U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–545 PDF 2011

ONDCP’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL BUDGET AND THE PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE OFFICE OF

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY UNDER

THE NEW ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 19, 2009

Serial No. 111–154

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

DIANE E. WATSON, California

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DAN BURTON, Indiana

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

JARON R. BOURKE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 19, 2009 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Christopher, Gail C., Ph.D., chair, Panel on the Office of National Drug

Control Policy: Building the Capacity to Address the Nation’s Drug

Problems, National Academy of Public Administration; John Carnevale,

Ph.D., president of Carnevale Associates, LLC; Peter Reuter, professor,

School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology, University

of Maryland; and Robert B. Charles, president, the Charles Group,

LLC ................................................................................................................ 57

Carnevale, John ......................................................................................... 69

Charles, Robert B. ..................................................................................... 118

Christopher, Gail C. .................................................................................. 57

Reuter, Peter .............................................................................................. 96

Kerlikowske, Gil, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy ............. 12

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Carnevale, John, Ph.D., president of Carnevale Associates, LLC, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 71

Charles, Robert B., president, the Charles Group, LLC, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 121

Christopher, Gail C., Ph.D., chair, Panel on the Office of National Drug

Control Policy: Building the Capacity to Address the Nation’s Drug

Problems, National Academy of Public Administration, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 59

Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio:

Information concerning injection sites ............................................................ 41

Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 10

Various articles ................................................................................................. 128

Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Rhode Island, article dated May 19, 2009 .............................................. 44

Kerlikowske, Gil, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 15

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 4

Reuter, Peter, professor, School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology, University of Maryland, prepared statement of ........................... 98

(1)

ONDCP’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL BUDGET AND THE PRIORITIES,

OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kucinich, Cummings, Watson, Kennedy, and Jordan.

Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Claire Coleman,

counsel; Jean Gosa, clerk; Charisma Williams, staff assistant;

Leneal Scott, IT specialist, full committee; Dan Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and senior advisor; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Ashley Callen, minority

counsel; and Molly Boyl, minority professional staff member.

Mr. KUCINICH. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Domestic

Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will

now come to order. I’m pleased to be joined by our ranking member, Mr. Jordan of Ohio.

Today’s hearing will examine the successes and failures of current U.S. drug policy under the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, and the priorities and objectives of ONDCP under the new

administration, and how those goals are reflected in the 2010 fiscal

year national drug control budget.

Without objection, the Chair and the ranking minority member

will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

seeks recognition. And without objection, Members and witnesses

may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record.

We’re here today to address the policy priorities in the 2010

budget for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is now

under the leadership of the newly confirmed Director Gil

Kerlikowske. I would like to start by congratulating Mr.

Kerlikowske on his confirmation. I’m extremely pleased that President Obama chose such a highly qualified individual for the job,

and I truly look forward to working together.

2

I would also like to reaffirm the majority’s commitment to Mr.

Jordan that we intend to work in a bipartisan fashion in overseeing

the ONDCP and its ability to create effective policy to reduce drug

use and its harmful consequences.

I was pleased to read Director Kerlikowske’s interview with the

Wall Street Journal last week, during which he acknowledged that

we need to abandon the metaphor of the Nation’s, ‘‘war on drugs.’’

Clearly the war waged since the coining of the phrase by former

President Richard Nixon has failed, but we need to do more than

change the label. We must also change the policy. The current national strategy, which emphasizes incarceration and interdiction to

reduce drug use and its harmful consequences has clearly failed.

The United States ranks first in the word in per capita incarceration rates, with 5 percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent

of the world’s prisoners. Roughly 500,000 people are behind bars

for a drug law violation, and a racial disparity in arrest and incarceration numbers, largely a result of selective enforcement and

Federal mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine, is unacceptable. And despite these record-breaking numbers, drugs have

only become cheaper, stronger and more accessible in the United

States, the largest consumer of drugs in the world.

This record of failure is not tolerable and requires substantial reform. Despite promising statements by the new administration and

you, Director Kerlikowske, the fiscal year 2010 budget does not reflect a changed approach to fighting drug abuse. While there’s increased emphasis on treatment programs, the spending allocated to

supply side initiatives still vastly outweighs the demand-side programs.

The 2010 budget actually widens the spending gap by allocating

65.6 percent of the budget to supply side initiatives and only 34.4

percent to demand-side efforts. As we will hear from our witnesses

today, spending nearly $2 on supply side programs for every dollar

on demand-side programs makes little sense considering the vast

social scientific data showing that demand-side initiatives, especially drug treatment and prevention, are far more effective in combating drug use.

Now, I understand, Director Kerlikowske, that you’ve not yet

been—that you were not confirmed while this budget was being developed. Perhaps it does not reflect fully yours or the new administration’s intended direction under your directorship. We’ll need to

hear from you today on that point.

While we don’t have time to evaluate every important drug policy

issue here today a few warrant mentioning. First, our international

supply side programs should be evaluated to ensure they’re not

doing more harm than good. I’m deeply concerned about the practice of aerial fumigation of coca crops in Central and South America, which is destroying the livelihoods of small farmers and is increasing the rate of rainforest destruction. Additionally, the Merida

Initiative, designed to assist Mexico in its fight against drug trafficking, needs to be watched closely to ensure the United States is

not fueling the violence by creating power vacuums when we help

take out cartel leaders.

Second, we cannot afford to concentrate so much of our effort on

youth marijuana use at the expense of addressing the needs of adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:30 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65545.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
3

dicts of harder drugs who are not getting sufficient treatment

under the current strategy. In 2006, nearly half of all arrests for

drug law violations were for marijuana, with nearly 740,000 for

possession alone. Public leaders from all over the world and across

the political spectrum are starting to call for a robust debate on

whether legalizing marijuana would reduce drug-related crime and

provide other benefits. On May 6th of this year, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated publicly that the discussion

over whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use in

California would benefit from a large-scale study to show the possible impact of such a change. The El Paso, TX, City Council

passed a resolution earlier this year urging Congress to consider

some form of decriminalization or legalization as a way to undercut

organized crime.

As the Nation’s leading drug policymaker, the ONDCP has an obligation to begin to study this issue. A good place to start is commissioning the National Academy of Sciences to examine available

research and provide an objective overview of the risks and benefits

associated with marijuana policies and marijuana use.

Third, as the new administration has now recognized, the drug

problem in the United States is a public health crisis, and drug policy should reflect a desire to reduce harms associated with drug

use. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 36 percent of AIDS cases in the United States can be traced

back to intravenous drug use. The ONDCP cannot afford to ignore

the strong scientific consensus that needle exchange programs are

effective at reducing the transmission of HIV without leading to

more drug abuse.

I’m going to submit the rest of this statement of mine for the

record and now go to the ranking member, Mr. Jordan, so you can

get your statement in, and then we’ll come back after the vote.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

Mr. JORDAN. I’m going to thank the chairman, too, for the way

he runs this committee and the way he keeps our side of the aisle

informed. He does things in an honorable and professional way.

And thank our witnesses for being here today and the other witnesses as well. And, frankly, Mr. Kerlikowske, thank you for your

background, your service in law enforcement. We appreciate that

as well.

The new administration has signaled significant shifting of our

Nation’s drug policy. Rather than changing the laws on the books,

in my view we need robust interdiction, diligent prevention, strong

law enforcement and effective treatment.

I’m troubled by Attorney General Holder’s announcement that

the Federal Government will no longer raid medical marijuana facilities in California. Marijuana is the drug most readily available

to our youth. Reports indicate that almost any adult who enters a

medical marijuana facility and complains of a headache can leave

with marijuana and turn around and distribute that drug to any

willing takers, including young people. Eighteen-year-old high

school students can get a prescription for marijuana and have them

filled at the dispensaries. It is my hope that the administration listens to the science, follows the law and uses common sense in enforcing regulations of these facilities.

It also concerns me to read articles like the one in the Wall

Street Journal where newly confirmed Director Kerlikowske, our

witness, called for an end to the war on drugs, the, ‘‘war on drugs.’’

In communities across our district, I have seen the devastating effects that drugs like heroin and methamphetamines had on families and the crime that always results from this kind of drug use

and drug abuse. Without proper enforcement and strengthening of

existing laws, these tragedies will continue to occur. To suggest

that the Government should turn its back on this issue is a failure

to recognize the gravity of the situation or the right course of action.

I’m also troubled by President Obama’s stance on needle exchange that he articulated during the campaign. It is no less concerning to hear the new ONDCP Director voice his support for needle exchange programs, and I look forward to hearing you talk

about that, and I’ll be asking questions about that, Director. However, I’ve noticed that in the budget advance last week, there were

no funds for needle exchange. I look forward to hearing again, as

I said, Director Kerlikowske explain the administration’s plan for

such a program.

While no doubt well intentioned, needle exchange programs do

nothing but perpetuate deadly lifestyles and encourage further

drug abuse. According to the Drug Free America Foundation, needle exchange program users are given clean needles, but are not required to turn in the dirty needles. The personnel of these centers

refer users to rehabilitative treatment. Studies of needle exchange

programs in Vancouver, British Columbia, did show—did not show,

excuse me, did not show reductions in rates of HIV, hepatitis C and

other infections, serious infections like MRSA. In fact, the opposite

occurred; rates of infection actually rose.

To conclude, the, ‘‘war on drugs’’ will not succeed unless we seek

to destroy the drugs where they grow, stop the drugs at the border,

9

and arrest those who deal and distribute drugs. We commend all

of our law enforcement officers at the Drug Enforcement Agency,

the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard. They play a vital role in

these efforts.

On the prevention and treatment front, we need to encourage

families, churches, schools and communities to educate our citizens

about the dangers of drug use.

Director, I hope you will have the courage to pull the plug on

programs that are not giving the taxpayers a return on their investment.

I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses on efforts we can

take to stop drug abuse, prevent drug crime and make sure that

the families and communities have the tools they need to stay drug

free. And I want to thank you again for your willingness to serve

both in your past profession and this new responsibility, and your

willingness to be with us here this afternoon.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:]

10

11

12

Mr. JORDAN. And I guess we’re going to go vote; is that right, Mr.

Chairman?

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Jordan. The committee

is going to recess for the vote.

I’ve been informed by staff that we have three votes. My best

guess is that we’ll be back here in about a half hour. So let’s resume at quarter to 3. Thank you for being here. And at that point

we’ll get into your testimony, Mr. Kerlikowske. Thanks to everyone

here.

[Recess.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Kerlikowske, it’s the policy of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee to swear in witnesses, so

if you would please rise.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the record reflect that the gentleman answered in the affirmative.

All witnesses will have 5 minutes to make their statement. Your

entire statement will be included in the record. So if you just want

to give us highlights or whatever, that would be fine. And we are

grateful for your presence here. You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF GIL KERLIKOWSKE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With only 8 days

on the job, I think the highlights——

Mr. KUCINICH. Is that mic on, staff?

Hold on.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. With only 8 days on the job, I think highlights will be about all I could provide at this point. But, Chairman

Kucinich, Ranking Member Jordan, distinguished members of the

subcommittee, thank you for providing me an opportunity to appear before you today. And I believe very strongly in the benefits

of collaboration and transparency and accountability. As chief of

police for 9 years in Seattle, I enlisted that, the support of the entire community, to reduce crime. This approach in Seattle led to

the lowest drug use and the serious crime rates in decline since

1967.

I plan to employ a similar approach in my leadership of ONDCP,

and I’ll be guided by these principles in the development, articulation and implementation of an effective, comprehensive and coordinated national drug control strategy, but I will certainly need help.

And I will rely upon Congress to provide its perspectives as we develop these policies.

Thousands of Americans lose their lives each year because of illicit drug use. I am deeply troubled by the recent sharp increases

in drug-related deaths. In the latest year for which drug data are

available, 2006, overdose deaths surpassed gunshot wounds, and

they now rank second only to motor vehicle accidents as a cause

of accidental death in our country.

Reducing fatal drug overdoses, particularly deaths involving controlled prescription drugs, is an urgent challenge. We know that

the abuse and addiction are in the background of many other negative social consequences. There is no single approach. Prevention,

treatment, enforcement and interdiction must all be priorities, and

13

they are not mutually exclusive. This administration’s approach to

drug control will be comprehensive, and it will be evidence-based.

Now, there’s a perennial argument in this town over the drug

control budget, and I think fresh thinking is required. That’s why

in my first week on the job I hosted meetings with experts in the

prevention field representing both government and nongovernmental organizations to look at a fresh perspective on the United

States’ approach to prevention. These meetings will continue and

will result in concrete proposals supported by data.

I’m proud of the work of ONDCP’s media campaign, and I know

that the Drug-Free Communities program is an excellent investment, but it’s time also to unearth the next great set of ideas in

the field of prevention.

The fiscal year 2010 budget summary that was delivered to you

last week is focused on four major policy areas: substance abuse

prevention, substance abuse treatment, domestic law enforcement

and interdiction, and international counterdrug support, and it lays

the foundation from which we will build. I have provided you greater detail about this budget in both my written testimony and also

in the fiscal year 2010 budget summary that our staff shared with

you last week. I’m sure we’ll discuss this budget momentarily in

great detail.

I’m also sure that we’ll discuss the National Academy of Public

Administration Report that was recently released. I found the report to be thoughtful and productive for the most part. In my written testimony I provided details on the steps we are taking to address most of the recommendations in the report. But with respect

to the recommendation concerning the office’s budget oversight responsibilities, I have concerns. The use of such a process would be

a detriment—would be detrimental to reducing the Nation’s drug

control efforts.

In my view, Congress envisioned the Director of the National

Drug Control Policy as a strong advocate for drug control funding.

By the nature of this role, I am tasked with taking a proactive view

toward drug control policy. Without ONDCP’s current budget authorities, my ability to influence the outcome of critical resourcing

decisions would be limited. I came to Washington, Mr. Chairman,

to be the champion of intelligent and far-reaching drug policies. Adherence to this recommendation would handcuff me and those who

succeed me.

In 9 months we’ll deliver the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy and the supporting fiscal year 2011 budget, which focus on the

nature and the scope of the problems, as well as the policies and

programs which will have the most meaningful impact. During my

tenure we will focus on developing systems to monitor the progress

we are making in our drug control efforts. We will be transparent

about our progress; we will let evidence guide our policies. Importantly, we will be alert to new and emerging drug threats and provide leadership to address them as they arise.

I also believe that if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it;

therefore, we must establish in short order 2- and 5-year performance measures and targets for each strategy goal, reducing drug

use, availability and consequences. The performance management

14

system currently in place begins to assess the effectiveness of interagency efforts, but it is not comprehensive or systemic.

ONDCP will assist in building a more fair and equitable criminal

justice system by improving and increasing services for offenders

with substance abuse disorders, including diversion programs such

as drug court treatment services within correctional facilities and

reentry programs. I will also work to improve collaboration between State and local law enforcement and Federal agencies. This

will improve our ability to reduce trafficking in illicit drugs. State

and local law enforcement have knowledge which needs to be communicated to local agencies to support their efforts. Task forces

such as those supported by HIDTA——

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time is expired, but what we’ll

do is permit you time to wrap it up.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Likewise, Federal agencies can do a better

job. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate this opportunity to come here early in my tenure, and I look forward to

working with all of the members of the subcommittee as we move

forward. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerlikowske follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to begin with the questions. Mr.

Kerlikowske, can you elaborate on your comments to the Wall

Street Journal that we should move away from the term ‘‘war on

drugs’’ and discuss how you might prefer to describe efforts by law

enforcement and others to prevent illicit drug use?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Chairman, the words matter. When we

talk about a war, we talk about wars on people. War limits the

tools that we have. Most people look at war as being a war using

the only tool is force. Someone once told me when the only tool in

the toolbox is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail.

I want to look at a more balanced approach. I know that my colleagues around the country, after my nomination was made by

President Obama, have called me saying that they want to change

the conversation. Not that enforcement and interdiction and

source-country eradication are not important, but we need a more

balanced, a more comprehensive, a more holistic approach.

Mr. KUCINICH. Now, numerous articles on your nomination as

drug czar pointed out that in 2003, Seattle voters approved a measure making marijuana possession cases the lowest law enforcement

priority. You opposed the measure at the time, yet said marijuana

possession was already a low priority for Seattle Police. According

to news reports, you abided by the prioritization law that Seattle

voters approved.

Did the initiative have any impact on violent crime or overall

public safety one way or the other, or did it make a difference? And

the second part of the question, do you agree with Governor

Schwarzenegger that it’s time for an evidence-based study to examine available research and provide an objective overview of the

risks and benefits associated with marijuana policies?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. In answer to the first question, Mr. Chairman, the initiative had no impact on the criminal justice——

Mr. KUCINICH. Could you put that mic a little bit closer?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The initiative had no impact on the operations of the police department, nor on the operations of the criminal justice system. Personal possession of small amounts of marijuana by an adult in any large city police department, in fact, in

most law enforcement agencies that I know of, is not a high priority. We figure out with finite resources, still wearing my police

chief hat after 36 years, how to utilize officers and detectives in the

best way possible to reduce violent crime, and we have priorities.

So the initiative had no impact.

I do not agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that it is time for

a discussion on legalization. I do agree that approaching this problem from a public health, a sociological standpoint; a prevention, a

treatment and an enforcement standpoint in a more balanced way

does make sense.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, if you talk about legalization, according to

your own testimony here, in Seattle you had a de facto decriminalization by making it the lowest priority.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. No. We made arrests for marijuana. People

were arrested. Actually several hundred people were arrested.

What we’re talking about here is how do you use finite resources,

prosecutorial or police officers, in order to have the most effect on

keeping people safe and protecting their property. Adults who posVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:30 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65545.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
31

sess a small amount of marijuana who are not trafficking or dealing is not a high priority for those finite resources.

Mr. KUCINICH. But what about the Obama administration’s decision with respect to DEA enforcement at medical marijuana clinics

in places such as California?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The point I would tell you that I have not had

an opportunity to sit down with the Attorney General Eric Holder.

I have only read in some press report——

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, what’s your position?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. What was said on the Drug Enforcement Administration enforcing those laws? The DEA also, I know, has finite

resources. They go after the largest traffickers and the most violent

traffickers. I do not think that the medical marijuana industry fits

right now in that standpoint. It doesn’t mean that they don’t violate the law.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. I’m going to go to questions from Mr. Jordan.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, Mr. Kerlikowske, thank you for being here today and for

your willingness to serve and the years of service you’ve given the

various communities as a law enforcement officer.

I want to go to that same article that the chairman referenced,

the Wall Street Journal article from last week. And I’m going to

start with what they reported. And I understand that when you’re

reading from a news account, you don’t always get the truth, so

you’ll get a chance to elaborate. But the Executive Director of the

FOP, James Pasco, the largest law enforcement labor organization

in the country, said that while he holds you in high regard, he said,

police officers are wary of some of the things that have been attributed to you and to the new administration in this whole context of

more focus on treatment, less focus on putting people who violate

the law, the consequences of doing that and going after them, and

he’s quoted as saying, while I don’t necessarily disagree with Gil’s

focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don’t want to see it at

the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that

when they violate the law, there are consequences.

The article also points out that this administration, it says, is

likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than

criminal justice alone. Again, elaborate, and elaborate in the context of this, in light of what’s going on on the Mexico border, what

we’re seeing, the violence there associated with drugs; elaborate on

this kind of change in concept, or change in philosophy at least,

that is articulated here and based on your answer to the chairman’s kind of same line of questioning.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Jordan, I go back and I would say that

it’s not an either/or proposition. And I couldn’t agree more with Jim

Pasco and the statement he made on behalf of the Fraternal Order

of Police. You don’t have to deemphasize or defund law enforcement in order to put further resources into treatment.

Mr. JORDAN. You say that you agree with his statement, but remember, he said police officers are wary of the very thing we just

described in your position. So you can’t agree with his statement

when he says, we’re nervous about this change in philosophy with

a greater focus on, quote, treatment and not on putting the bad

guys behind bars.

32

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Over many years of experience, I would tell

you that every time there was a change in emphasis, law enforcement agencies who receive certain Federal funds would be concerned. There were a number of times in the previous administration that local law enforcement grants, etc., were either zeroed out

or eliminated.

What I would like to say is this is about being balanced, and

about using the best tools, and about leveraging those finite resources together in a smart way.

I would also say in reading the background in the last administration, this issue was also treated as a public health issue as

much as a criminal justice issue.

Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask this when you’re talking about public

health. The President’s stated position on the needle exchange concept, and talk about that, where you are personally on that issue,

and do it in light of—I think if I heard your testimony right, you

said overdose deaths surpass gun deaths, surpass everything except, if I caught it right, traffic—I mean, car accidents. So talk

about where you are on this needle exchange idea.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Those overdose deaths are primarily due to

pharmaceutical—the abuse of pharmaceuticals.

In answer to the question on the needle exchanges, it is seen as

part of an overall public health issue. In the two cities where I’ve

been, two large cities where I’ve been chief of police and we have

had needle exchanges, they were not a law enforcement problem.

And, in fact, the needle exchange in Buffalo actually took calls from

neighbors and would clean up any needles that were disposed of inappropriately in some other place.

Mr. JORDAN. How about the data I cited in my opening statement

about where you see increased infection rates, increased HIV, increased hepatitis where you have needle exchange programs?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Jordan, I’m actually not familiar with the

data from Vancouver, British Columbia, but I would be happy to

examine it in greater detail and respond back to you.

Mr. JORDAN. OK. I got 30 seconds. Let me ask one other thing.

How does your office—this is a practical question. I don’t know,

and short of research, how do you interface with Homeland Security specifically, thinking about what’s going on on the southern

border of our country; how do you at all, if at all, interface with

Homeland Security?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I know that a meeting is being scheduled

very quickly with Secretary Napolitano and myself. I had a chance

to speak with her. She’s looking forward to asking ONDCP to be

a part of this initiative. And frankly, we have that statutory role

and authority to do that, and now that I’m in place, I’ll work with

her.

Mr. JORDAN. But I guess I’m asking, what’s been the history of

the organization you now head interfacing with Homeland Security? Do you know that? Can you give that to me?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I don’t know, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. JORDAN. OK. We’ll research it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Kennedy.

33

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.

Welcome. I appreciate the Wall Street Journal article and what

message you’ve sent at the outset of your tenure as drug czar. And

I just want to take today’s paper, May 19th, we’re in today, my

local newspaper in Rhode Island, as an example of why what you

said is so important.

The front page: Man is Killed, Officer Shot Within 30 Minutes.

More on this case, B4. You go to B4: Shooting Suspect Possessed

Lengthy Criminal Record. Driving while impaired in 1998, attempted breaking and entry. I’m sure that had nothing to do with

him trying to supply himself with drugs. Then in 2002, undergoes

substance abuse counseling, receiving stolen goods. I’m sure that

had nothing to do with his addiction again. 2003, violated and suspended sentence for drugs. 2004, suspended sentence, substance

abuse counseling. 2005, 1-year suspended sentence, substance

abuse counseling, domestic vandalism and assault.

So here’s one. That’s just one story. That’s the front page.

The second front-page story is: Teen Facing Prison Over Boat Fatality. Teenager accused of striking and killing his friend on a boat

in the Barrington River in 2007 took responsibility for his role in

the death yesterday, Monday, in Superior Court. While boating, the

17-year old took responsibility for the death of Patrick Murphy

after a day of boating with other teens on the river July 17, 2007.

He faces over 5 years in prison.

Then you turn to the local Metro section of the Rhode Island:

Plea Deal Likely in Drunk Driving Case. David Hazard faces three

felony counts in connection with April 7th accident, Route 12 situate that killed Foster woman. Killed the mother of six. Page 3:

Hazard has a history of driving violations, including several in 1

year. At the time of this driving violation, he had been drinking

and taking prescription medication.

These are all written up as criminal. Clearly they are people who

all have suffered from severe addictions. Maybe the kid, the teenager, you know, just had too many beers and was being a teenager

out on the water, but even that raises issues of teen drinking. But

67 percent of the people that we arrest in this country at the time

of arrest test positive for one of five drugs.

What are we going to do—you said comprehensive approach—to

bring this further to light in this country? I mean, this is the elephant in the middle of the room. We’re treating everybody who are

committing these crimes as hardened criminals, when probably

two-thirds of them after they’ve committed the crime don’t remember what they did, and we’ve criminalized a public health problem

in this country.

No one says that they don’t have responsibility for their actions,

but can you talk to this issue for us and explain what it is that

you think we can do so that these officers don’t need to get shot,

and these young people don’t need to be killed, and these mothers

don’t need to be killed in drunk-driving accidents because we are

treating this as a health problem and not as a criminal justice

problem? And maybe we could attack this from the front end rather

than through the back end when it’s too late and all the people are

already killed. Maybe you could tell us maybe through the health

system how we could attack this problem.

34

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time is expired, but given the

gravity of your question, and, Mr. Kerlikowske, being head of this

government function, please answer his question as best you can.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I know in talking to my colleagues they’re as frustrated with the system. Treatment on demand. If someone wants treatment, there should be space, there

should be capacity for drug treatment. If they come in for drug

treatment in handcuffs, there should be space for them also. If they

go to jail for their actions, they should get—and they have an addiction, they should get treatment before they come back out on the

street.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, can I?

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time is expired, but did you want

to engage in this?

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, you can cut me off if you want, but

I think the gentleman from Rhode Island made the point. If I got

it right, the first example he cited from today’s paper, the guy had

two counseling intervention sessions, had a lengthy record. It

seems to me if we were focused on the law enforcement side of

things, this guy may not have been on the street and may not have

been able to do the harm he did to the officer. It sort of proves the

point I was trying to make in my questioning. A law enforcement

approach with that particular individual might have saved a police

officer’s life, it looks like to me.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

Let’s go to Mr. Cummings.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. The substance abuse counseling isn’t substance

abuse counseling. Substance abuse counseling is doing evidencebased; am I right, Mr. Czar? And that means following what the

physicians tell us works. Clearly what they’re offering now isn’t

working because it’s not following the evidence of what works and

what doesn’t. First of all, a number of times this fellow was in and

out of——

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. Mr.

Kennedy——

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the number of times this guy was in and out

show that he wasn’t even in long enough to benefit from counseling.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Because of the importance of this exchange, this little interplay,

I think, is beneficial to the committee, and I appreciate the indulgence of other Members because that section took about twice the

amount that we usually would, but this committee has that latitude.

Mr. Cummings, you may proceed.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kerlikowske, it’s good to see you. Welcome to your position.

And I just have a few words.

As I’m sitting here listening to what has been stated, and having

been the ranking member over the drug subcommittee, I would ask

that whatever you do, you try to do what is most effective and effiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:30 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65545.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
35

cient. I’m tired of what has been going on with regard to the drug

czar’s office. Let me explain that to you.

I think the way the drug czar’s office is set up in the administration, I think it makes it very difficult, unless they’ve changed, for

you to do your job—not just you, anybody in that position—because

basically you’re at the mercy of everybody else, as I understand it.

Now, you may have changed. And so I think what happens is that

there are things that you may want to do, but you got to have the

cooperation of the other folk. And what I have found over the years

is it seems as if the drug czar’s office was not a stepchild, but a

distant cousin. And so I’m hoping that this administration—and I

am a big supporter of President Obama, I worked very, very hard

for him, I’m one of those early supporters. This thing of dealing

with drugs is very, very serious. And I think because drugs are

considered in our society as a negative issue, a lot of times it’s sort

of put on—I don’t want to say the back burner, because sometimes

it’s put off the stove.

And so I guess what I’m trying to get to is I hope that you will

look at some of the things that you’ve already talked about. The

media campaign, let’s determine whether that is truly effective and

efficient, because if it’s not, scrap it, let’s go somewhere else and

do something else.

The whole idea of HIDTA, which I think is very important. I

know you are familiar with HIDTA. I think HIDTA is very important. And I think in most instances it is effective and efficient because it gives your State, your local and your Feds a chance to

work together and to learn from each other and, again, effectively

use the limited resources that we he have to address issues.

Another thing we need to look at is the whole issue of effectiveness of treatment. I do believe in my heart that—and we’ve seen

it from testimony coming before this committee—there were a lot

of folks that would open up these mom-and-pop shops to give people so-called treatment, when, in fact, they weren’t being treated

at all. As a matter of fact, they put them in a position where they

lost faith in treatment itself because they were not properly treated. So I hope you will take a look at that.

And this whole thing of measuring, you’re right. If we can’t

measure something, there’s a major problem. And I don’t know exactly what kind of tools you plan to use with regard to measurement, but we’ve got to be able to see where we’re going and see if

we are achieving something.

I agree with regard to the war on drugs. We need to get away

from that word ‘‘war.’’ These are our people. And let me tell you,

I come from the city of Baltimore, and I’m inviting you to come to

Baltimore to tour with some very interesting sights. I can tell you

within five blocks of where I live, I can go and show you an openair drug market where at around 7 a.m., maybe 6:30, you’ve got

hundreds of people literally selling drugs, a city, sadly, where out

of 650,000 people, you got 65,000 addicts. But it’s still a great city.

But the fact is that it becomes much more difficult to govern, much

more difficult to keep it, sustain it, when you’ve got that drain. And

it is a drain, because you’re trying to keep people afloat, and the

money is like just going through a bucket with a hole in it.

36

Now, I’m saying that’s why I keep talking about effectiveness

and efficiency. I know you’ve got limited resources. But, again, I

hope you’ll take all that into consideration.

I see my time is about up, but I just wanted to get those comments over to you.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you.

I spent a lot of time in Baltimore when Tom Frazier was the police commissioner and many of my other colleagues, and have visited. My wife did some research in Baltimore. I understand that

huge heroin-addicted population and the difficulties. I believe that

our staffs are scheduling probably the third visit that I’ll make as

drug czar, as Director of this office, will be to Baltimore, and I look

forward to seeing and hearing more from your perspective.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, just make sure I’m there. I want to make

sure I’m there.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I understand.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Don’t go when I’m somewhere else.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I understand.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the Chair direct a followup question.

Will you go to Baltimore, and will you be there with Mr.

Cummings?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am planning on going to Baltimore, and I

will be with Mr. Cummings.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Thank you.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California Congresswoman Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Kerlikowske, did I get it right?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. WATSON. OK. Thank you.

Does the Obama administration intend to lift the ban on needle

exchange programs, and do you plan on funding these programs in

your budget for the 2011 fiscal year?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I can tell you that after just 8 days on the

job, I have not delved into the needle exchange funding issue. I

know it is not in this current budget, but I can tell you that I plan

on making it one of my priorities to learn a lot more about this

issue. And I will be more than happy to respond back as quickly

as I can to you on that.

Ms. WATSON. We would appreciate it.

And the United States with—I think this is 2 million in prison—

has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, as you know.

And over the past two decades, increasing numbers of Americans

have been in prison for nonviolent acts driven by drug dependency.

Furthermore, although experts have found little statistical difference among racial groups regarding actual drug use, African

Americans account for 37,000—37 percent of those arrested on

drug charges, 59 percent of those convicted and 74 percent of those

sentenced to prison.

So how do you plan to implement a strategy that treats drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a purely criminal justice concern, and what policies do you plan to implement to alleviate the racial disparities associated with drug treatment?

37

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Right now we are in the process of putting together several things. The President’s drug strategy, which will be

delivered in 9 months, is one that we’re formulating. We’re also

adding staff to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including

a Deputy Director who’s been nominated by the President whose

expertise is in treatment and not on the law enforcement side.

Figuring out a way in which we can leverage all of our resources

to treat this as a public health, a social policy problem and a criminal justice problem working together would have great benefit not

only to the prison population and reducing that inordinate—those

costs, but also to improving the safety and security of our neighborhoods and our streets. So I look forward to bringing these staffs on

board, working with Congress, listening to the suggestions from

Congress as we deliver and put together the President’s strategy.

Ms. WATSON. On the day that you were confirmed as Director,

the consolidated national drug control budget for fiscal year 2010

was released. And did you have any input into the formation of

that 2010 budget, and what significant differences do you think

there will be between a 2010 budget and a 2011?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I did not have the opportunity to weigh in at

all, and, until confirmed, took absolutely no actions even though I

was the nominee. I know that in speaking with the President and

in speaking with the Vice President, my position in our office will

have a great deal of input in putting together the strategy for the

next go-around.

Ms. WATSON. It seems that the disparity between powder cocaine

and crack cocaine disadvantages minorities, and we’ve had trouble

in our courts. I mean, we have a large percentage—I’m from California—of our young black males in prison more than are in college, and that statistic cannot continue. So I would hope that as

the Director that you would look into that disparity and look into

how we can support the programs, walk-in programs.

When I was in the Senate and chairing the health committee,

year after year we would introduce bills that would allow storefront

treatment centers that people could walk into. The conservative administration always said it would be too costly. Well, it cost the

lives and the careers of our young people. So I hope you will look

deeply into that as you begin your work.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Please be assured that I will. Thank you.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr.

Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Kerlikowske, for being here today. Can you share

with me what the rationale was behind reducing the amount of

money that went into the High-Intensity Drug-Trafficking Areas

program? Do you have some data or some evidence that contradicts

what we’ve been hearing from law enforcement personnel that, in

fact, it’s useful and helpful?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I’m a strong supporter of HIDTA. I served on

the HIDTA Board in Seattle and believe, as other Members have

stated, that they are useful.

38

I don’t have the particular details of the budget issue. I know

that the law enforcement agencies would always appreciate more

assistance. Meeting with the HIDTA Directors, five of whom I’ll be

talking with tomorrow in Nashville, is something that I will certainly explore further.

Mr. TIERNEY. I know it’s one thing they always want resources,

but I’m sure what they don’t want is a reduction if they can really

put the money to good use. So I would appreciate you examining

that with them and then let us know what your result of that;

whether you think the $14 million reduction was appropriate, or

whether you’ve revisited it after you’ve met with them.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I will.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Do you have a position on the so-called gateway theory, the idea

of focusing resources on marijuana use for young people?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I don’t. I’ve seen—I’ve read a lot of research

and a lot of literature. You cannot deny that people that are using

much stronger drugs than marijuana often started with marijuana.

I think there is a disagreement among the academics and the researchers on whether or not marijuana is, in fact, a gateway.

Mr. TIERNEY. Do you have a position also on NARCAN?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. No, I don’t. I’ve been in office 8 days. I know

36 years of law enforcement. I have a lot to learn.

Mr. TIERNEY. I thought you might have bumped up against it in

Seattle.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I’ve seen the use of the preventives, and I’ve

seen the use of bringing people out of the heroin overdoses by drug

treatments, but these are medical areas that actually I’m being

briefed on almost immediately.

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, there are some people, obviously, who feel

that success actually works counter, because people are going to

start relying on it being there, which I think may be a bit of an

odd way to look at things on that if you can save a life. But I’ll

look forward to talking next time we have you in and see what

you’ve developed for a theory on that. Thank you.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. At the request of a number of members of this

subcommittee, we are going to go to another round of questions of

Mr. Kerlikowske, and then go to the next panel after that.

Now, in your position, will prevention be a big item?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, given that preventing substance abuse is

the most cost-effective method to reduce the cost and consequences

of addiction, could you explain why the President’s budget proposal

to reduce prevention funding by 10.6 percent has occurred? How

does that square with your philosophy?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I would tell you that my ability to influence

or be involved in this budget process was nil. I know that prevention is an important part of the Obama administration. I will be

working very hard on this next presentation and on the President’s

drug strategy, and that prevention will be an important component.

Mr. KUCINICH. So would you recommend that they not cut funds

for prevention?

39

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I actually don’t know enough about the details of the 2010 budget, as much as I have looked at tons of material already in just a few days.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with the proposed elimination of

States’ grants portion of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am.

Mr. KUCINICH. And do you agree that would leave schools that

do not receive a grant from the national program without funding

for even minimal drug and violence prevention in schools?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Chairman, I would answer it this way,

that any of the programs that are not shown to be effective need

to be looked at and either need to be reduced or eliminated, but

I do not have the details of how that was evaluated and how that

was looked at.

Mr. KUCINICH. Given that, as you said many times, 8 days on the

job, I think it would be helpful for this committee to receive from

you information on your position as to how prevention programs

will manage with a reduction and whether or not most local education associations actually use the money that comes from the

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Community Program to leverage other

resources and to develop consortia to pool their resources to provide

optimally effective programs and services.

We need an analysis from you on that. If you, as you said, have

just come into this recently, it would be helpful to understand how

your positions will square with some of the budget realities.

Finally, the ONDCP is statutorily required to set quantifiable

goals for reducing illicit drug use and the consequences of illicit

drug use in the United States, but rarely has done the latter. In

particular, the agency has never set quantifiable goals of reducing

fatal drug overdoses or the spread of HIV/AIDS, even though rates

of both are relatively easy to calculate.

As Director of the ONDCP, you have broad statutory latitude to

set both national goals and performance measures. Will you set

short and long-term objectives for reducing the harms associated

with both drugs and the war on drugs? If so, what performance

measures will you focus on? And, finally, will you consider adding

additional measurement criteria and performance goals related to

drug overdose deaths, HIV transmission rates, and the number of

hard-core addicts?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Chairman, the Metrics and Measures

Project is already under way within ONDCP, using a wide variety

of data to establish the measures and to see how we are doing

against ours goals. It will be very important. It can’t be limited to

just a few small measures, and I agree with that. We will be asking

for a lot of input, and particularly input from the members of the

committee and your staff.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. I yield to Mr. Jordan for 5 minutes.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kerlikowske, the gentlewoman from California I think asked

you earlier about the needle exchange program and you said you

would get back to her. How soon do you think you can have an answer to this committee about your feelings about that proposal and

specifically in light of the President’s comments about that concept?

40

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Jordan, I would tell you that the needle

exchange issue, the medical marijuana issue, and several others

that have been mentioned here, are all high priorities for me. I am

doing my very best to kind of get my arms and head around the

agency right now.

Mr. JORDAN. Three months, 4 months, 6 months? What do you

think?

Mr. Chairman, maybe it would be appropriate, obviously it is the

chairman’s call, to have the Director back at some point. He has

talked about several times 8 days on the job, which I understand.

Mr. KUCINICH. I was thinking the same thing. Let’s have our

staffs work together with Mr. Kerlikowske for a followup meeting

so we can do some benchmarks and measure the progress. So the

answer to that is yes.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could before I forget about it, I

would ask unanimous consent to submit two articles from last

spring. One says Vancouver’s injection site proven ineffective and

cost-prohibitive. The other says the U.N. says safe injection sites

should be closed.

Just for the committee.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

41

42

43

Mr. JORDAN. Thirty-six years you said, Mr. Kerlikowske, you

have been working in the law enforcement field. Tell me just with

that experience, what is it that leads a person down this trail? I

have my theories. Mine deal, frankly, with family life or lack of

family life, particularly a mother and father there to provide some

of the guidance and discipline that parents provide.

But in your 36 years, just give me what is it that pushes a young

person into this terrible, terrible lifestyle?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. You know, when I was pretty young in this

business, I think I had all the answers, and now that I am almost

60, I am not sure I have even the right questions.

I would tell you that I think it is infinitely complex. I think it

begins with parents. I think issues of prenatal care, parent coaching, early childhood programs, Head Start, neighborhoods, communities, religious, faith-based, etc., are all important. I also think

that the medical testimony about addiction as a disease is also of

critical importance.

If I knew the one answer that heads them down that path——

Mr. JORDAN. What is your best guess? You talked about what

you thought you knew when you were young. It reminded me of the

statement, Mark Twain had a great line. When I was 10, my dad

knew everything. When I was 20, he didn’t know much of anything.

Now that I am 30, I am surprised how much he has learned in 10

years. It sort of works that way for all of us, I think.

But if you had to say one thing, would you say it is the lack of

a mom and dad there doing the things that parents do?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I would say family and parent issues, neighborhood and community are of critical importance. Getting parents

off to the right start and getting children off to the right start

would make all of my former colleagues’, police chiefs and sheriffs,

jobs a heck of a lot easier.

Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask you one other thing real quick here. The

Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy you mentioned in

your testimony, your prepared testimony, that this has undergone

an accelerated review and update. Talk to me about that.

Again, this sort of gets back to my first round questioning, when

we talked about what is going on on the border. Talk to me about

that in the remaining minute I have.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I have had an opportunity to look at what

would be the final draft of that policy. I have not had the opportunity to talk with the Vice President and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security about it. But I know that earlier

she had asked that ONDCP be much more heavily involved in this

issue, and I plan on taking that up as quickly as I can.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to for the

record just submit the articles that I was referring to before.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. I would like to also submit a letter

from my own State Department of Health. We have a needle exchange program in Rhode Island that has reduced transmission of

HIV.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. If I could go to the issue of getting

your support for this SBIRT, early screening, brief intervention and

treatment, if we could integrate into our health care system drug

counseling, screening and so forth, and make it as routine as diabetes screening or anything else, it would destigmatize it and it also

help us on the prevention that the chairman said is the cheapest

way for us to tackle these problems.

If you had it with every doctor, no matter what specialty they

had, and you reimbursed them for it, and I mean white coat docs,

so they don’t have to be mental health docs or substance abuse specialty docs, every doc got to be trained in this, can you talk about

how that would be really revolutionary in terms of advancing this

cause in terms of public health? And would you be able to join us

in the effort to write to the medical boards that put together these

tests for medical schools and encourage them to put more questions

on the tests vis-a-vis drug and alcohol training and questions and

mental health so as to encourage medical schools to put their curricula more in line with the patients that their future physicians

are going to see? That is, every patient they are going to see is

going to have to have a cross-section of being a whole person, not

only there for whatever specific malady they might be going to a

specialist for, but they are also going to have a complement of mental health and emotional issues as well, and now their doctors are

going to be also able to be trained to deal with that, just maybe

in a cursory public health way.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I have had two initial briefings on the program. I am a supporter of the program. The analogy would be as

we educated and informed physicians to ask patients, particularly

their female patients, about domestic violence and inform them and

educate them about domestic violence, that it can help to reduce

that. Having the physicians also do the screening and the discussion with their patients, regardless of what they come in to see

that physician for, about addiction and substance abuse, would be

a great step forward, and I am supportive of that.

Mr. KENNEDY. As my colleague Mr. Cummings mentioned, there

are all kinds of folks out there hanging their shingle saying they

are drug treatment folks, and as my other colleague Mr. Jordan

said, you know, some of these treatment things just don’t work.

Here is evidence that this guy was in umpteen different treatment

things and he never got well.

Are you for making sure we have some national standards on

putting in place maybe JCAHO or NCQA standards for treatment

facilities, just like we have for every other health facility, so that

we can implement what works in the treatment world?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I am not prepared to talk

about whether or not I would support particular standards. I would

tell you that the treatment issues are very important to me, people

looking at treatment as not just a 12-step program or a 30-day inpatient program as being a measure of success. There are a lot of

54

people that take medications for high blood pressure for their entire lives, they take statins for cholesterol, and looking at treatment perhaps in a different way than just in and out and cured is

probably not the best viewpoint.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I would just say that airline pilots and doctors have 96 percent success rates in drug treatment. Well, they

have to. Obviously, they are flying our planes and operating on us.

Let’s get what works and appropriate it to everybody.

Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you

very much.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me ask you this: You know, we authorized ONDCP back in

2006 when I was the ranking member. Tell me, we are going to

hopefully do it in 2010, what are your recommendations for topics

we should be addressing? Are you familiar enough to answer that?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I would tell you that in looking at the reauthorization I was surprised at the level of detail and complexity,

and I think it reflected disappointment with Congress’ view of how

ONDCP was operating. I would hope that in the intervening time

that we would develop a relationship and trust about what works

and how we can come together and that during the reauthorization

process that we be given the tools at ONDCP to be more effective

than we have been in the past.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just recently, about a month ago, as a matter of

fact, a group of us traveled to Panama, Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico. And it is so interesting in Mexico the top law enforcement officials were telling us, and you have heard the stats, I think he said

80 or 90 percent of the guns, and being in law enforcement, a law

enforcement person, I am sure you can sympathize and empathize,

were coming out of the United States, and these were the same

guns that were being used to fight the police and the military with

regard to drugs.

And I am just trying to figure out how—the President is in a

very tough position. You have a country who basically says, we

want our guns. You have the NRA with their position. But at the

same time you got Mexico which is saying, United States, you are

largely responsible for our problems. One, you are consuming the

drugs; and, two, your guns are coming down to us. So we have a

double whammy here.

I mean, how do you make your voice heard under those circumstances, considering all the political ramifications? This is very

real.

What they said to us is they believe, I am talking about the highups. I am not talking about folks—I am talking about the top people. They told us that this Mexican situation, drug problem, is already spilling over into the United States and it is going to get

worse.

Then we went to Colombia. President Uribe, who we met with,

literally begged us to make sure when we came back to the United

States that we did everything in our power to make sure that there

was maximum cooperation between the United States and Colombia with regard to drugs. That was very personal to me, because

55

90 percent of the drugs that come to Baltimore come out of Colombia. So I am trying to figure out how you are going to make your

voice heard.

You were selected for a reason. I don’t know all the background,

but I am sure there were some interviews and you had to say this

is my plan, this is what I hope to do. And everything I have heard

about you is you are a no-nonsense person, you are very serious

about what you do. But I am trying to figure out how do you see

your way in addressing issues like that? Because this is a serious

business. And as the President of Colombia said, you know, it

would be good to be able to stop it here because no matter—I

mean, when it gets at your shores, it has done and will continue

to do a lot of damage.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. You know, at this point in my career I didn’t

want to come to Washington without being able to make a difference, Congressman. I can tell you that all of my association with

all of my colleagues across the country, they want to be a part of

this.

I was very heartened by the immediate steps Secretary

Napolitano took to reduce guns flowing into Mexico and also bulk

cash-flowing into Mexico. I have had several briefings just within

the last week on Mexico, and I know that with our Southwest Border Strategy about to be delivered, that those issues have been

added and will be addressed.

I have never been a shrinking violet on a lot of these tough

issues, and I don’t plan on changing my stature in this administration.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California.

Ms. WATSON. I remember going down to Cuba and we met with

Fidel Castro about 4 or 5 years ago, and he said that you know,

if you could relax the restrictions, he says we are 90 miles of your

coast, and we see the boats coming through here and going up to

the upper 48, and he said if we could do interdiction together we

could stop that traffic.

I am just wondering, do you see a time, and I would hope under

your leadership because we need it, a drug czar, that we join with

the Cubans in interdicting this drug trade?

Of course, we have a big problem, because that is where the

money is. We are having problems in California over our border.

Tijuana, right over the border to Los Angeles. Of course, they are

having more in Texas and New Mexico.

But do you see a future where we can join with Cuba in interdicting and we can—I guess we have to go back to the President,

because I see the problem really at the top. Our President Barack

Obama was there a few weeks back and met with the President.

But we have to join, both countries and some of the island nations,

if we are going to stop the flow.

But the need is so great for drugs here, and I think a lot of the

advertising that we see on television and we hear on radio contributes to that. ‘‘Take something to feel better.’’ Well, when that something wears off, you still feel the way you did, or even worse than

before.

56

What do you see for the future? What would you lay out as a

plan to join with other countries and have a united effort to stop

the flow?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Having spent some of my career in Florida,

I was certainly familiar with the steps that were taken. One of the

next trips I will be taking will be to Key West to meet with the

joint task force that works that entire Caribbean-South AmericaCentral America, the entire region. So I am looking forward to

learning a lot about that.

I can tell you that it is probably premature for me to actually

even engage in a thought right now about the relationship with

Cuba when it comes to drug interdiction, but I can tell you that

shortly after I visit with the commanders in Key West and spend

more time with the State Department officials, I will know an

awful lot more about that issue.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. CUMMINGS [presiding]. Thank you very much. Again, we

want to thank you for your service. We look forward to working

with you. The challenges are indeed great and you have a major,

major job. I have often said our children are the living messages

we send to a future we will never see. The question becomes, will

we send them to a future?

So we know that you are up to the task. We look forward to

working with you closely because we again want you to be most effective and efficient. Thank you again.

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you all very much.

Mr. CUMMINGS. We will call now the second panel. Gail Christopher, the Chair of the National Academy of Public Administration Panel on the Office of National Drug Control Policy; John

Carnevale, internationally recognized expert in the field of drug

policy, President of Carnevale Associates, LLC; Professor Peter

Reuter, Professor in the School of Public Policy and the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland; and Bobby

Charles, the Charles Group, LLC, the President of that organization, after serving from 2003 to 2005 as Assistant Secretary of

State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement.

I am sorry, you all have to stand up again. I have to swear you

in. This is one of the few committees where you have to do this.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Christopher. It is Ms. Christopher? Doctor,

I am sorry. I always try to make sure I give people their due. Those

degrees are hard to come by. For me it was, let’s say it like that.

57

STATEMENTS OF GAIL C. CHRISTOPHER, PH.D., CHAIR, PANEL

ON THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY:

BUILDING THE CAPACITY TO ADDRESS THE NATION’S DRUG

PROBLEMS, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; JOHN CARNEVALE, PH.D., PRESIDENT OF CARNEVALE

ASSOCIATES, LLC; PETER REUTER, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF

PUBLIC POLICY AND DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; AND ROBERT B. CHARLES, PRESIDENT, THE CHARLES GROUP, LLC

STATEMENT OF GAIL C. CHRISTOPHER, PH.D.

Ms. CHRISTOPHER. Thank you, Chairman Cummings, Ranking

Member Jordan, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.

Thank you for inviting me here today. I am honored to appear before you to discuss the National Academy of Public Administration’s 2008 study and report entitled ‘‘Building the Capacity to Address the Nation’s Drug Problems.’’

It was my pleasure to chair the Academy’s ONDCP panel of six

members with diverse backgrounds in fields such as public health,

social policy, law enforcement, public management, budget and policy analysis.

The purpose of the congressionally mandated study was to provide insights into changes and improvements that could make

ONDCP more effective in the future. Underlying all of its recommendations is the panel’s firm belief that ONDCP’s adoption of

a comprehensive approach to multiyear strategic planning informed

by the best available data will help the organization to accomplish

its mission. The panel’s recommendations embody principles, tools,

and processes that will maximize ONDCP’s effectiveness under any

administration and any director.

The ONDCP challenge is to compile a comprehensive strategy

that overlays the strategic plans of the numerous diverse agencies

and ties the many pieces together in a common, national program,

without conflicting with the individual agency’s strategic plans and

budgets.

Let me begin by acknowledging the very encouraging way in

which the new ONDCP Director Kerlikowske, with the support of

Acting Director Ed Jurith, has adopted a very energetic agenda to

resolve many of the issues that the panel reported and that my

written testimony describes.

His endorsement of a comprehensive, multiyear National Drug

Control Strategy, the creation of a policy budget steering group, reestablishment of the Drug Demand Reduction Interagency Working

Group, commitment to reaching out to stakeholders, and the variety of efforts he has undertaken to reinvigorate the ONDCP work

force should have a dramatic and positive impact on ONDCP’s mission and its success.

I will summarize the following selected recommendations which

relate to the issues this subcommittee has identified for this hearing and would ask that the complete report be entered into the

record.

ONDCP should develop a comprehensive, multiyear National

Drug Control Strategy that is informed by high quality and diverse

data that covers all age groups, illicit drugs and regions of the NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:30 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65545.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
58

tion. ONDCP should bring to bear the full range of the Nation’s

drug control expertise and build an internal culture that values

critical inquiry, open debate and pragmatic decisionmaking.

ONDCP should develop a comprehensive national drug budget

summary informed by that multiyear strategy which incorporates

total estimated Federal expenditures for all supply reduction, demand reduction and other Federal drug control activities, as well

as State, local, and tribal affairs activities related to drug control.

Further, Congress should modify ONDCP’s oversight responsibilities relative to individual agency drug budgets so as to tie its review more closely to the annual OMB budget review process.

ONDCP should no longer require drug control agencies to provide performance reports that merely duplicate the GPRA and

PART data that is gathered for OMB. The panel believes that

ONDCP’s energies are better spent assisting agencies in improving

the performance measures that they use to generate the data so

that the measures align with the overall drug control strategy. In

addition, ONDCP should continue working on measures that assess

the aggregate performance of drug control agencies in addressing

the goals of the national strategy.

ONDCP should work to create a more collaborative and consultative environment in order to increase its effectiveness in its relationships with Congress, the National Drug Control Program agencies and stakeholders throughout the Nation, and we believe that

process has already begun with the new administration.

ONDCP should comply with statutory requirements, provide information to Congress in a more timely manner, increase the ability of the drug control agencies to have meaningful input into the

substance of the strategy, use working coordinating committees to

expand its outreach capabilities, and institute a regular feedback

mechanism with National Drug Control Program agencies and

stakeholders.

As ONDCP celebrates its 20th year of existence, the panel believes the organization has the opportunity to enhance its effectiveness and its credibility, increase transparency, streamline its organization, simplify its work processes, bolster its work force management, and improve and leverage critical relationships. Seizing this

opportunity can translate into increased organizational capacity to

address the Nation’s drug challenges with positive implication for

the Nation’s public health and certainly for the Nation’s future.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any related questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Christopher follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Dr. Carnevale.

STATEMENT OF JOHN CARNEVALE, PH.D.

Mr. CARNEVALE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present

my views on ONDCP’s past performance, key actions, and recommendations to restore the integrity of that office, and the fiscal

year 2010 National Drug Control Budget. I have a formal statement which I request be submitted for the record.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So ordered.

Mr. CARNEVALE. The committee asked me to discuss ONDCP’s

failures and its loss of status that occurred during the previous administration that could very well affect ONDCP’s future effectiveness. I will highlight just a few of the findings I have in my written

statement.

The first one is that ONDCP did not properly align the policy

with the Federal drug control budget to implement it. In fact, policy and budget were exactly at odds with one another. The strategy

essentially had one demand reduction goal, which was to reduce

drug use among youth and adults, but had a budget that emphasized supply reduction.

Second, there was no accounting for the performance of that

strategy. ONDCP ignored the congressionally mandated requirement for a systems approach to strategic planning, which includes

performance accountability that looks at the effectiveness of policy.

It instead relied on OMB’s PART process that is program-oriented

rather than policy-oriented.

No. 3, ONDCP jettisoned the statutorily required consultation

process. Had it consulted and collaborated with external stakeholders, perhaps it would not have completely missed the meth and

prescription drug epidemics.

Four, ONDCP failed to recognizing the softening of youth attitudes about the dangers of drug use that began in 2005. This new

trend signals the very real possibility that youth drug use will now

increase. Cutting prevention funding by 10 percent during the prior

administration’s tenure was wrong.

Five, ONDCP jettisoned much of the drug budget. Even though

Congress required a comprehensive accounting of Federal drug control resources, billions of dollars in Federal drug control spending

were ignored. This made it impossible for all of us to be smarter

about drug policy decisionmaking.

So looking forward, what do we do to improve ONDCP’s effectiveness? I have three recommendations, Mr. Chairman.

No. 1, ONDCP must meet its statutory obligation to take a systems approach to design the National Drug Control Policy. This

systems approach is described in great detail in my written statement and is very much a part of the statutory authorization of

ONDCP.

No. 2, ONDCP must heavily invest in demand reduction; in other

words, prevention and treatment. This means preparing immediately for the possible resurgence in youth drug use and tackling

addiction. More demand reduction will also eventually mean less

70

crime and violence for nations like Mexico as we reduce our longterm demand.

Three, with regard to the National Academy of Public Administration’s recommendations, they did an outstanding job and they

have a lot of great recommendations that I strongly support. However, there are two that I believe must be completely ignored,

apologies to Dr. Christopher, please.

First, the Congress and administration should not implement the

recommendation to essentially turn the budget process over to

OMB. I worked in OMB in the 1980’s and I remember what that

process was like when we were in charge of the budget and there

was no drug czar. We just witnessed in the fiscal 2010 budget what

can go wrong when OMB is in charge of the National Drug Control

Budget. We now have a policy-budget mismatch. Prevention is

being cut at a time when it is most needed.

Second, the Congress and the administration should not accept

NAPA’s recommendation to also turn performance accountability

over to OMB. NAPA’s recommendation shows that it failed to recognize the critical difference between policy—excuse me, between

program versus policy or strategy performance evaluation. ONDCP

must rebuild a state-of-the-art performance accountability system

along the lines of what it had in place in the late 1990’s.

I want to conclude by briefly talking about the new administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget request. It is my view that the new

administration has gotten off on the wrong foot. I am disappointed

by the proposed drug budget.

For example, the fiscal year 2010 drug budget continues cuts in

prevention, particularly school-based prevention, and adds very little money for substance abuse treatment. This decision, presumably by the Office of Management and Budget, strengthens my

point that the NAPA recommendation to essentially turn the budget decisions over to OMB is wrong. Again, let’s not put OMB in

charge of the drug budget.

This concludes my comments. Thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you today. I am happy to answer any questions you

may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnevale follows:]

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Reuter.

STATEMENT OF PETER REUTER

Mr. REUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon. I ask that my full statement, written

with Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University, be entered

into the record.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I can’t hear you. I am sorry.

Mr. REUTER. I ask that my full statement, written with Jonathan

Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University, be entered into the record.

Is this not coming through?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I can’t hear him.

Mr. REUTER. Can I start over again?

Mr. KUCINICH. Just keep your voice up. It is not clear.

Mr. REUTER. Thanks.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I ask that

my full statement, written with Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie

Mellon University, be entered into the record.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well.

Mr. REUTER. Professor Caulkins and I address three issues in

our testimony. First, we point to the importance of distinguishing

among broad classes of drugs in making policy decisions. Much confusion results from treating all illegal drugs as a single policy target. For example, diverted pharmaceuticals present very different

problems and policy opportunities than do cocaine and heroin.

In my oral testimony, though, I will focus mostly on our second

issue, which is incarceration related to cocaine and heroin. I will

just briefly discuss foreign policy issues.

The United States now has probably half a million individuals

under lock and key for drug offenses on any given day, including

the substantial numbers who are in local jails for drug charges. To

put that in context, that is about 22 percent of the total prison population. It is more than the countries of the European Union with

their 400 million citizens are able to put away for all criminal offenses. Even more to the point, it is 10 times as many as were imprisoned at the end of Ronald Reagan’s administration when the

drug problem was probably at its peak.

What has been the return for all this incarceration? The mechanism that links drug incarceration to drug use is price and availability. Tougher enforcement should make cocaine and heroin more

expensive and less available. As is well-known, the purity adjusted

price of cocaine and heroin have fallen steadily since 1981 when

systematic measurement began.

According to a recent analysis done for ONDCP, the decline for

cocaine continued even through 2007 even as the Mexican market

descended into chaos. The availability measures based on population surveys have shown only modest declines for cocaine over

that same period.

There probably has been a reduction in the number of regular

users of cocaine and heroin over the last 20 years. However, that

is more plausibly related simply to the working out of epidemics,

cycles of fashion and culture, as indicated by the rapid aging of the

cocaine and heroin dependent populations, though incarceration

97

certainly has had some modest effect on the numbers. Indicative of

the aging, the share of those treated for heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine dependence who are over 40 rose from just 13 percent in 1992 to 31 percent in 2004.

What if the Nation moved to a prosecution and sentencing regime that over the next few years reduced the number of drug prisoners to a mere quarter million? We believe that there is good

analysis and argument that such a change would have minimal effect on drug price and availability. It would, however, save society

substantial money and with appropriate alternative sanctions

would also reduce the harshness with which the governments treat

poor minority communities.

Any case for cutting drug imprisonment should not pretend that

prisons are bulging with first-time nonviolent drug offenders. Most

were involved in distributing drugs. Few got into prison on their

first conviction. They had to work their way in. The system mostly

locks up people who have caused a good deal of harm to society.

Most will, when released, revert to drug use and crime. They do

not tug the heartstrings as innocent victims of a repressive state.

Nonetheless, locking them up should be the last resort, not an

automated response.

Let me turn briefly to foreign policy issues. Two countries supply

the United States with almost all its imported drugs, Colombia and

Mexico. Afghanistan is the third country that matters not because

its heroin reaches these shores in great quantities, but because the

heroin industry helps keep the Taliban funded and also by financing warlords weakens essential government.

Again, the historical record and analysis both strongly suggests

that there is little that can be accomplished to reduce the flow of

drugs to the United States with interventions in other countries.

Eradication and interdiction can affect how coca and opium are

grown and the routes by which cocaine and heroin are trafficked.

But the process of moving the industry around the world is quite

damaging. What you produce for a transient country is likely to be

hurt more than the original country benefits from a shift in the

business. At a more micro-level, spreading coca growing to more

parts of the Andes through intensive eradication efforts causes substantial harm to the ecology of the region. It is hard not to act

against production and trafficking that hurts the United States,

but we present arguments that such policies may cause more harm

than good.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reuter follows:]

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Charles, good to see you again.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. CHARLES

Mr. CHARLES. Sir, it is always a pleasure to be in front of you.

My thoughts today are elementary. I have a few simple if strongly held views to share. I find myself, by the way, in strong agreement with most of what Dr. Christopher and Dr. Carnevale had to

say. My views are neither Republican or Democrat. They are what

I would like to think of as common sense. They emerge from two

decades of work in demand and supply, advising Federal, State,

and local law enforcement, as well as State and national prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement groups. They are

distilled from a range of experiences, spending time as a circuit

clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals, in jails, schoolhouses, treatment

facilities, and places as diverse and regularly there as Colombia,

Bolivia, Peru, Mexico on one hand, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos on the

other. I have even had the good fortune on hunkering down in

Baghdad and Kabul to talk about counternarcotics. And the sad

task also of helping parents who have lost kids to drugs re-find

their life’s purpose.

Professionally my views, as you know, sir, better than most, are

molded by 5 years up here on the Hill. During that time I ran the

Bipartisan Drug Policy Working Group co-chaired by Congressmen

Zeliff and Rangel, Speaker Hastert’s Drug-Free America Task

Force, the subcommittee that you were the ranking member for

that elevated and vetted drug related demand and supply reduction

legislation, including the 1997 Drug Czar Reauthorization Act.

Finally, between 2003 and 2005, I was Colin Powell’s Assistant

Secretary handling narcotics issues in 70 countries, which brings

me here today as nothing more than a commentator.

My short thoughts are these five.

No. 1, to cast the Nation’s counternarcotics efforts over the past

two decades as a waste of time, as misguided, as a failure, is simply wrong. We have collectively succeeded in many ways. For periods of several years at a time during both Republican and Democratic administrations we have managed to change attitudes and

behavior patterns. The data is all there.

We have managed during these high attention times to educate

young Americans well, to pull more addicted Americans back from

the abyss, to reduce emergency room admissions for various illegal

drugs, to reduce certain categories of violent and property crime

tied to drug use, and concretely return the rule of law and stability

to formerly drug-ravaged countries, and we can detail those if you

want.

No. 2, what we have not been able to do in any permanent way

yet is to erase the recurring need for education, treatment, and deterrence born of keeping narcotics at the front and center as a law

enforcement and national security issue, community, family and

personal responsibility issue. We have not found a way yet to sustain national will and attention around a topic that few like to discuss, either in their own lives, the lives of their families, or even

schools and communities, never mind the Nation.

119

We have yet to erase the reality and the enormous heartbreak

of drug abuse and addiction, drug-related accidents, drug-related

suicides, the tragedy of sudden death by drugged driving, which is

quite common. Falling educational performance tied to drug dependence. Drug-related abuse of women and children. By the way,

both the Clinton and Bush Justice Departments put 80 percent of

overall abuse; that is to say, domestic abuse, at the feet of substance abuse. Much of it is poly drug use.

We haven’t been able to get away from the drug-related violence

in our towns, cities, and at the Southwest border. And, yes, drugfunded terror groups, which now number more than 25, increasingly encroach on U.S. interests around the world and do include

Hezbollah, Hamas, the PKK, mutations of the KLA, the FARC,

AUC, Taliban, HIG, IMU, and a growing number of terrorist cells

in this hemisphere. We do not even need to utter the word ‘‘Afghanistan.’’ Portions of some of these groups are amply financed by

our own drug abuse right here in the United States.

So despite successes, we face a challenge as meaningful and compelling as any that the Nation has wrestled with in decades.

No. 3, America needs to focus on both sides of drug abuse and

drug crime, adequately and sustainably supporting both the health

and law enforcement sides of our personal, family, community,

State and Federal anti-drug efforts. To minimize the role of either

law enforcement, often dubbed the supply side, since the aim is to

deter drug production and trafficking, or the health-related requirements, including prevention and treatment costs, the so-called demand side, would in my view be a sudden turn for the worse. Moreover, to minimize either deterrence and what it takes to deter

drug-related crime or health and prevention would be reckless.

No. 4, drug legalization is a non-starter, period. I have two studies that I urge be put in the record, one of which is a robust economic study on that topic. One of my graduate degrees is in economics. The economics of drug abuse, written large and small, are

against anything like legalization.

To gain new perspective, just ask Sweden or the non-addicted

people in any country where drug availability has risen. More

drugs means more addiction, higher health care costs, lower educational performance, more property and personal crimes committed on drugs, which are six times as likely as crimes committed to

get drugs, more domestic abuse, and a degradation in a variety of

related health indicators, from inhibitions against unprotected sex

to shared drug needles.

What is more, the nature of addictive commodities and sliding

price elasticity of demand for drugs means that any legislation widening availability and use will accelerate emotional and physical

damage to the very youth we hope in so many other ways to protect. To that, add the persistence of a drug black market, both empirically and because addiction means there will always be a black

market until the day when drugs like heroin are given away 100

percent pure in any quantity that somebody wants.

In short, the case is a slam dunk against drug decriminalization

or legalization or harm reduction, and the irresponsibility of discussing it as a real option is tantamount to discussing some other

way in which we might legally conspire to victimize and deceive

120

our Nation’s young people so as to pay our way, which actually it

would not, out of State or Federal debt. No, there is no saving

grace to promoting drug abuse. Full stop.

Five. Hope springs eternal for ways to save and protect young

lives, to improve everything from education to deterrence. This

Congress and this drug czar and President have a chance, a real

chance, to show real leadership in the drug war, which has been

lacking. Whether you prefer to talk about anti-violence and pro-law

enforcement end of the spectrum or the pro-health care end of the

spectrum, the spectrum, like any criminal issue with health consequences, from rape and maiming to assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, is a continuous, unbroken, integrally related circle. Trying to fix the health consequences residing on one

side of the circle without deterring the behavior and the means

that create the opportunity and promote the opportunity and promote the other side, the ill health consequences on the other side,

is to miss the point.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Charles, can you wrap up?

Mr. CHARLES. I will.

We must minimize the level of inattention that has been given

to this, maximize the attention, and remember that in a nonpartisan way, quite frankly, we are due for some real leadership on

this issue.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Charles follows:]

121

122

123

124

125

126

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank all of you for your testimony.

Dr. Christopher, tell me, in its report NAPA cited a lack of expertise in the work force at ONDCP saying that they needed more to

be able to accomplish their mission. What types of skill sets and

expertise are needed most to make the organization effective and

efficient?

Ms. CHRISTOPHER. Thank you for the question. Since the first

priority for ONDCP is to understand the scope and nature of the

drug problem, it first must have competent statisticians who are

equipped to utilize the wealth of survey data that is available to

gain a better understanding of the many facets of the drug problem, and certainly the idea of a new deputy that brings a medical

and preventive background speaks to the skill deficit in a very effective and creative way.

The office also requires competent economists who are able to

conduct in-depth analysis of the global drug market. Understanding markets generally is one thing, but understanding a complex

global illicit market with limited market indicators is another more

difficult assignment.

Much data is collected about the illicit drug market demand, but

less is known about market supply. This is an area where ONDCP

can truly provide value-added as a coordinator of the National

Drug Control Program.

The academy report also focused in on the need for more diversity of the agency’s staff, given the disproportionate impact of these

issues in diverse minority communities.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Dr. Carnevale, one of the things that I am concerned about is the whole drug court situation. I think drug courts

are very effective. It seems to me the President’s budget calls for

$59 million of new problem-solving—it says ‘‘problem-solving court

initiatives.’’ Apparently what that means is there are discretionary

funds, and then drug courts have to compete for those funds. Are

you familiar with that? Are any of you familiar with that?

Mr. CARNEVALE. I am familiar with the program, yes.

Ms. CHRISTOPHER. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. That concerns me. I think drug courts, as I said

before, have been very effective. They put a carrot and stick approach. In Baltimore we have found them to probably—this is basically talking to judges, and judges have no reason to exaggerate.

But they claim that it is one of the best tools that they have. I am

just wondering what you all’s opinion of, you know, putting money

out there so that these drug courts that already are scraping for

money, trying to find money wherever they can.

As a matter of fact, one of our drugs courts in Baltimore basically

has had to go to some private foundations and whatever trying to

put together the pieces for something that has been very effective.

I am just wondering what you all’s opinion on that might be?

Mr. CHARLES. Let me say, Mr. Congressman, I am 100 percent

for it. I will just tell you, as you know probably as well as anyone,

over the last 8 years the Byrne/JAG grant money was dramatically

cut from its high of $1.3 billion at the end of the Clinton years, and

it is a travesty that we have lost that emphasis. Some of the money

actually goes to that purpose, just as it is vital to restore the Safe

and Drug-Free Schools money.

127

Mr. REUTER. If I could just add, one of the problems with the

drug courts is that the eligibility criteria for defendants are so

strict that in fact it doesn’t make a large difference in the great

body of criminal justice decisionmaking. In fact, if you are an experienced heroin addict, you almost certainly are not eligible for a

drug court, simply because you will have accumulated a criminal

history that doesn’t allow you in there. The advances in drug courts

will come from changing the eligibility criteria, which is not actually I think on the agenda.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I can tell you, in Baltimore they would disagree with you, Mr. Reuter, because, again, I trust my judges, and

they have begged for drug court money. They said they would almost rather have drug court money than almost anything else, because they see that it works.

You have an opinion on that, Dr. Christopher?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I do. The drug court process, we at the Kellogg Foundation, which is another hat that I wear, are actually

funding drug courts in Michigan because we find them to be extremely effective, particularly when you talk about the impact on

child welfare and family dissolution. So many of the cases that

come into the system where children are being removed has, of

course, to do with various forms of substance abuse. So being able

to use this type of approach has proven to be extremely effective.

Mr. CARNEVALE. Mr. Cummings, if I may comment on that as

well, the drug court program I think has been very effective in targeting a certain population and needs to be expanded. It hasn’t

really seen much growth in the past 8 years. And I think we are

all pleased to see the budget request that came in.

One element of the drug court program that I think is very important that is often overlooked is the Drug Court Institute that is

currently in place. It is only funded I think at around $1 million,

but it puts information on best practices that is disseminated to all

drug courts nationwide. And as we expand the number of drug

courts, I think it is also very important that Congress help this institute grow with it so it can help all these drug courts be more

effective and get a little bit more mileage for the money that they

are getting.

Mr. KUCINICH [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Jordan.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could first of all ask

unanimous consent that two attachments be included. One is a

Harvard Journal, a legislative article entitled, ‘‘Back to the Future:

The Collapse of National Drug Control Policy. A Blueprint for Revitalizing the Nation’s Narcotics Efforts.’’ And the other is a second

study done by Mr. Charles entitled, ‘‘Economic Thinking on Addiction and Legalization.’’

[The information referred to follows:]

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me go right to you, Mr. Charles, because actually I have to

run here in about 3 minutes.

Your No. 4 point, you were really strong on talking about why

we should not have any decriminalization of drug use. You said

more drugs means more addiction. It makes sense to me. Just

elaborate on that point if you would, and then I have one other

question.

Mr. CHARLES. The nutshell version is you can talk to Herb Clever up at the Columbia University Substance Abuse Center. The research is pretty clear. When you have more availability and more

use, you get a percentage increase in addiction. Over years, that

becomes an increasing problem, because you get more and more

sick people.

Mr. JORDAN. Right. Give me your comments then on the needle

exchange program.

Mr. CHARLES. Needle exchange programs, on which there is a lot

of divided research, basically don’t do what they are credited for

doing. The reason for that is the word ‘‘exchange’’ actually is a bit

of a fiction. It is really a needle giveaway program. Because addicts, and you can talk to the addicts themselves, tend to get themselves in a position where they want the drug. So heroin happens

to be a very addictive drug. Other intravenous drugs are usually

high potency. The result is that they don’t go back and exchange

the needles. So there is more and more needles out there. Never

mind the moral message that you are sending, which is somehow

drug abuse by injection is OK.

Mr. JORDAN. Give me again, Mr. Charles, your background. You

worked for both R&D, Republicans and Democrats, you worked for

both here?

Mr. CHARLES. I have worked for Mr. Cummings quite a lot over

the years, as people know. My background is I have a graduate degree in both economics and law. I litigated. I worked in the Reagan

and Bush White Houses. I then became a litigator, worked writing

a bunch of these things, and then taught at Harvard for a short

period of time, became a Staff Director for Speaker Hastert, ran

the drug task forces, and then later wrote a book on narcotics, and

worked for Colin Powell.

Mr. JORDAN. One of the other points you made in your testimony,

and just for the remaining few minutes I have here, the link between terrorists and drug use, I think you named off every terrorist

group I have ever heard of, I believe.

Mr. CHARLES. Actually, there are ones I didn’t name.

Mr. JORDAN. The ones I have heard of at least. Talk about that

link and the impact of interdiction efforts in dealing with that linkup between drug use and terrorist activity.

Mr. CHARLES. There is another elephant in the room, and that

other elephant in the room is the very tight relationship that exists

worldwide. And in the United States talk with some of the HIDTAs

about ongoing investigations into Hezbollah in the United States.

Talk to the HIDTAs. They will tell you.

There is a very clear link between drug funding and the growth

of terrorist organizations of all kinds and criminal, larger international criminal organizations. The terrorist organizations, believe

257

it or not, that we worry most about, and I won’t detail them, although Hezbollah happens to be the largest terrorist organization

in the world, they are increasingly dependent on drug revenue. And

what you find is, and this is your job as a Congressman, not mine,

is that there is a great stovepiping which creates the elephant in

the room, and nobody wants to talk about the drug-terror nexus.

The great stovepiping is that DEA, God bless them for everything they do, deals with just drugs, and CIA and others in the intelligence community tend to focus their resources on CT. In fact

they have bled dry the CNC component of CIA in order to do CT

work. Nobody wants to talk about the other part of this. And the

reality is that in the quiet of the night, while we do not have proof

beyond a reasonable doubt that every organization is getting the

majority of its funding from drugs, we have more probable than

not, and if we wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we’ll be

looking down the barrel of another 9/11.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Charles, one of the reasons, if you were here

for the earlier testimony with the Director, I asked him about how

he interfaces with Homeland Security in trying to address this very

pint.

Mr. CHARLES. Point-blank, there was a statutory provision which

was put in by Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings that allows him to

interface directly with DHS through the CNE office. It has essentially been an unutilized office. And what you have now is some

hope, and I will tell you why. In addition to—and you are hearing

this from a Republican.

I am not only hopeful because they have put back a lot of the

money on law enforcement, they have put back a lot of the money

for critical things you need, but you have Rand Beers, who is an

all-time drug warrior, a guy that ran INL, a $2 billion bureau that

I ran for Powell, he ran it before me, and that person, Rand Beers,

I think is now the No. 2 or No. 3 at DHS. He cares.

Mr. JORDAN. But this ability, this is so important and I am hoping the chairman here is going to look into this more as well, this

ability for this office that we are talking about today, Mr.

Kerlikowske’s office, to interface with Homeland Security, that is

critical.

Mr. CHARLES. It is critical, because there is no doubt in my mind

nor in the mind of any serious law enforcement officer in this country that looks at CT-CN issues, that is counterterrorism-counternarcotics, that the link is intimate.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I hope that is something we

can really delve into in the future because of the importance for national security.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Charles, given your position in 2003 to 2005 as Assistant

Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, do you have any theory as to how it is that during

the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, the production of opium shot up

80 to 90 percent? Do you have any theory about that?

Mr. CHARLES. I have more than a theory. I have the facts.

Mr. KUCINICH. How did that happen?

Mr. CHARLES. There were a number of people, like me, Rich

Armitage and Colin Powell, who argued very strongly that counterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:30 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65545.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
258

narcotics should be a piece of the mission, that ultimately the better part of the funding for the Taliban and even remnants of al

Qaeda and IMU and HIG that were active in Afghanistan and surrounding areas, that the better part of the fuel was all drug money.

The basic argument was that if you want to stop a combustion

engine, you don’t keep poking your fingers into it and trying to

catch individual terrorists, which is what we were doing. You do

that in combination with cutting off the fuel for the engine. And

what we did not do, what we never implemented because we were

not allowed to fully implement it, was a counternarcotics strategy.

I wrote 13 different counternarcotics strategies at the behest of

the NSC. Every single one of them got a nice read, and that was

where it ended.

Mr. KUCINICH. You are talking about specifically with respect to

Afghanistan?

Mr. CHARLES. I am talking about specifically with respect to Afghanistan.

Mr. KUCINICH. This subcommittee would be happy to read those

reports.

Mr. CHARLES. Well, I will tell you, the better part of that strategy still sits on the table over at State.

Mr. KUCINICH. I think the American people, who are sending

their sons and daughters to Afghanistan, and we have lost quite a

few men and women there, and we have seen the Taliban in resurgence for quite a while, and you have testified that these organizations are being fueled with drug money, and we have seen there

has been an 80–90 percent increase in opium production, and then,

of course, we are talking about an increase in heroin sales. If there

is that link there, that is something we ought to explore, especially

since you said that a critical part of the strategy was left out.

Now, Mr. Reuter, do you have any comment on that at all?

Mr. REUTER. Yes. I mean, if in fact there were——

Mr. KUCINICH. Is your mic on, sir? If not—if it is——

Mr. REUTER. It is on.

Mr. KUCINICH. Pull it closer so we can hear you.

Mr. REUTER. OK. Sorry.

If there were in fact a strategy that could reduce opium production without imperiling the Karzai government, then indeed this

government should undertake that. No such strategy has been proposed.

Mr. CHARLES. I beg to differ.

Mr. KUCINICH. Hold on, Mr. Charles. I will ask the questions and

you will direct your comments to the Chair.

Are you saying then that the Karzai government is actually

being supported by the increased opium production?

Mr. REUTER. The effort to eradicate crops in the field is an action

against peasant farmers in Afghanistan. They are politically important simply because they are large in number, not because they are

particularly well organized.

The reason that the military, not just of the United States but

the military of other countries present in the coalition forces as

well, have been resistant to implementing any of these programs

is precisely the perception, and I think a perfectly plausible one,

that this would in fact endanger the central government that we

259

have helped form. And it is that tension which is at the heart of

the fight between the State Department and Defense Department.

Mr. Charles has a view about that, and others disagree with it,

but that is the tension, and there isn’t any way that I think sitting

out here we can resolve it. But it is clear that if we push—let me

just say one more thing.

One of the things we can do is push production out of areas

which we control into areas the Taliban controls, and that I think,

if anything, worsens the problem inasmuch as it increases the

funding base of the Taliban.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am going to go to you in a minute, Mr. Charles.

I just want you to respond to this question, Mr. Reuter.

How do you explain that with the U.S. military having such a

large presence in Afghanistan, that during the same period of time

we see such a rapid increase in opium production? How does that

happen?

Mr. REUTER. OK, let me make two comments about that. First

is about the rapid increase. Essentially after 2002, the levels of

production returned to where they had been before the Taliban had

imposed a ban in the year 2001. So until 2005, it was just back to

where it was before. I think the estimates for 2006 and 2007, which

show very large increases, are quite implausible. There is no evidence in terms of the decline in price in Afghanistan or increased

availability in the rest of the world that there has been a very

large increase. So I am quite skeptical of those figures.

Nonetheless, your question is probably reasonable even without

those increases. It is clear that the crop is grown openly through

much of the country. It gets moved around. There have been times

in which provinces have been cleaned up and it moved elsewhere.

That is indeed what our policies can do. We can move it around.

But we do not have the control on the ground to be able to accomplish it.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Reuter.

Mr. Charles.

Mr. CHARLES. With all due deference, the numbers were in the

tens of thousands prior to the Taliban locking it down in 2001.

They went to 30,000 in 2002, 61,000 in 2003, 214,000 in 2004, and

more than that in 2005. Yes, they are higher now in 2006 and

2007. Your numbers are exactly right. They supply more than 90

percent of the world market.

And are they accurate? Well, both the commercial and closed satellite photography seem to suggest they’re highly accurate, No. 1.

No. 2, there is a strategy. The strategy is a combined strategy. It

is a strategy that has worked in other countries around the world

for 30 years, and it involves putting alternative development hand

in glove with eradication that is effective.

And Mr. Cummings’ point about effectiveness is so valuable. Getting at it one by one, region by region. And by the way, the crop

does not move around dramatically. To a large extent the north of

Afghanistan has never been a big poppy growing area except for

parts of Badakhstan. But in the provinces that are most heavily

populated now by the Taliban drugs are the primary driver of income for that group. And the saddest part about this is this is an

utterly winnable effort. If we would sit down, look again at the

260

strategies that were put forward by Colin Powell, by Rich

Armitage, by me in a prior administration that were essentially

sidelined because they were too—here is the real bottom line. And

I’m really going step on some toes here. When the field commander

who happens to now be the Ambassador was in charge over there

they took the view, they took the view that this was highly inconvenient, that essentially handling——

Mr. KUCINICH. What was highly inconvenient?

Mr. CHARLES. Addressing the drug issue was highly inconvenient. You could put it down there in a social category like hepatitis

and deal with it later. The problem is anybody who knows counternarcotics, anybody at this table, most of the people in this room,

know that it is an enormous accelerant of instability when it’s allowed to go just roughshod over society. And so what transpired

was every military commander—I spent 10 years in the military,

every military commander has a 2-year tour, give or take, and they

know that it can auger in after they leave. So it was too hard a

problem to address at that time, and at the end of the day we are

now paying for inactivity, we are now paying the price for not having tackled it at the front end.

And I testified in front of this committee 5 years ago saying identical things to what I’m saying now, and I got my knuckles

wrapped when I went back. But the bottom line is I always told

the truth, and I’m telling you the truth now. It’s winnable, but

we’re not doing it.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to say to Mr. Charles and Mr. Reuter that

this paradox of increased U.S. presence in Afghanistan and sharply

increasing production of opium and therefore heroin, where Afghanistan, according to figures by our own government, is achieving a larger and larger market share worldwide, there’s something

wrong with that story. And what we need to do——

Mr. CHARLES. Can I tell you what it is, sir?

Mr. KUCINICH. No. What we are going to need to do is to talk

to the full committee, talk to Mr. Towns about looking at this again

and get some resources in so we can have a more penetrating analysis. As I’ve been following this Iraq war, to me it’s been, or the

Afghanistan war, it’s been mystifying how we could see such a

sharp increase.

Mr. CHARLES. Sir, at the end of the day——

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Charles. You just explained one

possibility, and I appreciate the mitigating circumstances that Mr.

Reuter brings up.

I’m going to move on to another part of the question here to Ms.

Christopher. The NAPA report suggests that it is critically important that ONDCP be a data driven organization seen by other drug

control agencies as an honest broker of drug use trends and other

data reflecting successes and failures of drug control policy. For example, NAPA is critical of ONDCP’s focus on marijuana as a gateway drug, associating early marijuana use with addiction to other

drugs later in life since there is data showing that there are other

gateway drugs that are more associated with leading young people

to greater drug use than marijuana. If a drug prevention policy

would be based on science, should we be focusing more on teen use

261

of alcohol and tobacco, and how can ONDCP present data in a

more neutral and legitimate manner?

Ms. CHRISTOPHER. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.

The NAPA report does emphasize the importance of a more collaborative and outreached, focused strategy, and we believe that the

current Director has made proactive steps in addressing that particular issue. And certainly the limited focus on marijuana does negate or not pay enough attention to the role of alcohol, and tobacco

for that matter, in leading young people to more extensive use of

other drugs.

So we definitely encourage a broader scientific and evidence base

to inform the overall policy, and we encourage a comprehensive

strategy that looks at all of the issues that are before the committee today.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. Carnevale, can you explain your proposal for a modified

budget certification process and how you think the budget should

be structured to ensure that Congress and the public are aware of

all drug policy spending?

Mr. CARNEVALE. Yes. This is one area, Mr. Chairman, I think

that’s very critical. Budget certification is a tool that the Office of

National Drug Control Policy has to help it shape budgets that the

Federal—its Federal agency partners put together during the year

before OMB sees it. Certification was reviewed by the General Accounting Office back in 1999, and they looked at a decade’s worth

of effort with respect to the certification process and found that the

tool was highly effective even though we had only, in quotes, decertified about 10 agencies over the entire 10-year period. If certification is used correctly, then what you do is put peer pressure, in

a sense real pressure because you’re speaking from the White

House, on your partner agencies to in fact do what the President

wants, which is to support the President’s National Drug Control

Strategy.

So in terms of the process, there’s two things I would like to suggest. One is under current law certification the tool itself has been

badly damaged I think. Every time ONDCP certifies a budget it

now has to report to Congress. And so what that results in is a fear

to use the tool itself because Congress can disagree with ONDCP

as it’s trying to manage the budget process.

But setting that aside, I think in terms of improving the process

there’s been a dramatic change, as the NAPA report correctly finds,

in how we account for drug control spending. ONDCP under the

previous administration threw out about 30 agencies, I don’t have

the exact number, out of the drug budget, and so these agencies

are no longer being reviewed for purposes of certification. I think

one of the recommendations that I have is that we bring these

agencies back into the comprehensive accounting that NAPA talked

about in its report. That’s No. 2.

But with certification, I have sort of a lengthy explanation in my

testimony, but I can now envision a two-tier process where a handful of agencies get certified. And these agencies would be the ones

that have a very active role in making policy work. For example,

thinking about treatment, thinking about prevention, prosecution,

investigations, these are areas where you can put resources in and

262

have an immediate effect. When you start thinking about the Bureau of Prisons, which houses—well over 50 percent of its incarcerated population is in there for drug-related reasons, we no longer

score them or treat their budgets as drug related. But in a policy

sense I would argue that part of that makes sense. In a second tier

you wouldn’t decertify or certify that budget because the Bureau of

Prisons can’t actively through policy decide 1 day it’s going to increase its prison population to 80 percent drug related. And so

we’ve proposed a two-tier approach to the certification process in

our testimony, or in my testimony.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. Now, your testimony states that while

drug use among youth has been on a general decline since 1996,

data shows softening attitudes related to disapproval of drug use

which could result in the beginning of an upward trend. You also

cite an uptick in the 8th and 12th grade use of illicit drugs from

2007 to 2008.

Given this data and the general decline of resources allocated to

prevention in the last 8 years, isn’t the proposal to eliminate the

States’ grants portion of the safe and drug free schools and communities program shortsighted? Are you concerned that if drug use

rates rise without this program there will be no safety net in place

to deal with, and shouldn’t we be putting more, not less resources

into prevention programs.

Mr. CARNEVALE. My answer to the shortsighted part of the question is yes, I think it is shortsighted. I’m very concerned. I looked

at the Department of Education—excuse me—the Office of Management and Budget’s recommendation clearly, and there’s a Department of Education report about the program, and it doesn’t say the

program doesn’t work, the States’ grant portion, the State portion

of the program. But what it does say is that the program has been

badly mismanaged, and it has been for the past decade. And I’m

greatly concerned that OMB in this case is using that information

to cut a program simply because it’s been mismanaged. I would

rather see I think at this point, given what we’re seeing with attitudes changing, and these attitudes have to do with the softening

of attitudes with respect to the disapproval rates around drug

abuse, the dangers of drug abuse, we’re seeing upticks now that

aren’t statistically significant. But we saw this happen back in

1990, 1991 and 1992, when suddenly youth drug use exploded and

all the tell-tales were there.

I’m really concerned that this program be saved. If the issue is

one of mismanagement, which I think is a strong tradition at the

Department of Education, but it has been one that cut across many

administrations, then I think it’s time that we take the funding for

this program and have it transferred to ONDCP and let them decide which agencies can best use that funding.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, sir. Mr. Reuter, did you have a comment on that?

Mr. REUTER. I’m co-author of the report that was cited as a basis

for cutting the program. That was a report done in 2001 and perhaps things have changed. But at the time I would say it’s not mismanagement so much as it’s just a poorly structured program. It’s

essentially a formula grant program which imposes very few obligations on the recipient schools, and that’s built into the structure

263

of it, and I don’t think any better management is going to change

that aspect of it.

You would have to make a very fundamental change in the law.

And putting it in the hands of ONDCP would make it an utterly

different program. But in the form that it is now, where it’s essentially a formula grant, there is nothing here that suggests that this

is an effective way of funding effective prevention programs. You

can rewrite the law, but there’s not a management issue.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me ask you this. You conducted a RAND

study in 2001 and concluded that the States’ grants portion of the

SDFSC program was profoundly flawed. Have you conducted any

additional studies on the program since the passage of H.R. 1,

which sought to legislatively correct some of the problems with the

State grants portion of the SDFSC program? And your report, as

you know, was cited in the 2010 budget as justification for eliminating the program. Is it applicable to the State grants portion of

the SDFSC program as it’s currently legislated?

Mr. REUTER. I have not followed this study further, so I cannot

answer that question. If there have been made fundamental

changes——

Mr. KUCINICH. That what?

Mr. REUTER. If fundamental changes have been made I simply

don’t know about them. So I can’t answer your question.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, we would like to hear from you about those

fundamental changes, which of course would change your level of

analysis. So just to say there’s fundamental changes begs a lot

more questions. The committee is going to send you a note that

would give you a chance to elaborate on that.

I want to thank all of you for being here. Is anyone on the staff

here from the Office of National Drug Policy? Good. I’m glad that

you’re here so you can take notes back and discuss some of the testimony.

And so I want to thank Director Kerlikowske and his staff for

being present, as well as the other witnesses who are here. We

want to continue to engage you and your expertise on these matters as we move to craft a sensible national drug policy.

This is the Domestic Policy Subcommittee. I’m Dennis Kucinich

of Ohio, Chairman. We are the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Today’s hearing has concerned the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the fiscal year 2010 National Drug

Control Budget and the policy priorities of the national drug control policy under the new administration. Our committee will maintain—subcommittee will maintain an ongoing jurisdiction in this

matter, and we appreciate all of you participating and we’ll be talking again.

Thank you very much. This meeting stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

Æ