenders into drug treatment. It also uses a carrot
and stick approach, which has proven to be one of the most
successful approaches. They also dealt with people who aren't
just recent simple record offenders but people with long lists
of problems with narcotics and have been able to turn their
lives around, and I hope that we'll have support from the
administration for this legislative initiative.
With that, I want to say I look forward to hearing from
Director Walters today on these and other issues which are
important to the members of the subcommittee, to parents and to
young people. I'm delighted that he is here. I am pleased that
even though the short time he has been on the job he has gotten
the new policy before us enacted and acting in good rapid
order, unlike the treatment he received the other side of the
Congress.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.005
Mr. Mica. This wasn't your fault. I think Mr. Cummings
wanted someone on board rather than later, too, and I'm pleased
to yield to him. He has been a good ally in this effort and I
respect him very much and appreciate his leadership in the
past.
Mr. Cummings, you are recognized.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am aware
that Director Walters has an appointment very shortly, and we
will keep that in mind.
First, let me say that I am very happy to see Director
Walters again, having had the opportunity to spend some real
quality time with the Drug Czar in Baltimore just last Friday.
Shortly after his swearing in, Director Walters reached out to
me to schedule an informal meeting to get acquainted. During
our meeting a little over 2 weeks ago, I extended to him an
invitation to visit Baltimore so that the chief overseer of our
national drug policy could see and hear firsthand what the city
that I help to represent has been able to accomplish by
approaching drug treatment and law enforcement with equal
conviction, as two arms, if you will, of the same strategy.
Director Walters demonstrated his good faith by not only
accepting my invitation on the spot but making the visit a high
priority.
I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but in my experience
2 weeks from an invitation to visit is a record--is record time
when it comes to having a Cabinet official visit a
congressional district, and I really do express my deepest
appreciation, Director Walters.
In recent years, as you know, Mr. Chairman, Baltimore has
become known for its devastating heroin epidemic. With
widespread drug addiction came a host of other problems,
including dramatic increases in violent crimes, thefts,
joblessness, HIV infection and deaths from overdose. The
spillover effects on families, schools, and other government
and community institutions compounded the devastation caused to
those individuals involved. But using available Federal and
State funds to expand access to on-demand treatment, Baltimore
City has begun a remarkable turnaround, as indicated by a
recent study entitled Steps to Success. This study will be the
focal point of a field hearing the subcommittee will hold next
Tuesday in Baltimore, and I will take this opportunity to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman Souder for making sure that
hearing was scheduled.
One thing we know is that the drug epidemic is no longer
confined to our inner cities. The poison one picks may be
different depending upon where one lives. But whether it's meth
or cocaine or heroin or Ecstasy, the phenomenon of drug
addiction is now painfully familiar to urban, suburban and
rural communities alike. It is my hope that Baltimore's
experience will provide full useful lessons for other
communities across this Nation that are reeling from the impact
of illegal substance abuse and the serious problems that come
with it.
The National Drug Control Strategy announced by President
Bush and Director Walters on February 13 reflects the evolving
scope of the nature of the drug problem as well as an evolution
in the philosophy concerning how to combat the problem at home.
Mr. Walters' credentials and accomplishments in this area of
interdiction and enforcement are both substantial and well
known to those in the drug community. However, as the Director
is well aware, there are a number of Members of Congress,
myself included, who expressed serious concerns and
reservations about his nomination, in part because of his
perceived lack of appreciation for the critical role that drug
treatment must play in reducing demand. I am happy to say that
I think the White House drug control strategy in conjunction
with the President's fiscal year 2003 drug control budget helps
to allay those concerns.
The strategy identifies demand reduction as a central focus
and states an explicit goal of achieving a 10 percent reduction
in drug use over 2 years and a 25 percent reduction over 5
years. Moreover, the President's proposal includes a $1.6
billion increase in drug treatment funding over 5 years coupled
with the solid commitment to the drug-free communities program,
the national youth antidrug media campaign, drug courts, and
other vital demand reduction programs, and I am very, very
pleased about that.
In general, what the strategy document seems to reflect on
the demand reduction side is an emerging pragmatic consensus
around the idea that drug treatment and law enforcement are
most effective when approached as complementary rather than as
competing objectives. The criminal justice system must work in
concert with the drug treatment system and other elements of
our drug control strategy to achieve positive long-term
outcomes for users and addicts in the communities in which they
reside. This is the approach that the Baltimore study
vindicates and it is reflected in the Baltimore-Washington
HIDTA, one of the few that includes a demands reduction
component. It is my hope that the proposed $20 million
reduction in funding for the HIDTA program in fiscal year 2003
does not signal an erosion of support for either the Baltimore-
Washington HIDTA or for the program in general. I have been
assured that is not the case, and I welcome the Director's
comments on that issue.
As I've said many times, Mr. Chairman, we are all the
walking wounded, each of us with his or her own problems,
vulnerabilities and weaknesses. These become magnified in the
actual perceived absence of opportunities for self-realization.
As the President stated, the evil of drugs is that they rob
people of their dignity. Indeed, this is true. But drugs are an
opportunistic thief also. They prey disproportionately upon
people whose dignity is already under attack. So as we
entertain a more holistic approach to combating the drug
problem, I hope we'll recognize that demand for drugs is a
function of many factors and that a truly comprehensive
approach to the drug problem must entail addressing a wide
range of critical issues confronting disadvantaged communities
from the education to job training, health care, employment and
so on.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having Director
Walters here and appear so rapidly after the statement of the
President the other day, and I certainly look forward to your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.007
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings moves that
the record be left open for an additional 2 weeks for
additional Members or other statements?
Mr. Cummings. That will be fine, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered. There being no
other Members present at this time, we're going to go ahead and
proceed with the testimony from our witness today, the
Honorable John Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. I see you also have another gentleman with you.
Is it Mr. Riviat? Budget Chief of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, and he does not have a statement but will be
available. Are we going to ask him questions?
Mr. Walters. I just want him to help out if there are
detailed questions about the budget.
Mr. Mica. Well, in that case this is an oversight and
investigation subcommittee of Congress. So I will ask you both
to stand then and be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. I
thank you. Welcome again. I am so pleased to see you, Director
Walters. I don't think I spent any more time on any subject
ever as far as an appointment with the White House personnel or
personally talking to the President of the United States about
the importance of an appointment as the one you've been greatly
honored to receive. It's probably, I think, one the most
important in the President's Cabinet and I consider it a high
honor that he selected you. Your appearance here is delayed,
unfortunately, through no cause of your own but we're pleased
to have you here and welcome you at this time to present again
the National Drug Control Strategy for 2002. Welcome, sir, and
you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WALTERS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG
CONTROL POLICY, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID RIVIAT, BUDGET CHIEF,
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Mr. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this
opportunity to testify in regard to the drug control strategy
released earlier this month. I'd also like to thank Ranking
Member Cummings for his comments and also for helping to
arrange the visit I made to Baltimore. It was helpful to our
work, and it was inspiring to see the people that we met with
there, so thank you for that as well.
If it's all right with the committee, I'd ask that my
prepared statement be put in the record and I'll just offer a
summary.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, your entire statement will be
made part of the record. Please proceed.
Mr. Walters. Thank you. In summarizing the strategy, I
should just say as a point of introduction that what we tried
to do given my somewhat late arrival is capture and embed in
policy and budget the initiatives and the largest principles of
policy for the President's administration. We are now, as the
President asked me, to undertake a thorough review of all
programs and policies of a secretary and tertiary nature as
well as looking at other kinds of opportunities. So we have not
completed our entire policy review. Some of that's alluded to
in the strategy document.
Some of the programs and ideas that we've solicited and
will continue to solicit from groups and individuals inside the
government, including the Congress, and those outside we intend
to incorporate in a larger review report for which we hope to
have done in the next several months.
What this strategy does do, though, is focus on three
areas, as has been alluded to. The first is stopping drug use
before it starts. I think this is settled and common sense
experience that we need to do what we can to prevent young
people from experimenting with drugs in the first place. It's
far more preferable than dealing with the consequences of
involvement with drugs and drug treatment and addiction
incarceration in too many cases after drug use starts. We know
from long experience that if we prevent young people from using
drugs in their teens, they're unlikely to become involved later
on.
It not only makes sense on the front of saving individuals,
families and communities but for the government at large and
the larger front. The cost of drug use as we've now estimated
it is over $160 billion per year in lost productivity, crime,
other costs and illness and destruction to our society. That
may be an underestimate, but it certainly is substantial in and
of itself. Our concept is simple and tries to draw the relevant
institutions of our society together, communities, schools,
faith based institutions and service organizations, the media,
employers, segments of the health community, law enforcement.
Senator Cummings is correct, our goal is to eliminate the
past, we think, fruitless debate about whether or not we should
focus on supply or demand, whether we should do enforcement or
prevention or treatment. And I believe these are a continuum of
effort that need to be used across the board and when they are
they are most effective.
The second part of our plan, as previously mentioned,
focuses on treatment. Not only have we set forth consistent
with the President's earlier statements his pledge to add $1.6
billion in Federal drug treatment funding over 5 years, but
we've tried to talk about the task of treatment in a more, I
think, accurate way that is consistent with the experience of
all too many and I think most American families, communities
and talking about both the nature of the problem in terms of
the estimated 5 million people who have a dependence problem
and need services of which the majority of them don't recognize
themselves as having a problem and, in addition, of trying to
provide services of an integrated fashion to those who come in
for treatment.
So we know this is both an outreach problem in bringing
people in effectively, but also a treatment problem in
providing high quality treatment, a variety of modalities,
integrating a variety of related services and a need for
support for recovery because treatment is the sure--first
difficult, but nonetheless frequently the shortest step in the
life of someone with this kind of problem.
Recovery is a lifelong task, and we want to provide better
ways of supporting it. A variety of Federal initiatives here
that touch on this, but our goal is also to educate the public,
to enlist more people to support these initiatives in both
their funded form by the Federal Government but in a variety of
other institutions providing--relying on resources from
different sources and not all governmental. We are continuing
the process of trying to both apply these resources in a
targeted way based on need and refine our ability to measure
need, but also in a way that's accountable and can be managed.
In all these areas, whether it's prevention, treatment or
enforcement resources, it has been my experience that the
sustained support for these activities over time, especially in
what we all know is going to be a more competitive budget
environment, we need to have results and those results will be
crucial. Despite the general commitments people have to this
area, we are not going to gain those resources without
demonstrating that they're a good investment.
Finally, the strategy discusses our effort--and I would say
this is probably the area where we have most of the additional
work to do--to reevaluate our supply reduction efforts in terms
of focusing on the supply problem as a market. We know for a
long time people have talked about the market characteristic of
demand and supply, but we--I don't believe we have
systematically examined what we're doing, especially in Federal
enforcement and national security policy, to identify how the
market works adequately and put our resources where we can have
vulnerabilities.
I have been frustrated in the past in discussions of this
area where very intelligent business people talk about the drug
problems sometimes as if you can't do anything because it's a
market, and yet they are the same people who believe that
government regulation of various kinds will drastically destroy
commerce and markets in other areas. If there's a 2 percent tax
on the Internet commerce we will destroy Internet commerce. I
do not believe it's adequate to say we cannot do a better job
on controlling supply when we have unlimited ability to try to
regulate out of existence the drug market.
I'm not saying we can be perfect here, but our goal here is
to create a recession and depression in the supply that is the
source of consumption for drugs. We also know that if we
don't--as a market of supply and demand, that if we don't try
to systematically bring both parts down, successes on one side
will be undermined by the disproportion on the other. So we're
trying to both fight demand first and foremost, but also make
sure that we don't end up undermining our demand efforts by a
plentiful supply. In that regard we have discussed and
reviewed--and I won't go into detail, I will follow your
questions--both what we're doing domestically.
We're also in the process of trying to integrate our
efforts on the border with the--and other efforts with regard
to changes and adjustments to enhance our homeland security.
That's an ongoing process as well as integration of
intelligence connected with that effort.
In addition, we are trying to put in place effective
policies not only in this hemisphere, but especially now in
Afghanistan to help try to control the resurgence of opium
growth there. This is an area where probably the area ability
to provide security is going to be the key in how much we can
do, how fast, both in terms of development, institution
building, and in making headway against drugs.
In this hemisphere atmosphere I'd also like to thank
members of the committee for their support in the extension and
renewal of the Andean Trade Preferences Act. We regret, as I
know some of you do, that this was allowed to lapse. It's been
an important way of getting alternative economic activity in
some of the drug producing countries. I think regrettably we've
been on the verge of doing more to destabilize illicit market
for goods in these countries by letting that lapse than we have
been in the illicit markets of drugs in this region, and I
think if we want to transition people into legal activity
that's good for us as well as good for them, we need to have
stability and we need to have action on that piece of
legislation.
Finally, let me just make reference to the performance in
management changes outlined or proposed in this strategy. It's
been my view for a number of years now, watching this from the
outside, not expecting to come back into government, but as you
said, Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised but one cannot
help but be honored by the call of the President to work on
this important issue at this time. I think, though, the
President and I are in agreement that not only is leadership
needed here but leadership needs to be credible, and for
leadership to be credible you have to have accountability in
the system.
You have to have real goals and you have to be able to
demonstrate you're making headway. There's a difference between
leadership and cheerleading, and we need genuine leadership.
However much making an issue visible is important, if you don't
have follow-through we aren't going to get to where we need to
go. Not only did the President take what I believe is a
courageous decision in the political environment of setting
serious goals here which are ambitious of a 2-year reduction in
drug use by teenagers and adults of 10 percent and 5 years of
25 percent, but we timed those the way we did because we
believe they are politically important to show accountability.
However valuable 5 and 10-year goals will be in this town,
nobody has a 5 or 10-year term in office. So to be politically
meaningful, to have political accountability, you have to be
within the political life of candidates, and the President made
the, I think, important step of putting his credibility on the
line here as well as his leadership.
In addition, what we have proposed to do is to change the
way we present the drug control budget. We would continue to
collect the budget as it has been in the past and provide that
information. But for the purposes of centrally managing the
program, as many of you know who've been involved in this for a
long time, over the more--almost more than a decade and a half,
almost 2\1/2\ decades the drug control budget has been around.
It grew up initially to show the costs of the drug problem to
the government in various things there where consequent costs
were included. Over time more things that were gathered that
had some relation, I'm not saying in bad faith but parts of
small--of larger programs that did something connected to
prevention, treatment or enforcement were factored in. The
problem is that even with the best of models, small parts of
large programs were not manageable and continue not to be
manageable.
So we have a budget that largely presents resources that
are either consequences or unmanageable program activities,
both inflating the effort and not allowing us to manage
resources where we think we can make the most effect. So what
we're proposing to do is to narrow the drug budget to those
programs on the supply and demand side that actually reduce
drug use, which is our goal. This would take roughly 40 percent
of the budget under our proposal and make it something we score
separately but we don't present as the central managed budget.
The other and most important thing from my point of view in
accountability is the new budget that we propose would
crosswalk with the President's budgets and individual programs.
We've proposed taking programs that are basically--if they're
mostly drug control programs, we're scoring them as 100 percent
drug control and if they are--if they are minor we're taking
them out of the scoring. That allows us not only to ask
agencies for accountability but to have the ability for the
first time since this office has existed to actually move money
from one aspect of the problem to the other on the basis of
results.
My view is, and I didn't--I'm honored to come back into
government, but as I think I've told both of you privately, I
came here to make a difference. I did not come here to cope
with the drug problem. I came here to reduce the drug problem.
And if government programs and agencies are designed to cope
with the drug problem, I'll ask them if they can't do that at
25 percent less resources and we'll put those resources where
people are going to reduce the problem in other programs. I
think that's good management. I think that's the only way we
create the kind of tension in the system to get things that are
going to get us to the goals we've set for ourselves.
That's my summary. There's a lot more to say, but I will
follow your questions on the issues you want to go into more
detail on. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walters follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.021
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Director Walters. I will start right
out with some questions and there may be some additional
questions that will be submitted to you. Chairman Souder, as
you know, was delayed and the subcommittee may have some
additional questions that you could respond to in writing, but
right now one of the important things and emphasis has been of
course education and trying to develop some type of a public
campaign. The leadership of the President and personal
attention, involvement, and setting standards I think is very
important. We--and that will not be lacking, I think, with this
President. He has already made that clear both by his actions
and by your appointment and other initiatives.
But this subcommittee started a media campaign, I think it
was back in 1998, and it's a $1 billion program over a number
of years. It started out somewhat disorganized and then
unfortunately it had some additional problems, and I think
there's been some fines levied and penalties levied and I think
there's still a criminal investigation pending from the last
I've seen on some of the billing practices in that.
The education program is most important. I think we all
believe that the media program that we intended, and it can
change people's attitude, it has such a great impact. Can you
tell us--and it was music to my ears that you're evaluating
programs on the basis of performance. Can you tell me how you
view the media campaign at this juncture, where do we go from
here and how do we make it as effective as possible?
Mr. Walters. Yes. I actually was a critic of the original
proposal for the media campaign, not because I don't think it
can be a valuable tool. We've had public service campaigns for
some time. In fact I helped create one when I worked at the
Department of Education on drug prevention, one of the--the
first one the Department of Education had ever done. I was
concerned that the--some in the environment would suggest that
leadership can be handed over to advertising people and did not
require the kind of national effort and commitment. But in the
current environment, I think that the campaign is valuable and
has--as I've been able to learn about it over the last 2
months, a little over 2 months since I've been in office, I
think it has considerable sophistication and utility.
The ultimate measure of whether it works though has to be
whether we get the drugs down. We have proceeded on the basis
of much of advertising and previous studies about drug use that
if we change attitudes, which is what the advertising
information is designed to do, to educate in the way that
changes attitudes about drug use, we will reduce drug use if we
change those attitude for the better. There is some evidence
that attitudes have changed in connection with the campaign,
and we certainly have had what was a steady increase in teen
drug use level off, but I'm not happy to be at a level state at
this level of use. We need to drive it down. We have tried most
recently--we're in development--ads in development when I first
arrived and we accelerated them, ads that you may have seen on
the issue of drugs and terrorism. We have pressed this campaign
aggressively given the research that was available to us on the
effectiveness of this on both the attitudes of young teens,
young adults and, surprisingly to us, by parents who found that
the message and the link talking about responsibility for
larger consequences of drug use and funding terror was an
important message for them to use in discussing the problem
with their children.
For many years, as you know, we have talked to young people
in both educational materials and advertising about the
consequences of drug use to them. We'll continue to do that.
But teenagers are also at an age where they sometimes feel more
immortal and invulnerable than other people at other ages. So
in buttressing that, this part of the campaign draws on their
idealism, which is also powerful at the age that they are, and
talks about what they want to be seen as representing in their
lives. We are hopeful that campaign as a part of what we're
doing will have a broader effect, and we're extending it, but
the campaign ultimately has a relatively expensive evaluation
component going to allow us to have more detailed information
and we'll know in the next 6 to 12 months whether it's been a
contributor or it's been helpful in reducing drug use when we
get those national surveys.
Mr. Mica. It would be helpful to also have some method of
evaluating the effectiveness of these programs and report back.
I don't know when you officially have sort of taken over that
campaign, but that's something else we need to measure. One of
the problems we have too now with heroin use, changes in heroin
use and changes in cocaine among youth, we may have seen some
minor fluctuation or stabilization. But then you see Ecstasy
shooting through the roof as sort of a drug substitution
program, and I'm not sure if we're still being as effective as
we should be and that needs to be measured.
One of the other items that you brought up is the linkage
between terrorism and narcotics, and whether it's Colombia or
Afghanistan, those are two great examples of terrorist activity
being funded by narcoterrorism. I was pleased to hear the
President during his role out at the White House talk about the
need to continue the efforts in supply. If you took heroin, and
in particular Colombia and Afghanistan, that region, those two
regions account for about 95 percent of the entire world's
production, is there any effort that you know of now that you
could speak about in Afghanistan or any new support for
Colombia?
Again Colombia has now taken initiatives to go after the
narcoterrorists in FARC and the regions that have been formerly
set aside. Anything you can comment that may be a new approach
or part of this plan?
Mr. Walters. Let me take Afghanistan first. The central
problem that we face is not one of commitment. The new interim
government in Afghanistan has committed itself to eradicating
the opium trade. The problem is the government is new. The
institutions it would need to carry that out are not in place.
The security of the countryside, as you know, is not in place
for both purposes of development even--excuse me--over the long
term feeding people as well as controlling the drug trade. We
need to begin the process of establishing security and building
those institutions. That's ongoing and we are still developing
policies to go in behind the progress on security.
I do think it will be--we should not minimize the
difficulty here. We have parts of Afghanistan where opium is
essentially a currency, where it's used for trade, not
consumption because of its value in the market. We know that
there have been reports, although we don't know precisely yet
the scope of planting, but we know there's been a lot of
replanting after largely eliminating large planting areas last
year.
So it will not probably be a 1-year task and it will be
necessary to have viable security in these areas as well as
effective alternative development where people are depending on
this crop literally to eat and feed their families. We cannot
just expect them to cooperate without giving them an
alternative for maintaining their lives and their well-being
over time. We're hopeful that this gives us an opportunity--and
I will say one other thing. Having said it, it's difficult in
Afghanistan.
When I was last in government in the President's father's
administration, that whole region of the world, Afghanistan and
the opium problem was thought of as just impossible. It was too
far away. It was too remote a priority. We really couldn't do
anything about it, and yet we knew it was part of the bread
basket for the world. On the upside, while the task is
certainly serious, we have an opportunity to do something where
we never thought we could do something before and we now are
acutely aware that here and other places large amounts of money
and the consequent behavior and support that drug trafficking
does to a lot of bad things in the world and attacks on
democratic institutions and civilized life has to be dealt with
and we have an opportunity to do that if we stay at it and can
find effective ways. It will not be easy, it will not be quick.
Mr. Mica. My question, and I'm going to sort of cut to the
chase here, is I mean this isn't rocket science. We have spring
coming up. You've got people starving in Afghanistan. We've had
a war conducted there and you're saying, you know, they need
alternative development. Do we have sort of a quick plan in
place for helping them maybe to develop some crop substitutes
if people are going to produce opium or they're going to
produce food products that can be sold. Either way they're
going to try to get some cash and in the past the cash has gone
from drug production to terrorist support. Do we have--are we
looking at a plan of----
Mr. Walters. I don't think the security situation has
allowed us to deploy a plan yet. What we've done is we've
looked with allies, mostly in European countries, to try to
begin with basic security, then extend that security to disrupt
the opium markets where we have the extension and ability to do
that.
Mr. Mica. We need to look seriously at an alternative
project.
Mr. Walters. I agree.
Mr. Mica. I mean it's not rocket science to get some seeds
and some other things and some low level, if not Peace Corps,
some international U.N. Folks in there, someone to do there,
but there needs to be some alternative.
The other part of the question was Colombia.
Mr. Walters. Yeah. The situation in Colombia in the last
several days, as you know, has changed dramatically because of
the decision of President Pastrana to take a more aggressive
role against the FARC. We are now in the process of evaluating
and determining what administration policy will be here. We
have not made a final decision. I would say, though, and I
think I take this opportunity, not an insignificant issue, and
that determination is the dialog we have to have with Congress.
There has been a long history here. There have been in the
current legislation and appropriations limits expressed
strongly by Congress on what it does and does not want to do.
We are pushing against those limits now, and if we do any more
there will have to be probably some adjustment in those limits
because if we are going to be able to proceed we want a
bipartisan policy. I think we want the support of the Congress
and the executive branch here. This is part of a broader
security issue not only in this hemisphere, but about
terrorism, and I think that what we can do, and it's fair for
you to say to us we need to figure out what we want to do, and
we're doing that as promptly as we can, but ultimately I think
it's also going to be a matter of having some agreements with
the Congress about what you're prepared to do as a partner in
our policy activity here, and there's going to be tough
choices, I know.
Mr. Mica. You're throwing that back to us, but I can tell
you we've been through 3 years of this and Colombia's been
through this for 30 years and it's time for somebody to get
some starch in their shorts. I'm glad that President Pastrana--
and we had a prayer meeting with him in December. I'm glad that
he has gone back and finally taken some action. It's nice to
hold out the doves of peace and look for a bipartisan solution,
but I would really be saddened if this administration misses an
opportunity now to back up what should have been done a long
time ago and that's get tough with the terrorists and take them
out.
I think we need to put whatever resources here. I'm going
to try to mount with other Members and I know there's the folks
that are singing kum-baya and all of that around here, but
we've seen the only way you can deal with terrorists is through
tough measures, and he's tried the alternative and they've
slaughtered people day after day after day and it needs to come
to a stop.
So you're hearing from me. I think Mr. Souder has a
similar--Mr. Gilman, others, and you may hear from some others.
You may not hear the bipartisan chorus, but that's sometimes
part of the leadership role.
I wanted to finally just ask one question about treatment
programs and then I'll give the remaining time to Mr. Cummings.
In the past--now I've heard you say you're going to put some
measures in place to actually do evaluations of successful
treatment programs. I have no problem spending however much
money necessary on treatment. There's nothing worse than having
somebody subject to addiction, a loved one or a friend. We've
all now--almost all throughout the country everybody can cite
some example and it affects every family. But there are many of
these programs that have disastrous records, they are not
successful. When will you have in place some criteria by which
to evaluate whether they should be eligible and then when will
we see the determination of some of the unsuccessful and
support--you said you now have adopted the flexibility to move
funds from successful programs, unsuccessful to successful and
however. When will that take place?
Mr. Walters. First of all, I want to make sure there's not
a misunderstanding. The movement of moneys among programs were
among Federal programs and were not going to get down to the--
in most cases to the individual treatment providers but----
Mr. Mica. But that's part of it because if I have
individual treatment providers----
Mr. Walters. Yes.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Who aren't successful, technically
you're going to be moving the money around because those that
have failed aren't going to get the money and you're saying
you're going to have some evaluation. When will that be
available and then when will we see some of those that aren't
successful being sort of cutoff from the public trough?
Mr. Walters. What we want to put in place here with the
combination of resources that we've used for the treatment
increase that we've proposed is additional moneys in the block
grant and then we're now going to work with HHS and States who
receive those block grants to see if we can improve both the
measurement and effectiveness of the delivery of those
resources. The central problem here has been that evaluation
data has not been kept in most of these cases because it's
difficult to longitudinally follow people who are discharged
from the program.
We can keep data about dropout rates. We know how many
people register and drop out. That's one measure and certainly
not insignificant, but the real problem is measuring outcomes
after the people are discharged when they frequently go on to
an outpatient--sometimes an outpatient setting or even from an
outpatient setting back into the community in various ways.
We're working--there's a new system that's been created to
measure nationwide admissions, which should be on line this
spring, which will give us an opportunity to have real-time
data of who's coming in and then we begin to collect some
information about those people's histories here of treatment.
I don't want to mislead you. I don't think we're where we
need to be on fully evaluating outcomes on treatment. I do
believe, however, that a central problem for my office, as I've
talked with our staff, is my concern from working in this area
in the past, working in the President's father's
administration, where we put a larger increase over the 4 years
of that administration into Federal drug treatment spending
than any other administration, whether it lasted 4 or 8 years,
that when I looked at the then reports of number of treatment
slots with that increase, the number of slots nationwide went
down. Now, that would not necessarily be bad if the quality of
the slots were improving and therefore we were getting better
outputs, which is acclaimed by some but of course there's not
any outcome--there's not any longitudinal data to demonstrate
that as effectively as we would like.
So what we're going to try to do is work with the State
providers as well as take a larger portion of the increase and
put it into what we're calling targeted expansion--targeted
past the expansion grants which we will more directly be able
to shape evaluative criteria for, so that we can look at the
outcomes of these programs. But right now the easiest measure
you've got is dropout rate and we'd have to control for the
kind of client that's coming in because the more severely
affected are going to be more demanding and we don't want to
compare people who are--essentially taking the easier clients
and comparing them against clients--those who have the courage
and the effort to work on harder clients.
But right now the easiest measure we have, which is not
always kept of course, is dropout rate. We also have some
cases, we have testing results of how many people and what
rates of use are continuing during treatment and some time
afterwards, but ultimately what we need is the capacity we're
building in the system, substantially reducing the people who
are in need of treatment. And right now we don't even have a
precise measure of the population that needs treatment despite
all these years of study.
The frustration I had in coming in and trying to implement
the President's statement of policy was when we looked--when I
asked, and the President had directed HHS to produce a new
report showing the scope and the location of the need, we did
not have the kind of information you'd like to have to manage
the program. So we're working with HHS to try to get a better
measure, but right now when I tell you there are 5--roughly 5
million people who need and could benefit from treatment, that
is an extremely rough guess and if you wanted to say, you know,
where exactly is the need, you can talk to individual providers
in the field and you can talk to people, drug courts, you can
talk to health care people, you can talk to others where there
is a need, where there are waiting lists, where you need to
have treatment on demand.
But that's not based on a national census. That's based on
who you talk to and how reliable their reporting is. We need to
do a better job here. I don't think we can manage the kind of
expansion we want. We can't credential good programs and follow
through with that kind of data. And I recognize, too, that the
cost of collecting some of this is expensive and we are
balancing service provision versus evaluation costs. But
nonetheless, there is in my view in prevention, in treatment
and in law enforcement a common fundamental challenge, which is
cynicism about whether any of this makes any difference. We
have to--part of the leadership responsibility here is to
explain that things do make a difference. And when we push, the
problem is pushed back on. But we can't do that without
specific results and data that is credible and more detailed
than we have right now.
So I don't want to mislead you. We are doing this without
the kind of specific information that we would like to have and
we will try to develop over the next year.
Mr. Mica. We have two cottage industries. One is
unsuccessful drug treatment programs and the other is studying
and evaluation of the various programs. We held a hearing, and
I will get staff to get you a copy of that--tens of millions of
dollars on evaluation studies NIDA and others have conducted.
All the firms within, what was it, 50 or 60 miles of
Washington, DC, spent tens of millions and nobody can figure
out what the hell works and what doesn't.
Mr. Cummings, you're recognized.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
what you just said, Director, is part of the problem. We got to
attack the problem. Just like you said, we've got to have
prevention. We've got to have interdiction. We've got to have
treatment. But at the same time when it comes to treatment,
trying to figure out what works is a real--is a tough one. And
I agree with you. I don't know how you do that. We have had
hearings on that. But at the same time, we don't want to come
into a situation where because of people's pessimism about
treatment that the treatment dollars then disappear. And I
think that's a concern.
So I think that trying to come up with some type of
reasonable measuring tool would be helpful. But I must tell you
that we had testimony on this, and one of the things that they
talked about is how difficult it is because I think you
mentioned it just now, different people come in at different
levels. Different people have different circumstances at home,
support systems, all kinds of stuff.
So, you know, I was just wondering, did your staff have a
chance to review the Baltimore Steps to Success study by Johns
Hopkins, Morgan State University and University of Maryland? It
seems to say that there is definitely some value to treatment.
And I was wondering, did you have an opinion on that or you
just haven't gotten familiar with it?
Mr. Walters. I don't want to say that it's because we don't
have data about the precise focus of additional Federal dollars
that I don't think treatment works. The President believes
that, I believe that.
Mr. Cummings. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking
about Mr. Mica.
Mr. Walters. But the frustration, I think, in this and
other areas is to not only increase the effectiveness of the
programs doing work in these areas, but also to measure
adequately whether the resources and the policies are adequate
to make the kind of incremental change we want. It is not just
can we find a good treatment program. There are a lot of good
treatment programs. But is 1.6 billion enough? How much more
should we spend? I mean we face this in a variety of areas on
supply and demand side and we're trying to make our ability to
influence the budget more direct and powerful. But that
influence has to be guided by where we think we are going to
make a difference. And that's why we need to have some of those
measures. I am continuing the process of meeting with both
private individuals and State and local officials to find out
if there's a way of directing the dollars into current
structures that will be more effective or that we can have
individuals whose responsibility at the State or local level is
more systematically tied to meeting and assessing and following
up on the assessment of needs so that we're spreading the
capacity where we need it and in the forms we need it.
I think I mentioned to you when we met, I think one of the
most powerful things about drug courts aside from using the
criminal justice system leverage is the case management
function you get with the drug courts. Not only do you have the
judge having influence over an individual to get and stay in
treatment and the other related services, but the judge becomes
a case manager. They have the social worker. They have a parole
officer, treatment provider. Many times they have other kinds
of mental health care, housing, job training, other things that
they bring together. And of course the unique thing about a
judge is, unlike some other government employees, they actually
not only give orders but expect them to be carried out and will
insist that they be carried out.
So you have the ability to put the parts together to make
this as kind of cohesive as possible, and I think that may be
the reason for the effective results in addition to the
compassionate coercion that's there. The question is how do we
build that on the other side.
One of my staff members is going to talk to our colleagues
at the Department of Veterans Affairs because they have been
understood in the past to have a kind of case management
capability for the people they are serving in the veterans
community that might be replicable in other kinds of
institutions. But I am just beginning to meet the meeting
process with State and local officials who receive some of
these Federal programs and can talk about how we can either
explain how the management of these things are working better
than many people think, which I will be happy to get more
information that's good news, but what other kinds of structure
we can build into this and authority to have this be managed.
My great fear is that we put in $1.6 million, it will get
spent, we all know that but the question is what's the result
and how do we tell what the result is and how far do we sustain
the support.
So, yeah, the easiest part of the job is proposing. It's
implementing that's the problem, and I am acutely aware that is
the major task we now face.
Mr. Cummings. Speaking of drug courts, I know the
President's budget has 52 million for grants to States to
establish drug courts and that is an increase of 2 million.
Just based upon what you just said you have a pretty strong
belief in drug courts.
Mr. Walters. We have not made any policy decisions, but I
have asked my staff to prepare scenarios for the ways in which
we could most rapidly expand drug courts in the shortest period
of time. That may not just be with Federal resources, but I
have also asked what it would look like. If we are going to be
able to move money around, let's find out what works, see if we
can't move money into those areas that work.
Mr. Cummings. Director, one of the things that we like on
this committee--both sides like this DTAP program up in New
York. And one of the elements of the program is that it helps
people find jobs. And that is a key element, because I think
what happens to a lot of these folks is that you got all that
structure that you just talked about, but then you need to give
them something to do as opposed to standing on corners and
getting back into the groups they have been in. And as I was
sitting here and listening to you, I was just wondering--and
then we have a problem in Baltimore which finds former inmates
jobs. That's all they do. And it's a very successful program
and Federal funds are used to do it and State funds--Federal
funds that come to the State. And I'm just wondering, we might
want to take a look at our Department of Labor when we're
looking at drug courts and say, well, how can we get the most
bang for our buck and try to find jobs. They're already being
supervised. They're already gone through the urine screening
and that kind of thing, but then you have to have the job piece
and I think that's why this DTAP program is so successful.
I don't know if you saw Nightline last night.
Mr. Walters. I didn't, but actually my wife did and I have
seen a partial transcript of the show.
Mr. Cummings. It was chilling about Mexico and how these
millions upon millions of dollars are being used to bribe folks
and judges, and if you don't accept the bribe, you get killed
and all that kind of thing. And I was just wondering, do you
have any comments with regard to Mexico?
Mr. Walters. Yeah. I traveled to Colombia and Mexico
shortly after I was confirmed. Given the range of issues on the
international side that we have with those two countries, and I
didn't have much time, but in Mexico I was struck by what you
have seen in the press and what many of you already know about,
that under very difficult situations the new administration and
its key people around President Fox are trying very hard to
make a difference, I think. I recognize we've had periods
before where people thought a new administration was making
changes and people were disappointed, and I wouldn't claim to
be the longest veteran in observing these things. But the
people I met are working in this effort in various ministries,
from health to law enforcement and foreign affairs, and are
very dedicated. It's a thin crust of people and they are aware
that their lives are on the line, I think. And they have people
working for them that are obviously--one of them I think the
show talked about was murdered a few days ago, while
Administrator Hutchinson was in Mexico, in fact.
There's no question that the Arellano Felix organization,
which was a feature of the show, is probably the most dangerous
organization in this hemisphere. The Mexicans have aggressively
gone after them. They may have one of them, although it is not
confirmed yet, was killed in a gun battle.
But nonetheless, if there was any question about whether
drugs fund terroristic behavior, behavior designed to destroy
democratic institutions and intimidate people, I think you
don't have to look any further than Mexico. You can look at
Colombia and look at the 12 or the 28 terrorist organizations
that have been designated by the State Department that are
involved in drug trafficking. We know this at home as well. I
mean we know that in the neighborhood that we walk together in.
Americans have been suffering that same kind of violence,
not always the same magnitude or not always the same way,
getting always against our fundamental institutions in
assassinating presidents or attorneys general. But it is not an
accident that our government officials have security as well
and it is not just because of crazies. Some of them it's
because they are involved in this kind of enforcement. So
there's real courage here. We are trying to build capacities to
combat these organizations. But we have to take these
organizations down. We can be partners with these countries
because democratic nations are in partnership, but there is no
substitute for taking these organizations down.
The President has also been very firm with me every time I
met with him. He understands the cornerstone of that
cooperation is that we have to reduce demand in our country,
that we provide the incentive and the dollars that are given in
buying drugs to support this infrastructure. And we need to
attack the infrastructure, but we also fundamentally must
reduce demand and we are not going to do that without reducing
demand.
So I agree with you, it is a dangerous situation and I
applaud the courage of the Mexicans and frankly a lot of U.S.
personnel that are working in these countries to support our
allies.
Mr. Cummings. Let me just let you know something. When you
were involved in Baltimore, when you had an opportunity to sit
down and talk directly with 12 recovering addicts, I did a
little survey after you left. I got some staff people and we
talked to them and they were very pleased that you took the
time to be there. But something came out of that, Director,
which is very interesting. When we asked them how many or what
were they spending on drugs a day, a day, the average was $110
a day before they went into treatment and none of them had
jobs. Now that's deep. No jobs and before treatment spending on
the average of $110 a day. That means--I am cognizant of the
time and I see your staff is getting fidgety back there. We got
you covered. But $110 a day. That means some lady's pocketbook
that would have been stolen, somebody may have been killed,
somebody's house may have been broken into. And you know, I
guess I wanted to leave that with you because I know you move
around the country and might want to put that in you computer
because--and that was just 12. And we were just talking about 1
day, $1,200.
So but the other thing I wanted to ask you about is HIDTA.
This reduction, $20 million reduction in--and we are very
concerned certainly in Baltimore about HIDTA and I was
wondering how--I mean what was the basis of that decision to
reduce the HIDTA situation. We always thought HIDTA was a great
thing and I know you're looking at competing priorities, all of
which are very important, but I want to know what went into
that decision.
Mr. Walters. The HIDTAs request that went into the
President's budget is the same as it was before. I recognize
Congress added 20 million. The administration did not include
that increase in its request. Let me give some context to this.
And here I will ask for a little bit of an excuse on the basis
of I got here a little bit late. And in the confirmation
process, in talking to Members of the Senate, if I needed any
education about the importance of the HIDTA program, which I
didn't, but I got it because a third of the Senators I met with
during courtesy calls had somebody they wanted me to hire and
two-thirds wanted more money in their HIDTA. After they asked
for the money in their HIDTA they said to me you either got to
get a handle on this program because it's kind of not being
managed very well.
So yeah, I believe that as originally conceived and as many
of the HIDTAs--I am trying to get around to see as many of them
as I can. I didn't have a chance to stop during our visit, but
I am trying to get to see as many as I can. Our goal in
conducting the review that we have underway in these programs
in general, but this is in our office, is we want to use this
program to focus resources where they can make a difference in
the areas where these exist. There has been a problem with
that. I think everybody recognizes that in the program. Does it
say all the HIDTAs have problems?
But what I need to satisfy myself about is that we can go
ahead with a focus. And I am also working with the Attorney
General, who has committed, with his deputy, to reshape and
restructure the OCDETF program. We want these programs where
they can to work more effectively together and we also want to
provide a way--again on the law enforcement side create
standards of measurement, results and accountability that will
allow us to both manage and sustain the funding, not
necessarily increase the funding of these programs.
As you probably know, HIDTA on the law enforcement side has
also been talked about as a model for sharing information on
the homeland security front with State and local law
enforcement where there has been some friction in the last
several months. In some of the HIDTAs that is going on, and I
think those results while they're early we want to share with
you as well.
I guess what I'm saying here is we take the program
seriously. We think these do valuable work and we do think we
need to look at them to make the best case for various levels
of funding. We try to sustain in this budget the administration
request of last year. I would not be surprised if Congress puts
more money in the HIDTA program given what I've seen. But I do
think that even the people who are the biggest fans of the
program believe that and have asked me privately to give a
better accounting of the program. We have some audits ongoing,
but I think the real issue is what's the focus, what's the
results, how do the various HIDTAs fit in and what can we
really expect to do. If we can provide adequate answers to
those questions, then I think the program is in the best
position for support in the executive branch as well as in
Congress.
Mr. Cummings. This is the last question. One of the things
that is happening in the African American community is we're
seeing more and more of our black children spending time in
jail, and the concern is the disparity between powder cocaine
and crack cocaine and the minimum--the mandatory minimum
sentences. One time I think even some African Americans looked
at it and said, well, those are just people that are involved
in drugs. But then they began to look at it and see, I mean,
just phenomenal numbers of their children spending time in
jail. It gets to a point--then you have to ask the questions
why. And when you see the disparity in sentencing, that is a
major, major concern. And I was just wondering if you have any
comments on that.
Mr. Walters. Yes. We now in the administration are
reviewing the mandatory minimum sentence structure and we are
not done yet, but in conjunction with the effort that's been
charged to the Sentencing Commission, we will I think have a
recommendation within the next month. It's not done yet, so I
can't tell you the decision. But I spoke about this not only
during my confirmation with Senators on the Judiciary Committee
in the Senate, but both the President and the Attorney General
have indicated a desire to review this. So I think we're not
far from results on that.
Mr. Cummings. I just want to thank you again, first of all,
for taking on this tremendous responsibility and thank you for
being in Baltimore. And I just wanted to assure you that we
agree with you on both sides that we want taxpayers' dollars to
be spent effectively and efficiently. And we will work with you
to make sure that you know when you decide to move out of this
office that you can look back and say you know you had a
Congress that worked with you as opposed to against you, but
wanted to work with you so you could get to where you've got to
go, so our country will be a better place for all of us to
live, matter of fact the world to be a better place.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Cummings, and also want to thank
our Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy for
being with us in presenting the President's national drug
control strategy plan before us today. I think we're right
within the time limits that we set, and there being no further
business, I have one request. Ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to submit written
statements and questions for the hearing record and that any
answers to written questions provided by the witness also be
included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
There being no further business of the subcommittee, this
hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Note.--The publication entitled, ``National Drug Control
Strategy, The White House, February 2002,'' may be found in
subcommittee files.]
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4333.063
-