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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–015 PDF 2003

H.R. 2086, THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2086

TO REAUTHORIZE THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

MAY 22, 2003

Serial No. 108–27

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS BELL, Texas

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

PETER SIRH, Staff Director

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Deputy Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHILIP M. SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 22, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Text of H.R. 2086 ..................................................................................................... 5

Statement of:

Walters, John P., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy ............. 47

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

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 103

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 3

Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 72

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 68

Walters, John P., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy:

Information concerning Federal seizures ................................................ 65

Information concerning minority subcontractors .................................... 98

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

(1)

H.R. 2086, THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT

OF 2003

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:28 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of Virginia

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Mica, Souder,

Ose, Lewis of Kentucky, Mrs. Davis of Virginia, Platts, Putnam,

Schrock, Deal, Miller, Murphy, Turner, Carter, Blackburn, Waxman, Owens, Towns, Sanders, Maloney, Cummings, Kucinich,

Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, Sanchez,

Ruppersberger, Norton, and Bell.

Staff present: Scott Kopple, deputy director of communications;

Edward Kidd, professional staff member; Teresa Austin, chief

clerk; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy clerk; Susie Schulte, legislative

assistant; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Brien,

Beattie, staff assistant; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel;

Michelle Ash and Tony Haywood, minority counsels; Denise Wilson, minority professional staff member; Earley Green, minority

chief clerk; and Jean Gosa and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant

clerks.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee will come to order. I apologize for the delay, this is the latest I’ve ever started a meeting.

Mr. Waxman and subcommittee Chairman Souder are in the

back, will be reviewing this, trying to negotiate some items for

markup we hope we can hold today. But we’re just a little bit apart

on some issues and we’re trying to work it out.

So I will ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be in

the record to move this along.

Let me just say that Chairman Souder has held a series of hearings at the subcommittee level evaluating every component and

program carried out by ONDCP to ensure that when we authorize

this, we get it right. I want to thank him for his leadership on

these issues, also his ranking member, Elijah Cummings. My stateVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Aug 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\88015.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

ment is much lengthier, it will go in the record. But because we’ve

kept Director Walters waiting here, I will conclude my formal remarks at this point and see if there are other Members who wish

to make opening statements.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis and the text of

H.R. 2086 follow:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. TOWNS. What’s the rush, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We’ll hear testimony that they are eager

to get this reauthorized. We’ve had a time line people have agreed

to. And unlike maybe some legislation we worked before, this was

the original time line with hearings and everything to move this

through. But you know, if we can’t work issues out, we don’t have

to do it, if that’s the issue. But I don’t think we’re rushing this. I

think we started hearings on this, this committee has had two trips

to Colombia we’ve invited members to go through. So I don’t think

it’s a rush. But I think we’re on schedule.

Mr. TOWNS. But reclaiming my time, if it’s not due to be reauthorized until September, I don’t understand why we have to have

a hearing and a markup today.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, we’ve had hearings at the subcommittee level and the subcommittee has marked it up. And

again, we don’t have to, but our original line was to try to get this

marked up in committee to go to the floor after Memorial Day recess. One of the difficulties comes in the conference. Once we mark

it up here, to get September, June and July we’ll have June and

July to move it through to the floor and move it through a Senate

conference and bring it back to the floor. If we miss that, then the

law doesn’t get extended in September.

So to meet those goals, that’s our intention. That’s not to say if

we had to, we couldn’t do it later. But this was the time line. The

subcommittees have spent some extensive time on this, and they

are again negotiating out some final wording with Mr. Waxman

and Mr. Cummings right now, with Chairman Souder. But that’s

why the delay. If we wait and mark this up in June, which would

be the alternative, by then we have to move it to the floor a week

later, it’s that much altered before we can sit down with the Senate, whenever their time schedule is a similar schedule, and then

bring it back. Hopefully the conference can conclude by the end of

July. If it doesn’t, then we go past the authorization period.

That’s it. I mean, again, if we don’t work this language out toady,

we’ll kick it over. Our schedule tried, at least the House to do its

part, so we can have this thing ready for conference at the earliest

possible date.

Mr. TOWNS. I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. Any other Members wish to make a

statement? Mr. Mica, you’ve been very active on this.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to hearing Mr. Walters’ comments today and also to the markup. It is important that we move forward on this legislation that will reauthorize our national drug control policy through 2008. I do have some

concerns and I know that they’re being addressed, hopefully at this

moment, about providing flexibility to the drug czar.

The program started off as far as media campaign with some

bumps in the road, and there were some missteps. I think if each

of us wanted to design a program, we might design it a little bit

differently. I think Mr. Walters has done an incredible job in rightsizing this program which is so important to our youth and parents

and others. So I would like to see him have the flexibility necessary, and I hope we can negotiate that as we move forward with

47

this. And it does take a while to get this through, but it is important.

There are other provisions in here that are so important to

HIDTA and proper operation of HIDTA. We’ve spent some money,

because of political pressures and others, where maybe we

shouldn’t. The drug czar needs authority to make certain that

these funds are properly expended and in communities that need

that assistance. There are a whole host of issues here, and the drug

czar’s ability to focus on not only prevention and education but

interdiction, the international programs that are so important.

So as former chair of the subcommittee, I’m pleased we’re moving

forward. I hope we can wrap this up. And again finally, I do hope

that we can give him the flexibility to do what needs to be done

during this reauthorization period. I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Do any other Members wish to make statements? Members will

have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements for the record.

I’d like to recognize our witness, John P. Walters, the director of

the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. It’s the

policy of the committee to swear you in before your testimony. Will

you rise with me and raise your right hand?

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. You can go ahead

with your statement. We’d like to keep it to 5 minutes, but frankly,

if you need to go over a couple minutes, you’re our only witness

today. We want to give you ample time. Your total statement is in

the record. And then we’ll go on, I think Members will have a lot

of questions.

So thank you for being with us. Again, I apologize for the delay.

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. WALTERS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Mr. WALTERS. No apology necessary.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your work,

Ranking Member Waxman, subcommittee Chairman Souder, and

the ranking subcommittee member, Mr. Cummings. This is the culmination of a lot of hard work by many of you with whom I’ve met.

Many of you have traveled, individually and with us, looking at

this problem. We’ve benefited from your advice and counsel, as well

as your support for these programs.

I appreciate the speed with which you have pursued this because

we not only have the office, but one of the programs in the office

that’s important that we have now, are lacking full authorization

and are continued as a result of appropriations language. Obviously we’d like to try to have these foundations as stable as possible.

In February of last year, the President announced the ambitious

goals of reducing drug use by 10 percent in 2 years and 25 percent

in 5 years. We had an initial progress report in the 2003 strategy

that was released earlier this year. The good news is we have a decrease in youth drug use. Teen use is headed in the right direction

again, down. Last December, monitoring the future survey found

that use of illicit drugs in the past year decreased by a statistically

significant amount for 2001 to 2002 among 8th and 10th graders.

48

Percentages of 8th and 10th graders using illicit drugs were their

lowest level since 1993 and 1995 respectively.

In addition, we’ve had reports of historic successes in our efforts

to control the supply from key sources outside our country. The latest cultivation figures from Colombia show that coca cultivation,

the source of most of the, if not the vast majority of cocaine coming

into the United States, has declined by a historic 15 percent last

year. Overall, Indian region production of cocaine reduced by 12

percent. That’s over 100 metric tons of cocaine that was not flowing

to the United States and other places.

In addition, last year we now have data showing a reduction in

poppy cultivation for heroin of 40 percent in Mexico and 25 percent

in Colombia. This corresponds with a 6 percent wholesale purity reduction we saw in imports into the United States. We are making

initial, although we need to follow through, significant progress, we

believe, on both supply and demand. We need to expand it to more

areas, and as I say, most important of all, we need to follow

through.

The administration has proposed for fiscal year 2004 a budget of $11.7 billion for drug control programs. It focuses on three areas,

as you asked in your letter of invitation for me to summarize. I’ll

do that briefly and then touch on the points with reauthorization

that I’d like to ask your consideration on and then be happy to take

your questions.

Our strategy is three parts. I’ll begin first and foremost with

stopping drug use before it starts. Everybody that looks at this understands prevention is the best way to avoid the terrible consequences of drug use for too many of our communities. We also

have long research that shows if young people do not start using

dangerous addictive substances in their teenage years, they’re unlikely to go on and use later. Our task is in one sense simple and

commonsensical: don’t expose our children and our young people as

they pass to adulthood to these things and we will change the dimension of this problem for generations to come. The task is to do

what common sense tells us.

We have made an effort to strengthen our prevention programs

in the year, a little more than a year that we’ve been reviewing

with Congress these efforts. We have tried to strengthen the media

campaign, which I’ll touch on in a moment. We have tried to

strengthen what we do with community coalitions to bring these efforts together and we are trying with the Department of Education

to strengthen programs that we provide to individual schools.

Our second priority is to heal America’s drug users. The President has committed a historic $1.6 billion to additional Federal

treatment spending for 5 years. As a part of this in the State of

the Union, with this budget, we have requested an additional $600

million over 3 years for a targeted treatment effort to reach more

people who need and are not getting services, and to improve the

quality of services.

We estimate now that there are roughly 6 million Americans who

have a dependency or abuse problem such that they need treatment from illegal drugs; 23 percent of them are teenagers. We’ve

never had estimates with that high a percentage being that young

part of the population. We need to expand capacity, we need also

49

to more intensively look at the problem as it exists among teenagers in the United States.

In part to do that, we have been working with the Department

of Education with the help of many Members of Congress at expanding knowledge of student drug testing where there have been

problems. The old view was student drug testing was punitive, it

was a way of punishing kids who already had trouble. The law in

practice is radically different today. It’s confidential, it’s a way of

finding kids who have trouble before that trouble gets so bad that

they drop out and are involved in more harm in getting them the

help that they need.

Schools that have done this for this reason and have saved lives.

And for schools that have had deaths, and I’ve been to some of your

districts and we’ve talked about this, have had deaths of kids from

overdose, where parents feel they have to be standing by and

watching victims, we don’t. We have a tool. It’s got to be done and

implemented with the consent and the support of institutions in

the community. But it is a tool that will help save lives. We want

to make that tool more available as one part of what we do to reach

the teenagers who need treatment in this country.

In addition, a third part of our effort has been to reduce the market for drugs. In addition to what we’ve done internationally, we

have worked at bringing law enforcement, Federal, State and local

together in a more systematic and direct effort on the markets that

are the drug trade in America. We have combined for the first time

all Federal, State and local task force information on the major

drug trafficking structures.

We want to do to this what, frankly, legitimate business worries

Government’s going to do to them, to use the regulatory and criminal power of Government to make it increasingly impossible for the

business to operate at its current level. You’ve given us new tools

in connection with terror at our borders, with intelligence sharing,

with moneys to expand the work of law enforcement. We’re trying

to implement those more effectively here.

Let me just touch on a couple of items that are pertinent to the

markup at this point. First of all, I’d like to thank everyone that’s

been involved for both the extensive consideration of the work of

my office and for the measures that have been put into the draft

and the markup from the subcommittee. The vast majority of

what’s in that bill will be helpful to us and we support entirely.

There are a couple of areas where I’d ask for your consideration

as you review and mark up from the full committee. First, the

media campaign. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the campaign

has been the subject of some criticism in the past. Everyone wants

this to work, everybody believes the advertising we use in business,

the advertising we use to inform people in elections, the advertising that we use in other areas of public safety and health needs

to be better used here if we can. The question was, could we get

it right.

We are currently spending nearly three quarters of the media

campaign money on advertising and at my direction, that advertising and the campaign’s activities were changed in a number of

ways to improve the performance of the campaign. First, I had

more direct involvement in the development of the ads and the conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Aug 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\88015.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
50

tent of the ads, with our partners and their execution. Second, I required testing. The ads before were not focus group tested as effectively as I thought they should have been before they went on the

air. As a result, I believe in some cases we had content that was

not very powerful. And we need to have as powerful an ad, I think

we all agree, as we can get. That’s now happening.

We refocused the age group from lower and subteens to midteens, so that we could put on more powerful and appropriate ads

at an age group where we know substance abuse doubles, between

middle school and high school. We cannot forget about young people. We also cannot forget that mid-teens is a very large area of

initiation and expanded use.

Fourth, I asked that the campaign focus on marijuana. Marijuana accounts for over three quarters of illegal drug use. More

young people, teenagers, seek treatment for marijuana dependency

in this country than for all other illegal drugs combined. In the last

2 years, more teenagers have sought treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol dependency nationwide. We have had a

view in too many cases that has under-appreciated the danger and

the role that marijuana plays in the substance abuse problems of

this country. We need to correct that. So we focused additional ads

on the major substance of consumption and dependency among the

illegal drugs.

Today we will release, and we’re making it available to committee staff, a report that is the preliminary findings of attitude tracking study of the media campaign changes since last year. This too

is good news. I’ll summarize some of it just briefly here, and we’ll

provide the full report to the staff. Again, this is a preliminary report that Congress asked because they wanted to see whether the

changes were working.

Not only is youth marijuana use down substantially over the

course of the year, between 2002 and 2003, there’s direct relationship between exposure to anti-drug advertising and the improved

attitudes and drug use behavior. Past year marijuana use among

youth grades 6 through 12 dropped fully 13 percent between 2002

and 2003, according to this preliminary report. Our primary media

campaign targets youths in grades 9 through 11, use dropped 16

percent.

Further, there’s a direct relationship between exposure to the

media campaign, marijuana advertising and positive results. Youth

who reported high exposure to the campaign’s marijuana ads were

significantly less likely than those who reported seeing none of the

ads to report using drugs in the last year. In fact, they were 22

percent less likely.

Similarly, for past month marijuana use, those with high exposure to our ads were a remarkable 38 percent less likely to report

past month marijuana use than those kids who had no exposure.

Youths with high exposure to marijuana TV ads versus those with

no exposure were likely to perceive great risk and a number of negative consequences to marijuana use. Marijuana use is seen as

highly risky, and youths were significantly less likely to want to

hang around those who used marijuana by nearly a 20 percent

change between the 2-years.

51

These numbers are preliminary. We will learn more about the

picture as more data becomes available. But they are very encouraging. It is important to note that in the past, the attitude tracking

survey has tracked very closely with other important surveys, such

as monitoring the future. Taken together, the recent results from

monitoring the future, the annual pride survey of youth, and now

the attitude tracking survey strongly suggests that there is a new

dynamic in our effort against illicit drug use in our schools and

communities. Young people are getting the message and they are

changing their behavior for the better.

We have tried to use the advice of experts who try to change behavior through such marketing and such advertising to tell us

what works more effectively. We have had extensive discussions, of

course, with staff and Members of Congress as is appropriate. We

have tried to reinforce the media messages with a full range of

state-of-the-art support, through Web sites, guides, fact sheets, and

supporting materials so that people who get the message and are

concerned about how to respond can get more detailed messages

and it can be put on immediately in one small spot or advertisement.

We have sought the flexibility and used the flexibility to manage

the campaign to make changes that will improve effectiveness and

to expand the techniques that will help to make the messages more

powerful and more effective. We are looking now at the latter part

of this year, we’re developing with experts an additional flight of

ads, not a substitute for all for what’s going on, that will look at

early intervention for those people who are beginning to have substance dependency problems. This will require some additional information about referral to treatment and support.

We want to use the campaign to help change the attitudes about

drug dependency. In too many cases, this disease is made worse because people look the other way. We want to try to change attitudes, so that people help save more lives early, and they support

recovery and they support treatment and they support getting people who are in recovery back into the mainstream of society. That

is a portion of what we want to do with the future.

Let me turn now briefly to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking

Area program. This program was initially funded at $25 million for

the first five HIDTAs back in President Bush’s father’s administration. I was there when this was originally started. Today there are

28 HIDTAs, and the program now receives $225 million for fiscal

year 2003.

Over the course of its creation, parts of the program have lost

their focus. They have tended to drift from focusing on the targets

of high intensity drug trafficking operations that fan out into larger

areas and drifted to various other priorities, all perhaps worthy but

not a tool that fully and effectively, in our judgment, has done

what it needs to do.

And in the judgment of many in Congress, the results and effectiveness of this program, the results of the review with OMB and

my office, were we had to have better results. If this is going to

be simply a revenue sharing program, as many of you know, while

the 28 sites are valuable, a national revenue sharing program is

more fair. So the goal of this program is to help the whole Nation

52

through the focus on particular points of particular trafficking and

marketing.

We have tried to do that. I’ve met with most of the HIDTAs, the

Federal, State and local officials that are part of their executive

boards, and I have tried to lay down guidelines that will provide

focus, results, evaluation and can show you difference. We have

created a consolidated priority targeting system at the Federal

level that we are working with the HIDTAs to also deploy in appropriate manners. Again, here what we’re trying to do is provide resources for results and results that look at the—integrate into the

national problem.

I appreciate the efforts by the committee and the subcommittee

to try to help us with that focus. We’d like to make sure, though,

that any restraints and constrictions still allow us to in an overall

manner focus on making a difference in the trafficking organizations that operate in key areas around the United States. That has

to be, we believe, the key. There is between this and the OCDETF

programs are the key programs, and we’ve been working with the

Attorney General to get them to focus more directly, because we believe we can make a difference.

In conclusion, let me say that I appreciate all the hard work. I

visited a number of you in your districts. I have met with a number

of you separately. I know that you, in addition to all your other responsibilities, work in your communities to help support these efforts. We are going to try to join with you more aggressively in the

months ahead, as my staff goes into major areas around the country to help bring together those who are working on this problem,

demand and supply program, and local efforts.

I think the evidence now is we are beginning to see a change for

the better. We have done this in the past, we need to continue. The

problem has been follow-through. And I appreciate the hard work

that you’ve done on this reauthorization. I ask only that what you

do in adding or subtracting from the tools we use, give us the ability to continue and follow through.

Thank you for this time, thank you for hearing me at this time.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walters follows:]

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. We’ll have a number of questions for you. Again, Mr. Walters, your entire statement

is in the record.

I thank the Members for bearing with me. Mr. Mica, would you

like to start the questioning?

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walters, you brought us some good news today about decreases in the teen use, and cited specifics. Over the years, we’ve

seen the drug problem as one where we push down in one area, it’s

sort of like Jello, and it pops up some place else. What’s the situation with substituting, say, marijuana or cocaine, for designer

drugs or heroin or some other illegal narcotic?

Mr. WALTERS. We have tried to more carefully map what’s happening for precisely that reason. I think there is the view that we

have failed to make overall progress because any particular

progress is offset by losses in other areas.

Overall, there are dangers we have to watch, with ecstasy use,

methamphetamine use, heroin use has increased in the northeastern United States especially. But what we’ve tried to do is

focus on those key markets as markets and the vulnerabilities

there. We have had some success in some areas reducing methamphetamine growth. Yesterday I was at a meeting hosted by the

Attorney General and Solicitor General of Canada where we’re

working partly on problems of pseudoephedrine diversion from

Canada. Estimates are that pseudoephedrine from Canada is supplying major pseudoephedrine for the large labs that produce 85

percent of the methamphetamine in this country.

We just had a recent joint operation that closed down three

major operations that were diverting from Canada. We hope this

will have an effect. Overall we’re trying to hit a bunch of these

drugs. We do not have movement in terms of the use numbers that

show a shifting. But we are trying to prevent them from becoming

a shifting.

Mr. MICA. Your preliminary data showed that young people, I

guess it was confined to, were 38 percent less likely to use drugs

if they had exposure to your program. Is that your initial finding?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, that’s with regard to marijuana. Yes.

Mr. MICA. So it does have some impact, and that’s only in regard

to marijuana, it’s not other narcotics?

Mr. WALTERS. We asked them to measure marijuana, because

the large flight of ads that we started last year with the revision

were focused on marijuana. So we will have other surveys coming

up in the coming months that are other national surveys that focus

on the full range of drugs. But the effort for this report, I want to

be clear about, was the question, is the media campaign working

and are the changes that you made producing the results. And we

made the focus marijuana and this is the first half of the large report of attitude tracking. The second half will be available in a little over a month.

Mr. MICA. In addition to the media campaign, of course, our subcommittee helped draft Plan Colombia and we want Plan Colombia

to work. If I understand also you had good news in regard to diminishing the cultivation of coca crops. However, from some reports, we have a problem now with heroin. You also cited some staVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Aug 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\88015.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
64

tistics. Was that the U.S. entry of heroin, 40 percent from Mexico

now and 45 percent Colombia?

Mr. WALTERS. No. The numbers I cited were our survey reports

of cultivation of opium poppy. A 40 percent reduction between 2001

and 2002 in Mexico, and a 25 percent reduction in Colombia.

Mr. MICA. Twenty-five percent during what period?

Mr. WALTERS. Between 2001 to 2002.

Mr. MICA. There is concern again that we have a major emphasis

in one area and then it pops up in the other area. We do this, it’s

not DNA, but, my head’s a little foggy right now from this head

cold, but we do an analysis of the heroin that’s coming into the

United States. Where is it coming in from now? We used to be able

to tell almost from the field as to Mexico, Colombia or other

sources.

Mr. WALTERS. DA is what I think you’re referring to, it’s the heroin signature program.

Mr. MICA. Heroin signature program, yes.

Mr. WALTERS. They analyze the elements in the heroin samples

that are seized to determine where they were processed.

Mr. MICA. What’s our latest?

Mr. WALTERS. Roughly the estimate is—we won’t have a precise

estimate on the basis of consumption. It’s only on the basis of seizure. Some of these organizations, it’s easier for us to target organizations in this hemisphere. But generally speaking, the heroin

available in the eastern part of the United States has been largely

Colombian heroin is the estimate. It’s now moved a little bit more

west, for example, into Chicago. Mexican heroin has dominated the

West Coast market.

Mr. MICA. We were getting figures, and I haven’t seen them in

some time, again like we had 90 percent from Colombia, well, we

had zero percent before the beginning of the Clinton administration, because most of it came from the far east. And then we saw

it gradually increase in Colombia. Can you give us the latest statistic you have on the seizures and where they come from? Because

we know we can analyze it through the signature program?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. This will be the last question, because the

gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. WALTERS. I’d like to supply the specifics for the record, just

because the numbers have to be added, not only in terms of the seizures but also in terms of what people think is out there. Because

the seizures only reflect the organizations that we’re working. But

basically it’s about half.

[The information referred to follows:]

65

66

Mr. MICA. Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, in the past,

we’ve gotten this. I’d like to see that. I think it’s very important.

We have some historical data so we can see where the stuff is coming from. As I understand, it’s pretty accurate. Because it’s seized,

analyzed, and we know almost to the fields where it came from.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let one of the other Members go ahead.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. All right. I’ll go to Mr. Towns.

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

You know, as I indicated, I’m still concerned about moving ahead

here today. But in spite of that, I’m going to raise a couple of questions. The proposed reauthorization legislation would require that

80 percent, Mr. Walters, of appropriated program funds go to purchasing time and space for advertising. What effect would this

mandate have on your ability to direct the agency as you see fit?

Mr. WALTERS. Consistent with the concern that has been expressed in the past that the media campaign was not effective because it wasn’t doing enough advertising, we have increased the

focus as you know. The campaign gets $1 of free advertising for

every $1 it buys. It’s unique in that regard. And we have taken

more of the matched dollar and put them into the central advertising component.

We’ve asked for some flexibility. Right now it’s about between 74

and 75 percent of the ad dollars are spent this way. So this is close.

But the concern that I have in trying to maintain flexibility here,

it’s not that we don’t want to have maximum power, it’s that we

want to make sure that we’re doing the other marketing that could

support the advertising, getting people to Web sites, getting people

brochures, getting people the hot lines that may get them additional information.

And to allow us to use, again what you categorize as advertising

here can also make a difference. So there’s a variety of ways to

compromise on this. All I’ve asked is that we have flexibility to try

to drive the campaign where it will have the best effect. So I think

priority limits create some greater complication in managing the

campaign.

Mr. TOWNS. I know that most of your campaigns in the past have

basically been don’t do drugs, which is a very important issue and

a very important message. But what about the young people who

are already hooked on drugs? What do you have for them?

Mr. WALTERS. We agree with that concern, especially when we

see what we have to treat. That’s why, as I tried to briefly touch

on in my statement, we are developing an early intervention campaign. It will be targeted on young people and on adults, parents

and other adults, to both understand the signs of dependency, to

understand what to do to refer people to support, and I think most

importantly of all, frankly, in my view, to create a climate among

young people and adults that will support getting people into recovery and support them in recovery.

We know nobody gets safely treated by themselves. We need to

have more willing hands and more understanding hands that will

help understand that there is hope, that there are particular actions that can be done, that this is a disease. It is a disease that

67

requires effective treatment. It’s not enough just to say, well, get

over it by yourself, and that there are specific things people can do

to help to optimize the successful outcome for treatment. So we are

specifically looking and developing now, hopefully it will be releasable at the end of this year, beginning of next year, a new part of

the campaign that will be directly targeted to early intervention.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me tell you one concern that pops up all the

time, is that in terms of getting involved, in terms of valid initiatives, we have States that feel that based on the drug usage problem in the area that they have an idea that might be the best approach to it. And then you’re coming in and saying, no, we’re going

to campaign against that and spend Government dollars. There is

a real concern about that. I’d like to hear your comment on it, because, and that the other part, I might as well add, by being a little

political, that you might come in 3 or 4 weeks before the election.

Mr. WALTERS. I understand the concern. We made a decision last

year to change the way we behave. When I was in this office during

the President’s father’s administration, we did not spend much

time discussing legalization. It was a minimal fringe effort, had

been going on in some cases for years unsuccessfully. And we gave

it more credibility by joining that, standing on a platform and debating than it had by itself.

The difference, coming back this time is, the legalization movement has received substantial funding, has aggressively used the

ballot initiative program, bringing in in most cases people from the

outside, funded to collect ballot signatures, and then advertised

with one-sided, outside advertising. I made the decision in part because I met with people who were running treatment centers, running prevention programs, working in public safety, saying that we

get drowned out by one-sided campaigns that falsely frame the

issue and we don’t get a chance to be heard.

I did not advertise in these States that I went into last fall. I

went in and stood with people who really every day save lives, to

give them a chance to be heard. I recognize this is unusual, I recognize the risk of having somebody from Washington or the White

House come in. But I stood, and I stood probably with bi-partisan

people, I stood with the Republican and Democratic gubernatorial

candidates in Arizona who together said, this is bad for our State.

We tried to get a fair hearing of the arguments on the other side,

not a one-sided hearing that had happened because of one-sided

funding.

As a result, I believe, of hearing a fair discussion of the arguments, those propositions lost. It is my statutory responsibility to

make clear why drug use is bad, why the law is fair on these issues

and I think that’s a part of that responsibility. But I think we’re

doing a good job with the tools I have. I’d like to be able to continue

that now. But I don’t believe I have to go any further than that,

and I don’t think it’s a partisan matter.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

68

69

70

71

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me move to Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before we leave this subject, Mr. Walters, I want to compliment

you on the subject that you just discussed and your involvement in

a non-partisan manner or a bipartisan manner in addressing this.

I do have a statement I’d like to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]

72

73

74

75

76

Mr. OSE. One of the things that I worked on when I came to Congress, in fact, the only committee I begged to be on was the drug

policy subcommittee. And after wearing down Mr. Burton, he finally consented.

Mr. Walters, we have in California a problem with methamphetamine. There are about 80 of us here in Congress in the methamphetamine caucus. We worked in the last appropriation cycle to

obtain an additional $20 million for the HIDTAs to work on methamphetamine. I’m told that of that $20 million, only $1 million of

it went to support HIDTA operations and the other $19 million got

used elsewhere. I’m curious as to why.

Mr. WALTERS. I’ll have to look. That’s not in my recollection, but

my recollection is not perfect on this. What we did with the HIDTA

program consistent with the direction that Congress gave us we’ve

got obviously a variety of directions from Congress in both chambers. But I think the overall direction we got was, that this program makes a difference on the key threats of drugs in the country.

As I said, have gone to most, not all yet of the 28 HIDTAs, and

asked them to get on board with giving us proposals that shrink

the drug problem in their area of jurisdiction.

In those areas where there is meth, we have supported meth efforts. And where they presented credible programs to go after the

major meth threat in those areas, we will continue to support

them. What I’ve asked them not to do is to either not define a problem or not define a substantial result from the effort they’re asking

us to fund. We want to fund making a difference. And if they’re not

going to make a difference, I’m telling them to go back to the drawing board and create a plan that will.

We understand, particularly at this time when we’re making

progress against cocaine, I believe, at historic rates, there’s a great

danger that progress could have particularly grave effects against

the meth problem. Because if we reduce the availability of a stimulant dependent substance in one area, we could increase the demand for such a substance in another.

I’ll go back and look at what we did on the specific requests from

your area. But generally speaking what we’ve asked them to do is

focus on the major structures that are marketing this and break

them down. We’ve had some resistance. I recognize that I’m asking

for a change in the program. I don’t think this is bad intentioned

resistance. Everybody’s working very hard here. What we’re trying

to do is get them to join together in a way that understands that

these resources need to be focused on a better understanding of the

threat and a way of taking it apart.

Mr. OSE. As you consider the performance of the HIDTAs, the

one I’m particularly interested in is the central valley of California

HIDTA. Have you had any performance measurements to indicate

that they are meeting, exceeding or not meeting the expectations

that we have here in Washington?

Mr. WALTERS. I haven’t met with their executive committee. I’m

now getting regular reports from my staff. I get briefed every 2

weeks on their conversations with the HIDTAs. They’ve had, as I

understand it, some considerable success on some of the cases

going after meth groups that are operating in their area and also

77

marketing outside of the central valley into other parts of California.

We are about to receive the proposals for the non-base money for

additional resources this year. I’ll be happy to make sure we keep

you in the loop on that.

Mr. OSE. The reason I bring it up is that this $20 million, the

California members, of those 80 odd members that I cited earlier

in the meth caucus, supported that $20 million add-on for the purpose of helping the central valley HIDTA with methamphetamine.

And your testimony was that they are making progress. It seems

to me that perhaps Washington ought to say, you guys are doing

well, here’s some more money, go get them.

And I will tell you that in my short remaining time, I am going

to continue to watch this, and I will be either your staunchest advocate or a pain in the neck. I’m interested in the central valley

HIDTA being successful, as you are. I look forward to working with

you.

Mr. WALTERS. I never have a problem with people who are a pain

in the neck because they want us to do better. I appreciate the help

and I will visit the central valley in August, actually, to talk to

them directly. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s

time has expired. Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First I want to thank you for your work. I

think you’ve got a really difficult job, that you’re pulling people together as a team and making a difference.

I know in the bill that Congressman Elijah Cummings proposed

a witness protection provision to protect neighborhoods and the

safety. And it’s a result of that unfortunate situation where a family was attempting to eradicate drugs in their neighborhoods, they

were standing up to drug dealers on the streets and the house was

fire-bombed and five children and husband and wife were killed.

You and I both attended that funeral.

Do you have any specificity or any plans for a situation where

that would happen again, where you have individuals who have no

place to go, they’re trying to stand up to the drug dealers in the

neighborhood, they’re getting threats? And if we could act quickly

before we get to a tragic situation like that, where are we with respect to that type of issue?

Mr. WALTERS. We haven’t prepared, let me be clear, we haven’t

prepared implementation of that language, because the language is

now still pending. So we haven’t done that. I have worked with

Congressman Cummings in his district to both look at public safety

issues and to look at community coalition resources here.

We have relied in this partnership on local people taking the

lead, and he’s been a leader in that area in bringing people together. We’ve tried to help with my office in providing expertise,

as well as I think clear notification of additional resources where

they have been available. I am going to, in the coming months, go

into more areas of the country with parts of my staff, bringing together people who are working on community coalitions, on public

safety, on treatment and prevention, and the local officials, to try

to create better consensus about what needs to be done and what

the priorities are.

78

We are bringing together, with their help, the available information we have from all Federal resources. We’re going to measure

everything from where treatment sites and drug courts are, from

what the patterns of use are, to where open air drug markets are,

to where they have particular threats to the best of our ability and

then sit down with local leaders who have the strength, who have

the institutional leadership here, and say, this is what you need to

do to support them.

It’s not about us. It’s about building on the strong foundations

that exist in every community. I visit too many people who work

in this area on various parts who are doing great work but feel

they are too isolated, too alone, they can’t get people to come together. We’re going to try to be a convener to have communities

recognize this, and where there’s witness protection issues, where

there’s neighborhood security issues, where there’s a matter of—we

need more juvenile treatment facilities, we want to help create a

process where we table those, look at Federal resources that can

be brought, but also look at State and local resources.

As you know, this is a time of a very competitive environment

at the State and local budgets. And I don’t expect us to trump everything. But I do think if we make a stronger case, we do a better

job of supporting programs that deserve support.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. One suggestion that I have, you have witness protection programs for those individuals that are usually acting as informants or working with law enforcement. I think the

reason Congressman Cummings put this amendment in the bill

was that we want to try to analyze with the local law enforcement

when there is a family that might be at risk because they are

standing up. And we have to move quickly. It’s kind of like an

analogy to domestic violence, when you get an order to keep maybe

a spouse or someone or a friend away from the other individual,

it’s done very quickly until another hearing is had.

And I would hope that you would come up with a policy working

with the State, Federal, local law enforcement to identify those individuals in those neighborhoods throughout the country that are

attempting to stand up and yet their lives are at risk. It’s unfortunate that we had this situation in Baltimore. But as a result of

that, let’s not forget about it, and let’s move forward with a policy

to make a difference.

One other issue. I’m very much concerned about the resources

being taken away from drug interdiction, drug enforcement, all the

issues because of what is happening in terrorism. There’s no question we have to deal with the issue of terrorism and homeland security. It’s almost an exercise that is happening every day and

we’re learning, and we have to do what we have to do to protect

our country from terrorism.

But what concerns me, and from my conversations with people

within law enforcement, is that a lot of the resources that are being

put into fighting terrorism are being taken away from our drug offices, our drug investigations. Do you see that? And if it’s the case,

I think we have to make that some type of an issue, so hopefully

this administration will refocus on first responders and giving the

resources so that we don’t walk away. Because if you look at the

numbers and statistics, a lot more people are at risk and there’s

79

a lot more crime, especially violent crime, generated as a result of

drug interdiction versus terrorism.

Mr. WALTERS. I appreciate your point. What we have done, I

think, is two things. One, we’ve had to make shifts. There’s no

question about that, because of the additional terror threat. We

moved a number of FBI personnel out of drugs and into counterterrorism because it was important for the protection of the country. I know people had disagreements about that.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I don’t think anybody disagrees with that

priority.

Mr. WALTERS. What we’ve done to compensate for that is this

year and the next year in our request, we’ve asked for money to

hire more DEA agents to backfill those positions in the DEA. In

other areas, yes, we’re still, I believe, fair to say in the shakeout

process of deploying additional resources to State and local partners on various terror, drug task forces. I’ve been working with the

Attorney General’s office to focus both the HIDTA program and the

OCDETF program. We are still, and I know Congress is extensively

involved in this, although some of it is not involved in my office,

in deploying money for other parts of homeland security.

I would say, in the transit arrival zones, we have not had a substantial diminution of interdiction results. That’s partly because

we’ve had greater cooperation from Colombia and Mexico, where

some of these have occurred. It’s partly because we’ve had some

strengthening at the border. We’ve been at level one on the border

since after September 11th. It’s partly because of the tools you gave

us to increase our intelligence sharing and intelligence capacities.

We continue to improve that. But the real key, I think, here, and

what you’re getting at, is to better work the relationship and the

partnership between State and local law enforcement, which feels

pulled many times in a way that they compensate and they don’t

feel they’re compensating for, to focus these more generally. That’s

why we’re trying to use the HIDTA program and the intelligence

units that are in there. We are also linking the HIDTA program

together.

And my director of intelligence has just become the U.S. interdiction coordinator and narcotics advisor, cross designated to Secretary Ridge. We’re going to try to bring both what we’re doing in

bringing some of the intelligence resources, we’re trying to build on

what we’ve had successfully happen in some of the HIDTAs as well

as some of the new capacities that are there.

I’m not denying it’s going to take us a little bit of time. And people are working very hard and have been working very hard since

September 11th. That’s why we’ve had as good a result as we have.

But I understand your point. We have taken some steps to

change some priorities since the immediate attack to elevate the

counter-narcotics intelligence collection and some of the deployments. Nobody I think argues when we have a particular time of

threat, we’re going to have to pull Coast Guard, border and other

assets back to protect our cities, our ports, our territorial waters.

We have then moved, fairly quickly I believe, to re-deploy them in

regard to drug interdiction down closer to the threat. And we have

had, as I say, greater cooperation now, particularly from Colombia,

that’s produced results.

80

So in addition to the over 100 metric tons of cocaine that did not

get produced because the plants were eradicated last year, we had

another over 100 metric tons of cocaine that was seized that was

headed for the United States. We are now taxing them through

this process well over 30 percent of what they could make as a result of interdiction. And we’ve had reports, some that have been recently declassified, talking about the diminishment of profit in the

drug, especially the cocaine business, over the last several years.

This is our goal, to attack the market, to make it impossible for it

to function at the level it’s functioning now.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank

you very much.

Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walters, thank you for the job that you do and thank you

for being here today. In Kentucky, probably the biggest problem we

have, and it’s a growing problem, is of course methamphetamine.

But there is another problem that seems to be growing, and it

would be oxyacanthine. Are you addressing this in a specific way

and how pervasive is this problem? I know it’s a real problem in

Kentucky.

Mr. WALTERS. The problem has sprung up over the last year or

two. It’s been focused and some areas have been terribly hard hit.

I know Kentucky is one of those areas. We have gone in with the

authority of DEA and tried to look at it, because this is of course

a controlled substance, the diversion of this substance through illicit channels. There are cases that have brought to justice some

people who were diverting it from legitimate channels.

There have been efforts to better educate physicians. I visited

with some of them and we’ve been working with some of the licensure bodies. Many times the diversion is also contributed to, not

from maliciousness on the part of physicians, but by failure to understand that the behavior of someone who is seeking to shop for

doctors to get prescriptions. They’re used to seeing people come in

who have a serious illness who are frank and want to get well. So

they take people at face value. We need to add some dimensions

of education. And I think the medical community has been quite

responsive. In fact, if anything, we’ve also seen some of them who

are refusing to prescribe some of these, especially oxyacanthine, because of its diversion possibilities.

We have the best medical institutions in the history of humankind. We can treat pain as never before, we can treat people for

a variety of conditions that we’ve never been able to treat before.

We want to make sure we maintain the medical efficacy at the

same time we prevent the harm.

So we basically have used enforcement and education. We want

to broaden the education. I’m going to be meeting with the AMA

later this year, in a couple months, to try to talk about institutionalizing more of these programs for physician education. I think

that’s just a reasonable, prudent and a desired educational component that will help protect more. But we’re going to have to go in

where there are people who are criminals, and we’re going to have

81

to find them and punish them. Hopefully we can do that before too

many people die.

Mr. LEWIS. Absolutely. Thank you, sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Our next speaker

is Mr. Davis of Illinois. Not here? We’ll go to Ms. Watson. You’re

on for 5 minutes.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Mr. Walters, for being here. I’m reading the bill itself. And I understand that as the bill is drafted, it contains a provision that would

permit you and your office to use taxpayers’ money to become involved in the political campaigns. Now, if you would, I don’t know

if you have the bill in front of you, but in looking at page 37, line

22, subsection 2, it says, the prohibition, in paragraph 1(c). Now,

1(c) says that there’s a prohibition against using these funds for

partisan political purposes. But starting on line 22, subsection 2,

the prohibition in paragraph 1(c) does not apply in connection with

the director’s responsibilities under, and it names the sections.

So I would like you to explain to us how you would avoid using

these funds for partisan political purposes and how do you guarantee us that this provision will not be abused.

Mr. WALTERS. Excuse me just 1 second.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If I may interject, Ms. Watson, for just a

moment, if you’d yield for just a second.

Ms. WATSON. Please.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I think we’ve reached an agreement with

the minority to clarify and remedy this provision. But you’ve accurately highlighted an issue. I’ll let Commissioner Walters respond.

Ms. WATSON. Can you tell us what the compromise is?

Mr. WALTERS. I apologize for not being fully conversant on this

point. There was a provision, I believe, this is the provision you

read to me, that would seek to make the restrictions on the Presidential appointment, appointed managers in my office, subject to

the same rules as all other Presidential appointed managers in the

Federal Government. I think that’s the provision you’re referring

to. That was to conform to the standard that’s been set throughout

the rest of the Government.

Maybe it’s my own view of not being much of a political asset,

but I don’t have great desires to campaign. I came back into this

job to make a difference on drugs. I’ve stood with Democrats and

Republicans. I think some of the Members here today know that.

This was a desire simply not to have the office treated differently,

I think, than other PAS staffed offices. But if the provision is

changing, then I’ll have to respond to the change, I guess, at some

point.

But again, our original request here was simply to change the existing authorization that treated the PASs in this office differently.

Ms. WATSON. Well, I would feel more comfortable, Mr. Chairman,

directed to you, if we could delete lines 22 on page 37 to lines 38

on page, excuse me, to page 38 line 5. That would just be silent

on that particular provision.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentlelady yield to me?

Ms. WATSON. Pleased to. This is directed to you, Mr. Chair. Oh,

I’m sorry, ranking member.

82

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I certainly strongly support the idea

that this head of the office should not be out campaigning, certainly not for partisan purposes and not to get involved in other

campaigns, political campaigns, as well. We’re trying to work out

a legislation on this. So rather than talk about specific language,

I would hope that everyone would agree that we don’t want the

head of the drug office to be involved in politics.

Ms. WATSON. If I can just suggest, maybe we can just delete

those lines and that would take care of it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, that’s one way to do it, but let’s explore the

language further.

Ms. WATSON. Well, I would like that very much.

If I still have time, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll continue.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Sure.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you for your cooperation on that issue.

There have been a number of questions raised about the effectiveness of the anti-drug media campaign, and I understand that

a study is underway to assess the strength and the weakness of the

campaign. So what efforts are underway in your office at this time

to improve the campaign’s effectiveness?

Mr. WALTERS. I touched on some of them in my testimony. We

are focusing it to the slightly older part of the teenage age group.

We’re making the ads more powerful. We’re testing them to see if

they are powerful and effective before they go on the air. We have

also added a focus on marijuana because of the ignorance, I think,

about the danger and the scope of the marijuana problem among

young people.

We have continued other parts of the campaign that will focus

on bringing parents in as well. The evaluation, that first part of

which I referred to that was released to the committee today we

just got, which was part of the urgent review done at the request

of Congress to show are the changes we’re making are making a

difference. We will continue with those evaluations and provide

subsequent reports and the overall evaluation of the program that

a next stage of which is due in the fall.

Mr. SOUDER [assuming Chair]. The gentlelady’s——

Ms. WATSON. If I’m out of time——

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, the gentlelady is out of time.

Ms. WATSON. OK. Look at California’s anti-tobacco ads.

Mr. WALTERS. OK, thanks.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Deal, any questions?

Mr. DEAL. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walters, I’ve been listening to you this morning with a great

amount of interest as you’ve talked about marijuana use and just

talking now about the advertising, the media campaign with marijuana use. I come from Michigan, a border State, of course, to Canada. Several things there. We have a municipality in Michigan, for

instance, that actually hosts the University of Michigan, where the

local city council has passed an ordinance, it’s a $5 fine for marijuana possession.

And now you see Canada is relaxing their standards rather significantly in regards to marijuana use. Of course, in this area,

83

we’ve got two of the largest, the busiest border crossings actually

on the northern tier of the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, the busiest border crossing, and then the Bluewater Bridge, which is in my

district, as well as the third largest, busiest commercial artery

along that tier. We’ve done well, we think, with stepping up patrols, both from the Coast Guard, homeland security is helping out

as we try to do interdiction and these kinds of things at the border

crossing.

Can you comment? We have a lot of consternation about what is

happening with our neighbors to the north, with the Canadians, as

they seem to be taking a different path on marijuana use and that

kind of thing. I know I’ve talked to our State drug czar as well, and

they’re sort of tearing their hair out at this. Can you comment at

what a State like Michigan, what we should be doing and how we

could work better with your office as well?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, I can. I’ve been troubled by what’s happening

in Canada, too. It’s the obvious irony of we have had remarkable

improvements in cooperation in Colombia and Mexico and a serious

problem develop, as indicated by the President’s letter, and part of

the congressionally mandated certification process, noting that

Canada and the Netherlands have become significant drug suppliers or precursor chemical suppliers to the United States, expressing concern.

I have over the last year and as recently as yesterday been meeting with Canadian officials, talking with folks in Canada to try to

express what our position is. The concern we have, I also grew up

in Michigan, I also have family and friends in Canada, as many

people in the United States do, particularly in the area where we

come from. We’re concerned about what happens to Canadians, but

that’s not my business as a Government official. My business is the

drugs they’re shipping to the United States. And they have produced a particularly high potency version of marijuana. Chairman

Souder visited Vancouver with me and talked to Canadian officials.

They have routinely said the movement of this product, run by

gangs, ethnic and criminal motorcycle gangs, has moved aggressively, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry, and they have moved aggressively from British Columbia across Canada, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and that substantial portions of this are being

grown for the purpose of shipping it to the United States.

By magnitude, the THC content, the psychoactive ingredient in

marijuana in the 1980’s, was about 1 percent. The THC content on

the street today in the United States is 9 to 14 percent. The THC

content of this high potency marijuana is 20 to 30 percent. It’s

much more powerful and that’s why it’s being grown the way it is,

and people are moving into Canada to do this because the penalties

are not serious. I’ve made clear to Canadian officials, we don’t want

to have a problem at the border greater than it already is. We have

greater backups in Mexico, not because we dislike Mexico, but because we have a threat, and drugs are a big part of that threat.

You need to get a handle on this production problem, since the

bulk of it is headed to the United States.

On law enforcement side we’ve had fantastic, magnificent cooperation. We have some problems with, I think, the decisions

84

about policy that are our business, because we’re the ones who are

going to be victimized by a part of this.

I would welcome help by Congress in doing oversight hearings

that involve discussions of the policy that’s going to be tabled and

discussed in Canada. Because I think it will help to clarify what

is a legitimate concern from what is I think sometimes presented

as, well, we don’t like it because they’re not doing what they’re

doing. They have a right to have their own domestic policy. They’re

a sovereign country. Nobody argues about that except people who

want to suggest that we don’t have a stand here.

What we have to care about, are these drugs, that is the single

largest cause of treatment needed in the United States, is being

now produced at remarkable potency levels in Canada and shipped

largely to the United States. That’s a U.S. problem. We have to

protect our citizens.

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate that. I’d like a little bit of information

if you could send it along to my office, actually next week during

the break I’ll be meeting with my counterpart across the border

there. We have about an hour agenda of a number of different

things. This is one of the items that I have wanted to discus with

him. I think perhaps if some of the border States’ members could

talk to their counterparts as well in Canada, and maybe sort of the

bottom up of how frustrated we are with their policy, and what

kind of impact it is having on our Nation. So I would appreciate

that.

Mr. WALTERS. Absolutely. It would be very important, particularly at this time.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Congresswoman Miller, if you could wait just a second, I wanted to tell Congresswoman Miller that we just had the

U.S.-Canada parliamentary last weekend. And in addition to the

northern border caucus, we’re going to have an ongoing relationship like you talked about, and we’ll make sure that we get you involved in that.

Congresswoman Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much for your testimony and all

your hard work.

A number of groups are circulating concerns about the administration using taxpayer money for issue ads. And one concern is,

who will approve the ads and make sure that they aren’t used for

partisan purposes or whatever? What is the approval process for

ads that would be aired?

Mr. WALTERS. Let me make clear now, we do not air issue ads

at this time. The efforts that I made last fall were for myself to

travel and stand with people in States that are facing ballot initiatives to make the arguments that they made about why this was

bad for their State. I know that many in Congress are concerned

that the efforts we’re making to reduce drug use and reduce the

drug problem are undermined by efforts to suggest that, well, we

ought to just give up and legalize it. And I share that concern,

that’s why I acted the way I did.

But so far, we have been very effective using what I think is my

current authority to speak and to stand with people in communities. So——

85

Mrs. MALONEY. So the approval process is basically your decision

of what the ad content is?

Mr. WALTERS. Right now, the ad content, which doesn’t include

this dimension, and hasn’t, is to look at the current state of the

drug problem among youth, because it is a youth anti-drug media

campaign. And to give direction, we briefed Hill staff about what

directions obviously we’re going. And there is a review process for

effectiveness and efficacy that’s done by outside groups as well as

managers of the program. And then the ads are tested for power

and effectiveness.

But right now, yes, I am the final, everything that goes on the

air is my responsibility. I want to be clear about that.

Mrs. MALONEY. Who is funding these ads to legalize drugs? You

testified earlier that a great deal of money is going into ballot initiatives, etc. Who’s funding it?

Mr. WALTERS. The largest funders that have been identified in

the press, and I don’t think that’s inaccurate, have been three individuals, George Saros, John Sperling and Peter Lewis. There are

other funders, smaller funders, but they are relatively modest contributors to most of these campaigns. I have asked and I continue

to ask repeatedly to meet with them. I think that those resources,

I’d like a chance face to face to say, can we put these resources in

a place that will help more people. And I think it’s a little bit

counter-productive to have this battle back and forth.

I also think that, I understand that people have differences and

disagreements. And they may continue to have disagreements. But

I’d like a chance to have a face to face to try to make a case that

we could save lives. We don’t have to give up.

Mrs. MALONEY. These reports that come out periodically, that

marijuana can be used medically, is helpful medically in certain

situations. Some doctors have said that. What is your opinion?

Does your research show it’s not helpful?

Mr. WALTERS. There is now available by prescription a marijuana medicine, Marinol. It’s used for some conditions of nausea

and others. It has been demonstrated effective by the same procedures we use for modern medicine, which is we use a series of protocols to show that things have medical efficacy. The Federal Government funds, I believe over $30 million this year, in research to

test other parts of marijuana that may be efficacious. And we continue to look at it.

As I said earlier, we have the finest medical institutions in the

history of humankind. They’re based on science, they’re based on

efficacy and the problem here has been to say simply that because

a drug makes people feel better, or because a substance makes

them feel better it’s a drug, that’s not scientific.

Mrs. MALONEY. But Mr. Director, I think the concern that has

been expressed to my office, we have paid for advertising for Governmental purpose. For example, the census, to encourage people

to participate and fill out their census forms, we had an advertising

goal. But it was a goal that everybody in America agreed on.

In this particular case, there is a division of agreement, and

there’s concern that it might go to other places where the dominant

view may then swamp the minority view. And I’ll give you one example. I believe very strongly in a woman’s right to choose. That’s

86

my personal belief. Many of my colleagues do not. So what is going

to protect us from having, say, in the future, an ad campaign

against a woman’s right to choose paid for by the Government, because there is a division of agreement?

Personally, I agree with you. I don’t believe we should legalize

drugs. I don’t think that should happen in our country. I’m opposed

to it. But the concern for many people, whether they agree with

you or disagree with you, is they see this as a step that might go

into a direction of Government interference in a public debate, basically. And we have paid for advertising in the past, but it’s always been not a debatable issue. It was sort of a goal that everybody agreed on.

On this issue, it’s a debatable issue. I happen to agree with your

point of view. But many, some of my colleagues and some of my

constituents disagree. And they’re concerned that this is a silencing

of—you understand what I’m saying.

Mr. SOUDER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. If the Director

would like to briefly respond.

Mr. WALTER. Let me just say to be clear, we have not used the

advertising campaign in this manner. We have used it for what everybody agrees is appropriate, and that’s why the campaign exists.

Drug use is particularly bad for kids. The drug problem starts with

kids. It’s a pediatric, drug addiction is a pediatric onset disease, we

need to be thorough-going and clear about that.

We have used this to alert young people, parents and adults to

the dangers and how to protect kids. The ballot issue initiative is

something I have gone in and stood with people who worked the

front lines and I think got a hearing.

I understand the concern about how much do you want to again,

and again, this provision is something that the committee is going

to have to decide on. I haven’t used that tool in that way. And

you’ll have to decide what the lines are here. But I feel that over

the last year I’ve shown that by giving people a fair hearing in the

way we’ve done it, we win, that there is a giant consensus about

this is a bad idea to give up on.

So I feel I have a record of showing how we can do this, and to

get the job done I think everybody wants done.

Mr. SOUDER. I think it’s important to repeat what Mr. Waxman

said a few minutes ago, is that we are working together to try to

come up with language because we have a mutually agreed-upon

goal, and that will require a little bit more refinement from the

current law. We do not believe it should be used for partisan political purposes. We do not believe it should be used for any, affecting

any referendum that’s pending. And we have to come up with a

definition that doesn’t just in general prohibit anti-marijuana advertising from ever going anywhere that wasn’t, in other words,

you could conceivably interpret that any anti-drug advertising is

trying to influence a referendum.

So we have to protect the integrity of the ad campaign but we’re

definitely working to try to keep it out from any specific referendum, any specific candidate, and we’ll continue to work on that language.

Mrs. MALONEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

87

Mrs. MALONEY. I think you hit the core when you say protect the

integrity of the ad campaign. Personally I think you have to develop some form that you do this in. In the sense of the census we

had a commission that was appointed by Democrats and Republicans that looked at the final product and said hey, this is good.

But to make sure that this is not used politically, and understand, although he’s doing a wonderful job, if you instill this power

into just one person, which according to his testimony he said he

has the final decision on whether it’s appropriate or not, I’m just

saying that maybe there should be some review panel that’s bipartisan that makes sure it’s appropriate. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.

Walters for your testimony.

I wanted to shift gears if I could a little bit into another area

here. Although you were just beginning to talk about how this is

a pediatric problem, and as you know, my field has been working

with children all my life. One of the areas that I want to know

about is what we’re doing to engage parents in this process. It is

good to stop cocaine in Colombia. It is good to stop drugs at our

borders. But really enlisting every parent in America as part of

your team, as part of our mutual team to stop it is of concern.

And let me bring up a couple instances which concern me most.

That begins with alcohol. Alcohol is the most commonly used and

abused drug, one that’s legal, one that many people suffer with,

with alcoholism, and of course, begins in youth. And as a gateway

drug, children who start with alcohol oftentimes move on to other

things. It’s of particular concern when parents’ attitudes, habits

and behaviors almost promotes this, directly or indirectly.

In particular, let me describe to you a scenario which I’m sure

you have heard all too many times. That is when parents believe

that children will get involved with drinking anyway, at parties, on

prom night, gatherings with friends. And they have what I can call

at best a sick interpretation of youth behavior, and they believe if

they purchase the beer, if they have the kegs, if they have the alcohol there, and they do something as almost as childish as taking

the students’ car keys away and letting them drink at their home,

they think they’re doing the kids a favor. Because they think otherwise the kids will sneak off into the woods and drink, and so

they’re going to help them by almost advocating the use there.

And what I see happens is that other children then think that

here’s an adult almost encouraging them to drink, so perhaps they

should do it, too. And it removes perhaps that last best wall we

have, and that’s parents telling kids, you don’t have to drink to

enjoy yourselves. It is not an expectation of youth and adolescence.

I would like to know what kind of plans you see in your near future

to help engage parents more in this kind of activity to help stop

that parent behavior.

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, thank you. It’s very important. And this is

one area where the media campaign efforts, and there’s about half

of the campaign that has been focused on parents that has been

working, based on the evaluation we’ve had. We’ve had parents

better understand their role and responsibility, better understand

88

they need to talk about substance abuse generally with their children. And also better understand they need to supervise their children and to provide information to them initially with the ad, but

also to give them a referral to other sources of information that we

provide and others provide that can give them concrete steps they

can take in supervision and if they don’t know how to talk with

their kids, with experts like yourself giving advice of how to approach this topic more effectively in different situations.

In addition, we provide through, as you probably know, the

media campaign is unique in that it gets a one for one match of

every buy it makes of media. We have used a portion of the match

to allow ads done by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other

anti-alcohol programs that are part, then funded by of course the

campaign’s efforts.

We also have sought to fund, as my office is responsible for, the

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions program that helps to support

members of communities coming together to focus on this problem

more effectively. Almost all of those community coalitions, and

there are hundreds now around the country, have focused substantial resources for the reasons that you mentioned on alcohol as well

as illegal drugs, because of the danger, because of, basically because of the ignorance and because, I think most important of all,

because as we spoke earlier, the protection of children is only as

strong as the weakest link in the contact children are going to

make during the day. So if a parent does the wrong thing and

doesn’t supervise or doesn’t pay attention and your child is there,

they’re likely to be more at risk than they would have been in all

the other things that you took care about.

So we’re trying to approach this on several fronts where we think

we have effective leverage to improve what we say, what we teach,

what we do in supervising kids.

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate that and hope we can continue to work

hard. I know one of the things, and I don’t know if this is factual

or not, but for the issue of those students up in Chicago who were

involved with harassing some other girls after some football game,

there were some allegations that parents had bought the beer. I

think it’s important for the media to tell more stories about this,

when parents have stood by while youth drank or while they purchased alcohol, and understand that they are just as responsible if

someone does get behind the wheel, causes an accident, the blood

is on their hands, too.

I really hope we can stop this insidious behavior among parents

in America who somehow have got this perverted idea that it’s good

to do that. When parents teach the children that it is not right and

you can’t drink until you’re 21, it’s an important message. Yes,

sometimes youth will still sneak out and do some things. But it’s

still our job as moms and dads to be there to guide and set a good

standard and to say no.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walters, let me first of all compliment you on the way in

which I’ve observed you criss-crossing the country, going out in

neighborhoods and communities and actually looking at what is

89

working, what people are trying, what they are attempting to do.

Coming from an area like I do, the metropolitan area of Chicago

and Cook County, I have a great deal of interest in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Plan. Could you embellish that a bit in terms

of what we’re planning to do with those areas?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. We’re trying to use some of the longer established areas to do a better job of defining the problem. Let me put

it a little more straightforwardly. We want to do more of applying

what we’ve learned in the battle against terror in the drug area.

This has been talked about a lot but it’s not been done. That is,

we have to identify the organizations and the weaknesses that they

exploit to be able to market. We’re going to provide money for

treatment, we are going to continue to provide money for community coalitions. We also need to provide money to go after these

marketing organizations.

So we’re working in this program with State and local as well as

Federal law enforcement. Chicago I believe has been an area frankly that has been under-served here. It’s unfortunately had an explosion of drug use in some sections, and it has become a more important distribution point for that region; indeed, other parts of the

country.

So we are working now with the law enforcement members of

that particular HIDTA as well as with OCDETF program, and trying to use a better picture of the intelligence that is there and also

how to both operate for regional distribution and to operate on the

markets that exist in that area. Some of that has involved monetary investigations to a greater extent, some of it has involved better cooperation with the southwest border, where heroin has been

imported and moved into Chicago as well as cocaine. Some of it has

involved trying to focus on how to better coordinate individual task

forces that go after higher and then some of the connections to retail markets.

But what we’re trying to get is not just a situation which we

have in too many cases of people, we’re doing important things but

how do those make any difference. I talk about this as numerators

without denominators. I can’t tell whether we’re 10 percent in the

game or we’re 60 percent in the game. We’ve asked them, I know

it’s hard, it’s a covert activity, but I think the frustration everybody

has is that we end up having a battleground in too many of our

cities, fighting over the same ground and having communities destroyed. We want to make the problem smaller systemically and

bring resources together.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We also have a great deal of concern

about the individuals who are incarcerated. You know, we have a

prison explosion in our country with over 2 million people currently

in jails and prisons and more than a half million coming home

every year. Many of these come as a result of drug related activity.

And then of course they get back into the business because there

isn’t much else that they view themselves as being able to do.

How do we see the connection in terms of reduction of use as well

as reduction of distribution if we somehow can steer these individuals into other directions, making use of our policies and programs?

90

Mr. WALTERS. I think that’s very important. We visited a site together in your district trying to help reintegrate people from the

criminal justice system into the community with treatment and

other support. We’re not going to substantially reduce demand if

we don’t reduce dependent use. We have to do prevention, we have

to do intervention. But the largest volume consumers are dependent users. So if we’re going to be true to what I think is necessary,

a balanced effort, we have to reduce the dependent use.

What that means is we have to get better treatment, we have to

get it into the criminal justice system more effectively. We’re trying

to expand drug court programs, we’re trying to expand in the treatment proposal the President has made for the additional $200 million, that would allow vouchers to be used for programs that would

include at the basis of the discretion of the State and local authorities post-incarceration treatment and support services.

It would include support for drug courts, it would improve support for outreach in communities for juveniles who many times are

not adequately served. Essentially it allows us the greatest possible

flexibility to bring providers like the provider we visited to add capacity or to spin offsites or to add satellite sites in other community institutions that will make a difference here. And it allows us

to measure for quality.

We agree with you that we have to do a better job on those people who are now dependent, who too frequently because of that dependency are also in the criminal justice system. I think the drug

court movement has been universally welcomed because it sorts out

those who are suffering from a disease from those who are simply

dangerous victimizers and incapacitates the latter, but gets help,

effective help in many cases, for the former. We want to expand

that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think you’ve laid out some sound policies and directions, so I thank you very much. And I thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [resuming Chair]. Thank you. The chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I just wanted to make a couple of brief

comments. First, I wanted to thank Director Walters for his leadership. At times we may have small disagreements, but I think

you’ve done a terrific job, both at the international area and in the

national arena. I think few people realize the complexity and diversity of challenges you face every day and your office faces every

day. We appreciate your leadership very much. The President has

given very specific goals for reduction. You brought concise order

and strategy to the office to try to reach those kinds of goals.

At times that means there is frustrations in implementation. At

times people didn’t want direction. But in fact, if you’re going to

achieve goals that has to be done. We’ve been working with you

and your office on this bill as well as other groups, and the subcommittee to now bring it to the full committee. Nobody is particularly happy with everything, but I believe that net, we’re moving

the ball forward as we move toward conference.

I am very appreciative of the leadership of Elijah Cummings, the

ranking member, Danny Davis from Chicago, Congressman Bell,

Congressman Ruppersberger and many of the minority. As we

91

move forward, we’ve been working with the minority as well as

Members of the majority on some changes. I believe that we can

work most of these out, that will actually in the end strengthen the

bill and make sure that we stay unified. We may have some things

where we can’t reach agreement. And we have some votes, but

we’re doing the best we can to work with your office, with the minority and with the majority with diverse concerns as we move forward.

We have some additional data that we’ll need over the next few

days and look forward to talking with you about that, so we can

make sure that what we have in this bill is something that at least

the overwhelming majority of Congress can live with, the majority

of the American people can be united to try to squash the scourge

of drugs and to fight with a united front and not get too distracted

in whether it’s partisan political campaigns or what’s happening

over in this State or that State, but to try to say, look, we have

key problem areas on the borders, we have key problem areas in

certain major metropolitan areas, we have key international problems, we need to have a focused, clear-cut, national ad strategy

with proven, tested ads that try to battle back a lot of the societal

trends.

Once again, I thank you for your leadership. The legislative process is messy. We’re continuing to work through it. But at the end

of the day, I think we can have a unified and broadly supported

drug strategy.

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you. Can I just make one comment? You

weren’t here and I want to say this, because I worked in Government for a long time, going back to the Reagan administration.

And I’ve worked with a lot of committees, under the leadership of

both parties. I have never had a better working relationship than

with you and Mr. Cummings. You have both traveled, you have

been supportive, you have been willing to stand up. You know because you’ve been there that the executive branch is also kind of

messy, where we have better ways of covering it up sometimes so

you can see hopefully more of the results and not the process that

sometimes people have to hammer out disagreements.

We try to be fair. You’ve been fair to me. You’ve been more extensive than any subcommittee I’ve ever worked with in the reauthorization process, covering all the major programs that we’re responsible for thoroughly and carefully. And most of all, you’ve been

helpful in your advice and counsel. And we are doing a better job

because of what you’ve done and I want to publicly thank you.

We’re very close.

I appreciate the speed with which you’ve done this. I know there

was an issue raised earlier. But we want to have the office on a

fair and sound ground. We want to have it authorized so we can

continue. We want to make sure that we’re focusing on fighting the

problem and not worrying that the arrangement of the structures

and authorities are going to be up in the air and that causes a lot

of confusion for people out there, especially when you kind of

squeeze the process and make people perform, they think that they

can wiggle out of legitimate constraint because they can hope it

will go away. It makes our job more difficult.

92

But I want to publicly thank you especially, and Mr. Cummings,

as well as Mr. Waxman and Mr. Davis for their help in putting this

together. It’s very important to what we do. And as you know, my

concern, and I know you share it is, we’ve got to follow through.

We’ve got trends now going in the right direction. We’ve got to

drive this down to the point where we can see that the American

people get what they want, which is a country that doesn’t suffer

the way we suffer today.

Mr. SOUDER. In yielding back to the chairman, I want to thank

him for his direct involvement from the time he took over this committee in going down to Colombia and being active in the minutiae

as we move this bill forward, giving us the ability to be flexible in

subcommittee and at the same time take the chairman’s prerogative of when we needed to compromise, when we needed to work

together. I want to thank him for his leadership.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Souder, thank you very much. But

our thanks is to you. You’ve devoted a substantial part of your career here working these issues. It will bear fruit again in the reauthorization.

I now yield to Mr. Waxman, 5 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend the work done by my colleagues, particularly

Mr. Cummings, in trying to figure out how best to deal with this

legislation so that we can have an effective ONDCP. One of the key

issues in controversy is, the bill requires ONDCP to devote 80 percent of appropriated program funds to purchase time and space for

advertising. I understand that an 80 percent media buy requirement could require proportional scaling back of important aspects

of the campaign. Could you give us your views on that issue?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. I’ve asked that we preserve as much flexibility of our mix here as we can. I understand the concern that people

have that we need to put power behind the ads. We’ve done that.

We’ve tried to focus more resources on ads that are effective and

ads that are focused. We’ve taken more of the match and devoted

it this year and last year to our central campaign.

The concern I have, and I know reasonable people differ about

this, is that especially as we look to some of the ads we want to

do on intervention, we need to refer people to some additional information. We need to have some kinds of abilities to market the

message so it has resonance as modern media campaigns do. We’re

at 75 percent now, or 74 point some percent now. So I’m not talking about flexibility for the purpose of evading the central concern

of putting ads on the air that you have to do to get the job done.

The question is the mix of other things that might be supportive

here.

If it’s within the judgment of the committee, and I recognize, I

certainly respect that you’re going to make this judgment, to allow

us this flexibility, I’d like to have it, because I think there are

times when we may want to, especially with some of the things

we’re talking about, to get after youth dependency, we may need

some of that flexibility. But I also want to be clear that in asking

for that, I am not in any way trying to evade the central point,

which is I inherited a program where some, especially appropriators, were concerned that we had spent $1 billion and drug use

93

was not going down. They warned me this was a powerful tool, but

we’re going to have to take it away because of the competition and

the concern about the campaign.

I took responsibility and said, give me a chance to try to fix it.

And if I can’t fix it, then you can take it away, because we

shouldn’t waste money, we have a lot of other needs here. I’ve

made an effort to do that, I’d just like to keep the tools that allow

me to keep doing that and you will obviously be the judges of

whether or not that’s successful now and in the future. I appreciate

that, I appreciate the responsibility and I welcome the accountability. I’m trying to transfer it to other places. But I need to have

some authority and flexibility, I think, to fairly carry out that accountability.

Mr. WAXMAN. There’s a 3 percent cap on non-advertising components of the campaign. And I’m interested in your views on that,

whether you think that would limit the reach of the campaign’s

anti-drug message, particularly with respect to segments of the

population not reached through general advertising.

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, I am concerned, we now spend a little over

5 percent, I think, in this category. We would like to maintain

some, again, some flexibility here, for all the reasons I indicated before. I understand we have to focus. The campaign is a sophisticated, modern campaign. We have developed materials to reach out

to special populations because we know one size doesn’t fit all. We

have tried to use the best knowledge.

Can we make improvements? Yes. But this is not a cookie cutter,

crude operation at this point. It’s sophisticated. The question was,

can we make it work. The report I cited today and I think the overall trends show we are beginning to make it work. I’d like to have

some flexibility to include some of these things. I know we’ve been

criticized in the past, some people thought they were frills and

things expended on that were beside the point.

We should not be doing that. And if we’re doing that, we should

stop doing it. What I’d like to do, though, is have the ability to do

things that are not frills, that are focused, that go beyond that, provide a modern marketing and provide referral, provide support for

the messages that not only then do people see messages as young

people, but they see them more powerfully because there are some

residents out in the rest of the society.

This is certainly not different from many other Government

sponsored campaigns. The census was brought up earlier. It and

other Government sponsored campaigns for health and other public

good purposes also have a mix and that mix has to be based on

who you’re trying to reach and how best to reach them.

Mr. WAXMAN. One of my colleagues, Ms. Watson, referred to the

fact that we’ve had some success in anti-tobacco advertisements in

California. It isn’t just due to the advertisements, it’s the use of

free media, it’s other expenditures. I think one of the best ways to

change public attitudes is through reports, hearings, press conferences that generate the free news coverage. This bill would include your activities to provide information to the public and the

media within that 3 percent cap?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, it would. And we’d like to maintain, as I say,

the flexibility to do some of the things that you enunciated that we

94

think are not peripheral, are not a diversion, but are central to improving the impact of the campaign.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Walters, I want to thank you for your comments and for your hard work. And I also want to appreciate the

support of the chairman of our subcommittee with regard to the

legislation. We still do have some problems to work out. We will

work them out.

And also I’m very appreciative with regard to the Dawson language. I want to talk about that for a little bit. One of the things

that, as you know, and I was glad Mr. Ruppersberger mentioned

it earlier, we have many areas in our country where neighborhoods

sadly have been taken over by drug dealers. As a matter of fact,

I can think of, we have five Hope Six projects in Baltimore, all of

them had at one time, when they were high-rises, had been taken

over by drug dealers. I mean literally, it was a drug dealers’ place

where residents were afraid to even get on an elevator. Hope Six

has for all intents and purposes been eliminated with the President’s budget.

Then we look at our States. And we see, we have situations

where States now, you go down the list, because they are experiencing deficits, they are now cutting back on drug funds for treatment and almost anything to do with drugs, they’re cutting back.

And I think that’s kind of a logical thing to happen, because maybe

they figure, well, here’s something we can cut back on, and they

may not have the strong advocates for these funds, lobbying or

whatever.

It just seems like we’ve got a combination here where, first of all,

if States start cutting back, the question becomes how does the

Federal Government step in, and if we do step in, how do we step

in to be most effective. Because that’s real. When you’re taking

money away from drug treatment in Baltimore, which has happened, I think we cut $5.6 million in our State budget, because

we’ve got problems. We just don’t have the money, like other

States.

That means that a lot of treatment slots are not going to be

filled. There are a lot of problems. So I’m just trying to figure out,

when you take that into consideration, and then with the Dawson

situation, we still have this problem where you’ve got these drug

dealers who will threaten and kill. I think about every 2 or 3

months there’s some story in the Baltimore Sun about some trial

not going forward because some drug dealer allegedly has harmed

or killed a potential witness. Of course, the thing that we see even

more so than that is the long list of unsolved crimes related to

drugs because of the fear.

And while I do appreciate Dawson and I think the provisions, I

just think some kind of way we have got to work even harder to

protect every regular, every day citizens, who are like the Dawson

family, who are simply trying to eke out a decent life and get these

drug salespersons, I call them salespersons of death, off their corners, so they can live a decent life. I’m just trying to figure out,

where are we generally with that? Are you working with the U.S.

95

attorneys offices and whatever, FBI and DEA on that? Because this

is a very important issue.

And the other question goes to the whole State budget situation,

with all the cutbacks, then how do, first of all, do you see us stepping into the gap and filling it? And if not, then how do we, I’m

talking about the Federal Government now, how do we still address the problem, which is not necessarily getting much better?

Mr. WALTERS. Let me take the budget question first. We have

been working with HHS and others because we are concerned.

We’re going to put more money into treatment, but the net result

is not going to be what we want, because there will be a cutback

in the contributed resources from States and localities, because

they’re cutting back. As you know, many of these programs have

maintenance of effort provisions that we are trying to be more scrupulous in reminding officials about. I recognize when they have a

budget deficit they’ve got to cut somewhere.

But the fact is, as you said, you have to make a case and you

have to make the argument about what the priority and the responsibilities are to maintain these efforts. I have been to States

where they are concerned that centers are going to close, these

treatment centers are going to close because of the cutbacks. It’s

not so easy to turn those back after they’ve been taken down.

So we’re trying to work to make sure that we have both flexibility in the program that as you know the President offered and that

we seek support for on treatment, would allow us to use vouchers

also in targeted areas where on the basis of need and a plan to

meet that need. So it gives us more flexibility than we would have

with some of the, we’re maintaining the block grant but the current

block grant, which does distribution simply on the basis of population, doesn’t have the same kind of flexibility.

But ultimately, we’ve got to bring people together. What I’ve

tried to do in traveling is meet with State officials from Governors’

offices and State legislatures, from mayors’ offices and city council

members. I was just in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. I also think

this touches the second part of your question. We have to make

people safe in all neighborhoods. I did what I did with you, and I

think it is important, the leadership I saw when you did this is—

we have to walk into the neighborhoods that are now threatened.

We have to provide, both give them hope, but also we’ve got to do

more than give them false hope. We have to make the problem

smaller, we have to make more people safe. It will not happen, as

you know, overnight.

But also, my office is collecting data on major metropolitan areas

that have been particularly affected. That data includes where

there are treatment sites, where there are drug courts, where there

is particular known need for prevention and community coalition

resources, on where there is need that’s not met. It includes data

on where there are open air drug markets. And what we want to

do is sit down with the people who are carrying the freight and in

many cases feel they’re not being supported and bring the press

and bring the civic leaders and bring the political leaders together,

Federal, State and local, and say, what are our goals, how do we

make the problem smaller in a concrete way, not just everybody

96

says they want to do something, everybody talks about how they

care, and they all go home.

We want to come back to these areas on a regular basis, several

times a year with myself and my deputies. That’s a job that we

have not taken at this office. We’ve been responsible for programs

and budget. We need to maintain that responsibility. But what we

also need to do, we need to make sure that the deployment and the

leadership is being supported by what we’re doing nationally. It

will not be easy. It will not work in every place. But I’ve made the

decision with my staff to go in and be more of a catalyst at the

local level.

Mr. CUMMINGS. One quick comment. I just hope that when you

talk about victories, I hope that you will find time, we will get this

bill done, the reauthorization done, and the Dawson piece will be

in there. And I will never forget the statement that you made at

the funeral for those six family members, in saying that you would

not let the Dawson family die in vain. I hope that you’ll come back

to Baltimore and stand with us in Baltimore to let the drug dealers

know that we’re trying to do something to make sure that they

don’t have their way. Because that’s part of the process, Mr. Chairman. We’ve got to do those kinds of things. I hope you will come

back.

Mr. WALTERS. I will. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.

Walters.

You spoke earlier of some dissatisfaction with some members

over our gun strategy and of course with your own dissatisfaction,

your own commitment to fixing whatever’s wrong with it. You

spoke also of the fact that dissatisfaction comes from the fact that

drug use isn’t going down.

I have a question about ad strategy. With some apology, I wasn’t

here the entire time, two or three other hearings are going on at

the same time. I want to make this observation, however. The ad

business, particularly if you consider that most people get their information from the visual and radio media, the ad business has

changed markedly, some of it good, some of it bad. There’s a niche

market for everything on the one hand.

The bad part about that is, it keeps us from being one America.

If everybody doesn’t look at something that’s the same, then are we

one people any more? Of course, the electronic media, new technology helped push the notion toward niche media, and of course,

different strokes for different folks, that makes some sense. Where

we are now is that niche media controls everything. I mean, it’s not

even young adults any more. It’s not even teens any more. It’s

teens between X and Y who look only at certain things. It’s young

adults who are at a certain sector of the 20’s and those who are

at another sector of the 20’s. Nobody even thinks about 18 to 35

any more. That’s just how much of niches we’ve become.

Now, let me be clear. The racial niches are very worrisome to me

on the one hand, they are reality, on the other hand. The reason

has been the growth of black radio, and it’s one of the huge growth

industries in the media. It’s because black people listen to this

97

black radio. There’s black talk radio, they listen to the black music,

we’ve got black proms and white proms, God help us.

So folks are definitely into their own media. So Members of Congress have to make sure they’re on all the niches or they’ve only

spoken to small parts of their own constituents. And no question

in my mind that if you are going to deal with drugs in inner cities

that you’re going to have to get into not only black radio and Hispanic radio, but into niches within niches of those. And if drug use

is not going down in those communities, I am left to wonder if

some of it doesn’t have to do with the very finely tuned expertise

it takes to know even how to reach the communities that are most

vulnerable.

In our communities, those most vulnerable to drugs are the least

advantaged, the most inner of the inner cities, the places where

there’s no other opportunity and therefore, particularly for a young

black boy, those are the ones that are most likely to get into drugs.

When you see these huge opportunities out here for drug dealing

and no opportunities for jobs in your community, for too many the

temptation becomes overwhelming, especially given the fact that

one of the great problems in our community is the growth of female

headed households.

I need to ask you then, the extent to which you are getting advice on minority media, what percentage of this huge media budget

goes to minority media, what kind of experts are you using so that

we can get at what is the worst part of the problem, and that’s the

drug dealing in the minority community that has led to what in

this city and across the United States amounts to escalated crime

in those communities.

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you. I think that while there’s been a kind

of fragmenting of markets, that from the point of view of what this

task is, that’s helpful to us. It allows us to deliver messages, different messages that are going to work. We’ve learned that one size

doesn’t fit all. The campaign has, I think, a proud history, and I’ll

be happy to supply the contractors, because I think they deserve

recognition, for the record. I don’t have them off the top of my

head.

[The information referred to follows:]

98

99

100

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would submit them so the Chairman can

get them.

Mr. WALTERS. Sure. Provide both content and provide advice on

buying slots to place that content. Because we do have both different groups we’re trying to reach. But we also have adults, parents and young people. And so we are able, I think this kind of allows us to do a parallel to smart bomb technology. It allows us to

put the message in the audience that we need to reach and not just

rely on whatever seepage there is when we know that one size

doesn’t fit all.

Now, there are a lot of markets, and we’re also providing material in writing, languages with particular ethnic populations. But

I think we have a good record in regard to especially ethnic groups

that have been particularly suffering from this. So I’m proud to

provide that. I’ll give you all the details for the record.

Ms. NORTON. I would very much appreciate that. Finally, let me

say how pleased I am to note that apparently for the first time, the

bill is going to require the development of a uniform set of data,

allowing some standard evaluation of all the drug treatment programs. Now, we have them popping up all over the place, people

who think they can talk to people and get people off drugs. I very

much welcome the notion of evaluating what a professional drug

treatment operation should look like, so that we can ferret out

some of this stuff that comes forward.

My question goes to early treatment. Because young people in

the inner cities are so exposed to drugs so early, if one can get

early treatment that amounts to prevention. And I note your interest and concern with marijuana, I’m right there with you, because

that’s such an entry level drug. I wonder what part of your operation, and I recognize the agencies that deal with this on the one

hand, but what part of your operation influences treatment and the

funding that goes into treatment?

And again, I am really not focused on people who are hard core,

understand their needs. I am here focusing on young people who

will get a weed early in life. I’m focusing on the schools, I’m focusing on early treatment before somebody gets hooked. Does your office have any substantial influence on what amounts to what I can

only call chronic complaints about the absence of treatment? And

here I’m not asking you to focus on that whole humongous thing,

because I know what that can mean. But particularly given your

interest in prevention, whether you have any influence on, whether

your office has any influence on early treatment that might in fact

amount to preventing especially young people from moving on to

harder drugs.

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, my deputy for demand reduction, Dr. Andrea

Barthwell, has been working with HHS extensively over the last

year. HHS has just released an announcement for a series of

grants that will focus on early intervention.

We agree that if we’re going to take the disease of addiction seriously, we ought to be clear. The way this disease is spread is by

non-addictive users who are usually young people who initiate

other of their peers. The carriers of this disease are the young people who have already broken the boundary of prevention and have

now begun to use.

101

We have very cost effective and demonstrated efforts that can

start with education, that can start with more intensive followup

depending on the involvement of the individual. As I said earlier,

I’m not sure whether you were here or at the other hearing, of the

6 million people we have to treat because of abuse or dependence

on illegal drugs, 23 percent are teenagers. Many of them are in

schools. They’re in faith communities, they’re in after school activities, they’re obviously in their homes.

We have to do a better job of recognizing the symptoms and giving people a place to go when they recognize it. Too many times

denial is not only part of the disease, it’s denial of the people

around those who suffer from the disease. Some of that is because

they don’t know what to do. What we’re going to try to do with the

media campaign in the next year, as I said, is do a better job of

informing the public and its many parts of what intervention is

needed, why it’s valuable, why it’s important to support intervention and recovery. And then what to do, where to go.

And we’re trying to do, with HHS, expand those programs that

will be there. In addition, we’re trying with the treatment proposal

of the President to increase the number of people who can provide

it. We would like to see more community clinics, other types of

community institutions, more pediatricians take on substance

abuse as a sub-specialty, more general practitioners. More knowledge in emergency room and trauma centers, when people come in

after we know that there’s extensive problems driving under the influence of drugs.

Wherever we see people in the system, schools, hopefully we can

even enlist faith institutions as well as those who enter the criminal justice system. In many places we have juveniles, we don’t have

enough juvenile drug courts. We should be able to get people the

first time they come in, get them in earlier. All the evidence shows

that the earlier intervened, the more promising the prognosis. We

have to use that knowledge more effectively.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Walters, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER [assuming Chair]. Thank you today for your participation. I will continue to work through a number of these issues,

including the constantly difficult question of how to find specialty

media expertise, and how to target all the different sub-markets,

whether they be Native Americans, rural areas or urban areas.

One of the unusual things about this authorizing bill is that

some things you have direct control over, like the ad campaign, and

the HIDTAs, where we have details in the bill. And in other things,

you have the indirect ability to oversee and influence all, including

treatment. So our oversight responsibilities sometimes are oversight, sometimes are authorizing. It’s led to an unusual bill and

your office is an unusual office.

But we thank you very much for your leadership and the time

you spent with us not only here, but in many oversight hearings.

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you. Thank you all for your help. I appreciate it.

102

Mr. SOUDER. With that, the hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee proceeded to other

business.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay and additional

information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

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

Æ