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

42–191 CC 1997

OVERSIGHT OF THE 1997 NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL STRATEGY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 27, 1997

Serial No. 105–22

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

MIKE PAPPAS, New Jersey

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

BOB BARR, Georgia

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL

JUSTICE

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman

MARK SOUDER, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVE LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

GARY A. CONDIT, California

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

JIM TURNER, Texas

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

ROBERT CHARLES, Staff Director

SEAN LITTLEFIELD, Professional Staff Member

IANTHE SAYLOR, Clerk

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 27, 1997 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

McCaffrey, Gen. Barry R., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy ................................................................................................................... 3

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

McCaffrey, Gen. Barry R., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of ............................................................................ 7

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE 1997 NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL STRATEGY

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:35 p.m., in room

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Hastert, Mica, Souder, Shadegg, Barr,

Barrett, and Cummings.

Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director; Sean Littlefield, professional staff member; Ianthe Saylor, clerk; and Mark Stephenson,

minority professional staff member.

Mr. HASTERT. This meeting of the House Government Reform

and Oversight Committee, Subcommittee on National Security,

International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, will come to order.

Good morning and welcome. This morning’s hearing focuses on a

topic that touches every American, and I do mean every American.

That topic is drugs. By ‘‘drugs,’’ I mean drug abuse of every form,

including the recent rise in drug abuse by America’s youth. But I

also mean the growing national security threat posed by wealthy,

powerful, and violent drug cartels on our southern border.

We are privileged to have with us today a true leader in this increasingly violent war and a decorated veteran of two other wars.

I want to welcome Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a friend and dedicated

servant of the American people and our Nation’s drug czar.

Before I turn to the President’s latest drug strategy, however, I’ll

review the problems that we face in the drug war. We face exploding teenage willingness to try high-potency marijuana, often laced

with PCP or crack. We face record-level teenage overdoses, like the

heroin overdose that killed the Smashing Pumpkins’ keyboard

players last year. Heroin that only reached 10 percent purity in the

late–1970’s can now reach 95 percent purity. Kids do not usually

get two chances with heroin that pure.

There are other new drugs threatening our kids and teens, including new stimulants, over-the-counter inhalants like Glade air

freshener, and LSD marketed with pictures of the ‘‘Lion King.’’ Let

me point out the obvious: The drug traffickers are not trying to sell

the ‘‘Lion King’’ to 16-year-olds; they are now targeting 8-year-olds

with LSD.

2

We, of course, must still contend with our primary nemesis, cocaine. We are faced with 400 tons of cocaine entering the United

States every year undetected, and 150 tons of methamphetamine,

also known as ‘‘speed,’’ that crosses our Southwest Border.

We face cocaine possessed by the Cali Cartel in Colombia, processed by that, and then the drugs that have caused more than

3,600 Colombian police officers to lose their lives in recent combat

with the drug-trafficking guerrillas there.

We face the drugs that are linked to homicides in this city and

every other American city, and increasingly, to murders, assaults,

and rapes, and burglaries in rural America.

This hearing, like the other three that we have already held this

session of Congress, is dedicated to two main purposes: First, shining a bright light on the national threat, a tragedy which the DEA

reports is taking more than 10,000 American lives annually; second, to help build a national consensus that together, we, as a Nation of Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural communities,

parents and kids, can turn back this riptide of drug abuse.

Before turning to our distinguished witness today, let me say

that Congress will take action to help solve this problem. We will

encourage parents to talk to their kids about the dangers of drugs.

We will work together in communities across America. In fact, I

will soon be introducing legislation with Congressmen Portman,

Rangel, and Levin to spur the creation of community anti-drug coalitions to bring communities together to stop this scourge.

As we turn to examining the National Drug Strategy, I will ask

Gen. McCaffrey to begin his testimony. I will do so with great respect for the General, his work, both as an officer in the Army and

as a Director of the ONDCP; and my respect and friendship certainly will lead to cooperation. But we will continue to keep a critical eye to evaluate that drug strategy.

It is my duty and that of all of my colleagues to ensure that we

pursue the best strategy possible to fit the American needs and to

fight the scourge of drugs in our country.

I am pleased to turn to my colleague, the subcommittee’s ranking

minority member, Tom Barrett of Wisconsin, for any opening remarks he may have.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Gen.

McCaffrey. You are a good man, and you have been a very effective

Director the past year, and we are very happy to have you here

today.

However, as you are far more aware than anybody else in this

room, you face one of the most difficult and challenging jobs in this

entire country. Before the hearing, a couple of us were talking up

here, and I said, this guy has one tough job; and I applaud you for

the enthusiasm and energy you put into your job.

The problem, of course, is that despite some encouraging signs,

we are unfortunately seeing that the problem of drug use is getting

worse in America, especially among America’s youth. According to

the 1997 National Drug Control Strategy released this week, the

use of illegal drugs among eighth-graders is up 150 percent over

the past 5 years, with more than half of all high school students

using illegal drugs by the time they graduate.

3

The use of cocaine by eighth-graders has doubled to 4.5 percent

in 1996, and almost one in four high school seniors used marijuana

on a past-month basis in 1996, and it is being used by younger and

younger children.

I was at the White House earlier this week, when you talked

about the fact that a child who stays drug and alcohol free between

the ages of 13 and 21, will most likely stay drug free his or her

entire life, and I hope that you talk a little bit about that today,

because I think that it puts the spotlight where it has to be, and

that is on our Nation’s youth and how important this fight is for

all of us today.

Clearly, there must be more done if we are to prevent a future

drug epidemic. This year’s strategy and budget submission by the President provides some hope. It requests $16 billion. That is $818

million more than fiscal year 1997, a 5.4 percent increase, and the

innovation of developing a 10-year strategy also strikes me as a

good way to get a handle on long-term solutions to this problem.

Also of obvious concern, I think, to all of us here today is the recent revelations of corruption in the Mexican Government, and I

am sure that that is going to come up a little bit today.

I look forward to hearing from you on these and other important

issues. Thank you.

Mr. HASTERT. Without objection, we will ask that all Members

put their opening statements in the record, and so ordered. I would

like to welcome Gen. McCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Strategy; and, General, as always, we are

pleased to have you here. Would you stand and raise your right

hand. The committee’s rules require me to swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. HASTERT. Let the record show that the witness responded in

the affirmative.

Thank you, General, and please proceed with your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF GEN. BARRY R. McCAFFREY, DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for the opportunity to appear in front of your committee to lay out some of

our own thinking and, perhaps more importantly, respond to your

own interests and questions. Let me also thank Congressman Tom

Barrett for joining this leadership effort, and I look forward to

working with you and the minority members of the committee.

I would be remiss if I did not very specifically acknowledge that

many of you on this committee and certainly others in the House

have been instrumental in my education and support in the way

that we have developed this process over the last year. Rob

Portman and Charlie Rangel, in particular, I need to publicly comment on as they have been very instrumental in a leadership role.

I would also, if I may, acknowledge Elijah Cummings, who has

taken me to Baltimore and tried to show me what drug abuse and

its consequences really look like in an urban environment, and I

thank you, sir; Steny Hoyer; Ben Gilman, who has done tremendous work in helping orient us on the problems of the interdiction

zone and the source countries; Congressman Livingston, who pulled

4

together the leadership, along with you, Mr. Hastert, to give us the

largest drug budget in history last year; Frank Wolf; Jim Kolbe;

and David Obey.

I would also, if I may, publicly comment that Maxine Waters and

the Congressional Black Caucus have been very involved in an

oversight role on how this strategy has been developed. I have also

consulted with Mr. Waxman.

Finally, the strategy that I have put in front of you today is

clearly the work of a team effort. Although we have, by law, the

responsibility of writing the annual drug strategy and pulling together and certifying the budget, there is no question that the big

three people in my life are the Attorney General, Janet Reno; Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala; and Education Secretary Dick Riley.

A bunch of the other 14 significant officers of Government,

though, took key roles in this: Bob Rubin; the former Secretary of

Defense, Dr. Perry; and others. We have certainly had the continuous involvement of the law enforcement national leadership,

which we are really blessed to work with: Tom Constantine, Louis

Freeh; and over in Treasury, Jim Johnson.

Let me, if I may, Mr. Chairman, point out what I have offered

for the record, a statement that we have done considerable work

on, and I apologize that we had this down here later than your

staff would have liked. But that is on the floor for you to consider.

I have also included copies, if I may for the record, of the drug

situation that I will portray on these briefing charts over to my

left. Finally, I think Dr. John Carnevale in my office has put together a very useful piece of paper, the Fiscal Year 1998 Drug Control Budget. Now, there is a thicker book of this, but this tries to

lay it out and show you how we are recommending for other congressional committees to consider the funding to make this strategy

happen.

The strategy itself; there are two volumes, Mr. Chairman, that

I have laid out. There is a third one that is classified. The first volume really is the one we ought to focus on, in my judgment. It is

smaller; it is cleaner. We think it is a first rate piece of work. It

took 4,000-some-odd sources of input to write this over the last 9

months. We think it is a guide to action and will be a useful way

for us to organize our thinking conceptually over the next 10 years.

Also, by law, we submit the budget summary and other related

documents required in the 1988 act, and I think that will be a

source of good background information for many of you.

Finally, for the first time we have been able to complete and put

into play a classified annex to the National Drug Strategy, and attempt to do the law enforcement-sensitive information and guidance to DOD or other overseas interdiction actors, and that is certainly available for your consideration.

Before giving you a very brief overview, I wonder if you might

allow me to introduce Dr. Hoover Adger, who is sitting behind me;

and Dr. Adger—sir, if you would stand up—has now joined us as

my Deputy. That slot, of course, was authorized by the Congress

last year and salary funded. I will submit it for congressional consideration as a Senate-approved position.

5

Dr. Adger comes with enormously distinguished credentials as a

Johns Hopkins pediatrics professor of medicine with a lifelong specialization in adolescent addiction. He is very widely published, and

I think he will be a tremendous source of strength and knowledge

to all of us, and I wanted to publicly tell this committee that he

is joining the team.

Very quickly, Pancho, if you would pull some slides here, there

are five brief points I would make, and then I think I will just respond to your own interests. The first is to say that, look, America,

265 million of us, have walked away from drugs over the last 15

to 20 years. We were up at 25 million regular users. We are down

to 12 million. Essentially, adult use of drugs is stable or declining;

and, indeed, cocaine use is plummeting. It is down, we say, some

72 percent.

This is true, whether you look at the absolute number of casual

users, at those who are new initiates, or whether you go to the

12th-grade population.

Now, it is hard for a police officer, a narcotics officer, an emergency room doctor to believe this, because we are also saying that

the tonnage consumed in America has remained relatively stable.

So emergency room admissions and crime and sickness and the

consequences of this dreadful drug are increasing.

Here is a problem: eighth-graders. I capture this because they

are at the front end of the most sensitive part of their nervous system development, their emotional development, their social

progress. Drug use among eighth-graders, and it really started to

turn around in 1989, we think, on the value systems, has gone up

some 150 percent. When you look at kids in general, the peak year

was probably around 1990, when disapproval started to go down,

disapproval rates by young people.

In 1991, we saw the drop in the risk perception by youth, and

then in 1992, actual drug use by young Americans started to go up.

It has gone up every year since then. It is now only half as bad

as it was in 1979. It will get worse if we do not get better organized.

Now, finally, let me announce that the drug situation is not static. Cocaine use may be plummeting, but new drugs are appearing,

new, higher purity heroin; but a new drug, methamphetamine, I

would put on the table as a potentially worse threat to America

than the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980’s. It is not just a West

Coast threat now; it is out in rural Iowa and Missouri and Utah

and Idaho and other places.

Finally, a quick note on the cost of all this. Emergency room admissions of drugs, as I have said, are going up, and so the medical

and social consequences are getting worse.

Finally, many would argue, we have been willing, and I think

correctly so, to stand firm on violent crime in the sales of drugs,

but it has resulted in an explosion of incarcerations in this country.

We are up to 1.6 million Americans behind bars, the highest percapita incarceration rate, many would argue, on the face of the

globe.

We can project potentially that the figure will get 25 percent

worse in the coming years. When I point this out, not to decry our

appropriate confrontation with violent crime, but to underscore

6

that if we do not back concepts like the drug court system, ‘‘Break

the Cycle,’’ and effective treatment methodologies, that we are consigned to enormous recidivism rates and increasing incarceration,

which cost us as taxpayers a fortune. That is a $17 billion-a-year

bill to pay for that system. I might add, it is so massive that the

prison construction budget in the United States now exceeds that

of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Finally, a comment: Interdiction is important. Cocaine; we strip

off—‘‘we,’’ meaning Peruvian cops, the Colombian Air Force, the

Mexican Army, law enforcement in the United States—probably a

third of the cocaine produced each year. We also get a good bit of

the heroin. Worldwide, we say, some 32 metric tons gets seized.

The U.S. law enforcement agencies get 1.3 metric tons. Now,

having said that, what we have got to face up to is though the devastation caused by drug abuse is enormous—we say $70 billion a

year and 16,000 dead—in fact, there is a reasonably small number

of us abusing these drugs. That 3.6 million Americans’ demand is

a fraction of the world’s total needs. So heroin, we say, perhaps 360

metric tons, on up to 450 metric tons available; we use 10 metric

tons. Cocaine, we estimate potentially we are using 240 metric

tons, but the world may be producing more than 800 metric tons.

I might add, it is going up dramatically in Colombian production.

So, to end with a restatement of the National Drug Strategy, it

focuses on education and prevention for 68 million American children. We are aware we have to manage the consequences of addiction for 3.6 million chronic addicts in America. Finally, we have an

equal responsibility to construct appropriate Federal agencies to

protect our air, land, and sea borders and to create international

coalitions of cooperative democracies.

Drugs are not an American problem; it is not a Colombian problem; a Thai problem; it is a global problem, and I think we are

going to have to work in a full partnership with these international

actors.

Now, having said that, Mr. Chairman, you gave us some $15.6

billion last year. We are asking for about $16 billion this year for

bipartisan support. We have written 32 objectives that lend themselves to performance measurement for those five goals. We are

pretty far advanced. We have 126 working groups around the Government trying to define how we will come down here and demonstrate to you that we are taking this strategy and trying to

achieve output functions with the money Congress gives us.

On that note, if I may, Mr. Chairman, let me end the formal remarks and respond to your own interests.

[The prepared statement of Gen. McCaffrey follows:]

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Mr. HASTERT. I thank you very much, General. One of the things

that I just want to, for the record, we are not going to recess. We

are going to try, for your convenience and everybody else to move

through this, and there will be other Members coming back after

they vote. There is a vote going on right now.

Let me kind of break this down. I see four areas. There is treatment that you have to address; there is the prevention issue that

you have to address; there is intervention, trying to stop this stuff

on our streets and interdiction at our borders; and then there is a

foreign source, trying to stop this stuff by working with foreign

countries so it actually is not grown, is never created, and never

comes to us.

Our job, along with you, is trying to work to see how we expend

funds in the wisest and best ways, and somewhere that magic formula is out there that we can keep drugs away from our children,

that we can see a downward trend continuing in drug use in this

country, and to stop that blip or sometimes very, very devastating

increases that we see in drug use increases. As you know, we can

put a lot of charts up, but we know that after 1991 or 1992, the

increase among our children, especially our youngest children, in

drug usage started to go up, and we need to find the strategies to

stop that.

One of the things that we heard yesterday from representatives

of 12 leading civic and youth-serving volunteer organizations was

that it was brought to our attention that over 50 million adults and

youth belong to one of these organizations or participate in these

organizations, which are doing, I think, tremendous jobs with

young people. How do you see the White House facilitating a relationship with these organizations, which apparently has not existed

in the past?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, I could not agree with you more. At the

end of the day, this problem in America is going to get solved at

the community level, not Washington, DC. So the $16 billion has

to make sense, has to support parents, educators, local law enforcement, local coalitions. There is a fellow, Jim Copple, who is from

CACDA. He and his organization have done magnificent work trying to support more than 4,300 community coalitions across America. They are getting organized and energized again because our

children are at risk.

In addition, these great civic organizations which you have mentioned—Elk, Kiwanis, Lions, Optimists, religious organizations—

also deserve our visibility and support. We are going to propose, I

might add, on the reauthorization act for my small agency. You

have got us at 154 people. I am going to try and reorganize and

make it more obvious that one of our three elements in ONDCP is

responsible for intergovernmental affairs, meaning responding to

local State government and organizations.

Now, in addition, I think we have made pretty significant

progress this year, though, in listening to these people and trying

to respond to their own activities, whether it is PRIDE, D.A.R.E.,

Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs, or these civic organizations. But, Mr. Chairman, I agree with your point, they are essential to our future.

Mr. HASTERT. Let me talk and move to another area, and that

is certainly the area of interdiction and foreign-source countries.

28

You say that we are able to take off the market about one-third of

the cocaine that is produced, and about two-thirds of it moves into

this country that was meant for this country; there is more going

to other places.

Some of it is done in our borders, some of it is done in our

streets, some of it is done on the high seas, some of it is done in

the air, and our strategy with Peru, with the cooperation of their

President, has been somewhat successful. We had talked privately

and also openly that your strategy is going to be to try to increase

that cooperation. Basically, 70 percent of the cocaine that comes

into this country has, at least its growth origin, becomes a commodity in that country, and then moves up through the Andean

Chain into Colombia and Mexico and into this country.

What more can we do in Peru? One of the things is really a function of economics, that if you can shut off the supply lines, there

is a glut of cocaine. The price is pushed down. It is no longer attractive for the campesinos to growth this product—it is also the

strategy in Bolivia—and then that there is just less of it there, and

the prices are so low that it does not pay them to grow. Is that one

of the courses or one of the strategies that you are going to continue to pursue?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. It is really a tough challenge. One of the

things in Peru we are going to have to face up to is there are

200,000 people living on the land—campesinos, who are not the

enemy—and they are out there because this is an impoverished

country trying to develop alternative economic models. They would

rather grow legal crops, in the viewpoint of the Peruvian leadership, than they would live a life of warfare between drug cartels

and the Peruvian Armed Forces.

So we believe that the President and his government are committed to trying to move coca production out of the Peruvian economy. For the first time in 7 years, coca production is dramatically

down anywhere in the world, and that is in Peru, minus 18 percent. We need a big idea. We need to support Peru’s thinking on

this, and in my judgment, over the next 5 to 10 years, we can probably make a dramatic impact.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I guess I got the designated runner

award to go over and vote and get back.

I had a number of questions. I hope I can continue to catch my

breath here. One, in a direct followup with that, in the budget that

you have proposed, I am glad to see that you increase the interdiction proposal over where it had been. Do you have any nonrecurring costs in there for radar systems or other things like that?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. The interdiction piece deserves further analysis and work with your committee and others. There are continuing debates. One of the problems we had this year, to be blunt,

was that terrible embassy crisis in Peru, which I think cautioned

us from moving ahead as aggressively as we might have liked to.

There are significant increases. There is $40 million on the table

now for Peru. There is some new thinking. Gen. Wes Clark, CINC

SOUTHCOM, is looking at river and coastal interdiction operations. The Peruvians are aggressively trying to work land-smuggling routes to respond to the tremendous success they and the CoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:32 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42191 pfrm12 PsN: 42191
29

lombian Air Force have had in the air bridge, but we need to analyze it carefully.

Specifically, as you look at the 1998 budget, Mr. Congressman, that we turned in, there are about $168 million of nonrecurring

costs, that if you take it off the 1997 budget, shows there has been

a modest growth in interdiction of some $28 million. Last year, you

gave us $250 million minus some, and we went out with DOD

money and forfeiture money and bought some equipment that is

going to stand us in good stead. So interdiction is slightly up $28 million over last year’s 1997

budget.

Mr. SOUDER. I know we will continue to have some questions

about moving into Brazil and the Amazon Basin to try to avoid the

radar and detection in Peru and Bolivia. I was over in Thailand

just after you were. We were voting, and so I was not able to piggyback with you the couple of days before that, which I was hoping

to do. But, clearly, the way the heroin is moving out of that area,

it is almost impossible, unless we get it at its source point, because

it is going both directions around the world, and we need to look

at that issue, and we will continue to do that.

I also wanted to make a brief comment and see what your reaction was on it. You had one chart there that showed 1989 being the

peak of disapproval, and then the least usage, it was 12th-graders,

I believe, being in 1991. I wanted to make a point with this, that

I was working for Senator Coats at that point, and specifically was

in charge of hiring. We put seven staff people on the drug issue

alone. Multiple attorneys and Ph.D.’s worked with the Drug Czar

at that point and passed lots of legislation.

Really, the peak of national attention was in 1989 and 1990,

when we were reacting. We saw the funds go through going into

1991, but the political phrase at that point was, the top-three

issues were drugs, drugs, and drugs. There was not a second issue

in 1989.

Our campaign consultant for this campaign, at that point, was

Dick Morris, and we tested. There was nothing in the country that

tested like that, and we were all making a concerted effort. This,

more or less, through the 12th-graders shows that when there is

a concentrated effort, we, indeed, can make that kind of impact.

Now, part of my concern is, is that we do not get—I have seen

some of your statements, which I agree with. Interdiction alone will

not work. At the same time, interdiction is certainly a starting

point and one we can get our hands on because the truth is, treatment alone does not work either because, as we get into treatment,

we will find out, and I am on the subcommittee that oversees treatment programs—we do not have a really good success program

with that, either.

I am on the oversight committee that has education, both the

Education Committee and the Reform and Oversight Committee,

and we have a mixed track record. The program that I think is

best, which is D.A.R.E., has a mixed track record as the studies are

going through, and it is very hard to sort this thing through.

I am concerned that a wrong signal is not accidentally sent, because I agree that we have to get prevention in the treatment, and

if we can get the users off, but that interdiction is at least an equal

30

partner in this. We cannot be perceived as backing off of interdiction because unless we are doing all three of those, and that is

most clearly the congressional role, because even in your budget I

think you have $3 billion for treatment and only about $1.5 for

interdiction.

It is not as though we cannot give the impression to the general

public that we are focusing on interdiction solely, because that is

not the truth. The part that has been cut is the interdiction, and

the other parts have been rising.

Do you have any reactions to that?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, basically I agree with your point. We

have got to do interdiction. We have got to defend our air, land,

and sea borders regardless of whether it is going to be a war winner. We owe the American people a decent organization of our

2,000-mile Southwest Border. Last year, we put about a 25 percent

increase in funds into it. Last year, Congress gave us the money

for 1,500 additional personnel. This year, the 1998 budget, we are

asking for another 500 Border Patrol agents, 100-some-odd DEA,

50-some-odd FBI.

So your point is a good one. We have got to do that. We cannot

get rolled on defending our own land, air, and sea space by criminal activity.

I think the balance point is one that I will have to listen carefully to your views on. I do not think we have done enough on

source country operations in Peru, as an example. I think that is

a good place to go and work seriously.

Finally, I would share your view: Heroin is the hardest thing to

sort through. Worldwide production is up, double. It is in Afghanistan; it is in Burma; it is in Laos; it is in the Bekka Valley.

Mr. SOUDER. Nigerian trafficking is almost impossible to control.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. It tends to be most of a problem where Government has the least control. So you cannot go to the Government

of Afghanistan and try to take sensible, cooperative, multinational

measures.

Mr. SOUDER. One brief comment. I want to have one other question. The comment is, I first want to congratulate you on your aggressive stance on the myth of the medicinal use of marijuana and

the willingness to stand up, because while we are trying to fight

a drug war, we have another group of citizens that are undermining the very thing that we are trying to do. I very much appreciate your standing up because I think some of the death statistics

are wrong. I am hearing from prosecutors and sheriffs that the

crimes are 70 percent, that kind of thing.

I know in my district there are numerous automobile wrecks that

have been reported as non-drug-related, and I hear from the kids

that there was drug use involved, if not immediate, the night before or other things, and they are not being reported as drug

deaths. The marijuana and cigarettes are the gateway drugs, but

marijuana, in particular, in the potency, you are to be congratulated, because a lot of other people wavered in public in this battle.

My question is, and this is an obvious question today, could you

describe, have you been part of the decertification question on Mexico? Are they taking your input? Do you have any comments on

that process? Also, one other followup with that is we heard the

31

other day in the hearing about whether any information was compromised, what kind of discussion did you have with the Drug Czar

in Mexico who has been part of the cartel?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your comment on the medical use of marijuana. I might add that what we

are now doing, ‘‘we,’’ meaning Secretary Shalala, Attorney General

Reno, and the other 12 cabinet officers that were involved in that

decision approved by the President of the United States, is we are

supporting the viewpoint of the American Medical Association, the

California Medical Association, the American Cancer Society.

We have the best medicine on the face of the earth. Part of it

is due to the fact that we certify safe and effective agents through

a scientific medical process done by the National Institutes of

Health and the Food and Drug Administration. As long as we do

that, the American people will not face thalidomide, laetrile, or

quack medicines.

We have said there is no ideology involved in this kind of a decision. A Schedule I drug is methamphetamine. Cocaine is used for

eye surgery. There is no ideology, but the American people must

get a scientific medical system. So Dr. Harold Varmas, our brilliant, Nobel Prize Laureate, NIH Director, will focus on that issue.

I have asked an independent American Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine, to look at what do we know and not know in scientific literature.

We have synthetic THC available right now, and if other of the

400-plus compounds in smoked marijuana show promise as therapeutic agents, I am sure they can be made available for the American medical establishment.

I thank you, sir, for your comment on that.

A quick response on the certification issue in Mexico, and I

would ask for your permission. Of course, as you are aware, in accordance with the law, this is not a policy decision; these are a

matter of public law, and the Secretary of State should be allowed

to form her own viewpoint, which she will have to do really by Saturday. I will be involved in that discussion and try and join other

senior officers of Government providing sound advice.

Mexico and Colombia are obviously special cases. I mean, in

Mexico, 100 million people to our south, our third-biggest economic

training partner; there is no border between the United States and

Mexico. There are 85 million cars and trucks that come back and

forth each year; 230 million people cross that border. We are culturally, economically, and politically integrated, and these brave

men and women in public life in Mexico are now—and I am just

putting this in context, my own view, as somebody who has dealt

with foreign systems for 32 years, they are trying to move Mexico

into a multiparty democracy, a First World economic alliance of

NAFTA partners, and to create modern institutions of government.

I do not know about the certification issue, but I am persuaded

that our children will be better off if we work with them in partnership. Partners demand concrete results, not just good feelings.

So we ought to look for ways in which both nations can confront

this absolutely incredible situation. Mexico has had 25 major assassinations in the last year, potentially more than 200 police officers

murdered.

32

The institutions of democracy in Mexico are under internal attack, and I would suggest that it is our own judgment—and I

would be remiss to not publicly say this—where we identify men

and women of courage and dedication, if we believe President

Zedillo and his senior officials of Government are trying to move

the Mexican people into the future and protect them, we ought to

stand up in public and say so, and I have been honored to do that.

I also, obviously, have carried a gun and worked with foreign

governments for a long time. I am not unaware that violence and

corruption are the twin tools that are being used against Colombia,

Peru, the Cayman Islands, Panama, and the United States. We

prosecuted 18,000 people in the Federal system last year. But I

think they are trying, and I think they have suffered a grave disappointment with the alleged uncovering of a criminal organization

involving their head drug cop.

Now, what did he get out of his couple of months in public office?

I do not know. Constantine and others are going to have to very

carefully assess that; certainly, the Mexicans are right now.

The easy one is when he was here in Washington, he did not get

anything. But having had 2 months’ access as the principle law enforcement officer involved in the drug system, we should view this

as a major blow to our partnership on this issue. President Zedillo

and his officers are going to have to move forward on the issue.

Mr. SOUDER. I would now like to recognize my friend and the distinguished ranking member from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank you,

General, for coming here today. I, as I indicated before, attended

the announcement earlier this week concerning the goals of the

1997 National Drug Control Strategy and had the opportunity to

talk to some members of my local media following that, and I was

somewhat saddened to sense that the general reaction was one of

cynicism, almost, OK, here we go again; another war on drugs.

So it would be helpful for me, and I have got a few questions specifically, as to how you can help the public understand the importance of this and why this is not just another one-shot media hit

and that there is something here.

My first question is, what is your office doing to improve the effectiveness of the Safe and Drug-Free School Program?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Mr. Congressman, it seems to me that the

principle problem we do face is cynicism or low expectations. There

are a lot of responsible women and men in city counsels, State legislatures, and, indeed, in the U.S. Congress who think this is hopeless, who think this is a 1-year spin operation. I do not share that

viewpoint.

I mean, in reality, the American people, when they say enough

is enough, get organized and make a difference, and we have seen

drug abuse in America come down dramatically in the last 15

years. These are artificially high rates of drug abuse. We have got

to remind ourselves, most Americans do not use drugs. A bunch of

them have tried them; we say 50 to 72 million Americans have

used illegal drugs and have walked away from it.

The problem is our children and those who are chronically addicted, and we have simply got to step up to the plate and say to

the parents, to the educators, to the police chiefs that we recognize

33

that if we can get these young people through their 21st birthday,

not just with threatening them with ‘‘brain on drugs’’ ads, but giving them positive options, by mentoring, by Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs,

by sports activities, by religious activities, that they can indeed,

and will in larger numbers than now reject drug abuse.

We have also got to remind ourselves that 80 percent of our kids

today have never touched an illegal drug. The problem is, one out

of five high school seniors has and is currently using illegal drugs.

The problem with that is not only do they act like jerks and they

get involved in teen pregnancy, traffic accidents, failure to learn,

and dropping out of sports; not only do they mute their social development; many of them go on to become addicted to substances

over time.

So we believe that, you know, Jim Burke from the Partnership

for a Drug-Free America, can track the national attention on this

issue through the news media and show that it can make a difference. That is why we put on the table what we think is a useful

tool of $175 million a year, with an equal, matching amount out

of the advertising industry over 5 years to talk to children who

watch 15,000 hours of television before they finish high school. I

think your sense of our challenge about cynicism is a correct one.

Now, Safe and Drug-Free Schools; we put some more money in

that program. If you look at the goals, Goals 1 through 5, the biggest increase in funds, percentage-wise, was Goal 1, a 21 percent

increase. A little bit deceptive, because the single biggest percentage of the budget still, hands down, is law enforcement and prisons, and that is OK. But the increase, the $800-some-odd million

dollars, the largest increase went into demand reduction among

children, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools was a big part of that.

We owe you, as Congress, a performance measure that allows me

to come down here in future years and explain what we achieved

out of spending that money. It has been inadequate in the past.

The GAO went out and did a study, which I am sure was appropriate, and found that the money was not properly managed. But

that program is essential. The Department of Education, we think,

can manage it, and it can give us some really important outcomes.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. On another question related to the program, several weeks ago, I had the good fortune of being up between 3 and 4 a.m., because we have a 3-week-old baby, so I got

to see some of the shows and some of the public service announcements that were occurring at that time. Part of the initiative that

you just referred to as a $175 million initiative for public service

announcements which would be matched by the private sector, I

am curious as to whether the networks have bellied up to the bar

and are going to be part of this or whether this is just $175 million

that we are turning over to the networks.

More importantly—and, again, this goes back to the cynicism I

faced in my district was, oh, great; you are going to be running TV

commercials. How is that going to work?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes.

Mr. BARRETT. If you would address those issues?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, we know how important advertising is, and we watch $6 billion in the cigarette industry and a couple of

billion dollars in the beer industry, and it does have an impact on

34

people; there is no question about it. We are the best in the world

at it, and I personally watched us take the volunteer Army and go

to this creative industry and help move us out of a draft environment and get the best young men and women in America to step

forward and volunteer to serve in the armed forces.

So we do have confidence in it, and there is some history there.

Again, Partnership for a Drug-Free America and the American Advertising Council knows a lot about this. Now, we have gone out

and started consultations with the entertainment world, the news

media, and advertising. We think right now they provide a little

over $2 million a year pro bono advertising, but it is coming down

dramatically. It dropped 30 percent in the last few years, and the

economics of the industry are causing some problems.

So my guess is they will support us; they will get involved. They

are responsible people. ABC has done a tremendous program that

is going to saturate the air waves in the coming months. This

starts next week. I went out to Hollywood and had a very useful

2 days and challenged the TV industry and the movie industry to

join us in this effort, and I think there was a very positive response, and I met with the NBC leadership.

So I think there is some confidence in what we are going to try

and do.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. Thank you. Finally, one question that my colleague, Congressman Tim Holden, asked me to pose to you. You

visited the Southwest Border on several occasions, and on Tuesday

of this week, the chief of the Border Patrol testified before this subcommittee on the violence toward law enforcement officials and the

increasing amount of illegal drugs crossing the United States-Mexican border. What technical assistance have you provided to the

U.S. Border Patrol for its protection of their agents and better surveillance of illegal activities along the Southwest Border?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. The first thing I did was I sent a reconnaissance representative along the Southwest Border last March, and

then I went back, and I went with Doug Kruhm, the Border Patrol

Chief, and Tom Constantine, the DEA Chief, and I have been to

many of the places along that border and been tutored by Customs,

INS. I have been to Joint Task Force 6. I have gone and worked

the intelligence problem. I have crossed the border and listened to

the Mexican side of it. I have a decent grounding on what the challenge is.

We have an inadequate U.S. Federal law enforcement establishment, and we have an inadequate intelligence system focused south

on the drug threat. We owe the President, by next summer, a better concept. We have got an initial one now. We have clearly got

good men and women along that border.

The Border Patrol is one of the most professional law enforcement operations on the face of the earth. That is what Mexican

ranchers and U.S. ranchers trust, and they are doing a tremendous

job, but they are inadequately sized. They have got a five-phase

strategy they have thought out, but I would argue that before we

are done with this, rather than 5,700 people on the Border Patrol,

we are more likely to have 20,000, and you cannot build cops like

you can surge the armed forces. They have to be older. They have

to get grounded. It takes 5 years to build a good cop, and we need

35

a Customs Agency that has high technology instead of 4,000 National Guardsmen unloading trucks of lettuce.

Now, last year, you gave us 11 mobile, x-ray machines. What a

tremendous step forward. We get those out there, and we are going

to start deterring drug smuggling through our 38 ports of entry.

Now, there is a lot we can do, and we need to do more. We have

got some people at threat living on our border, and that is unacceptable.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you very much.

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. Before I pass the questions down the

row here, let me just ask you, you talked about the National

Guard, but the National Guard has been pretty supportive, haven’t

they? They have been in other areas. I know we had testimony out

in California last year about what the National Guard was doing.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Thank God for the National Guard. I mean, on

a given day, there are 3 or 4,000 of them in the State supporting

law enforcement. Of course, they are non-Title X forces, so their

flexibility is considerable. Right now, they are manning Air Force

Guard ground-based radar stations in Latin America. They are flying F–16’s out of Panama. They are running intel operations. They

provide intelligence translators for the FBI and DEA.

If you go into the Los Angeles Police Department Deconfliction

Center, there is a National Guard sergeant in there. They are in

my office, so they are doing a tremendous piece of work.

Mr. HASTERT. I just did not want to leave the impression that all

they did was unload lettuce, but they are doing other things.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. No. That is right.

Mr. HASTERT. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. General, you are in charge of our war on drugs or our

efforts to stem the increase in use of illegal drugs for the country,

and I think you were in January. Is that correct?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Indeed.

Mr. MICA. In January, you made statements lavishing praise on

the Drug Czar of Mexico, Mr. Gutierrez, and I think you called

him, ‘‘a guy of absolutely unquestioned integrity’’ and also gave

praise for him during his appointment, I think, last December.

I am completely baffled at the lack of intelligence, the lack of information that you have as drug czar, or had as drug czar, in making those statements.

Can you tell me what the problem is?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, I think the problem is the Mexicans selected a general officer from field command, put him in a very responsible position, and then are apparently learning—we are going

to watch this very carefully in the weeks to come—that he was actually part of a protection operation for one of the drug criminal

organizations.

So he had developed a tremendous reputation for aggressiveness

in the field, had actually made three of the biggest busts in Mexico,

but possibly we are going to learn in the coming weeks—we will

have to watch, of course, as evidence is laid out—possibly we will

learn that he was really a tool of another criminal organization.

So Mexico made a terrible choice. They are disappointed, and our

intelligence also did not pick up on that.

36

Mr. MICA. But you were not informed as our drug czar. You had

no idea of the history or the drug connections of this individual. Is

that correct?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. No. I would go beyond that. I had an incorrect

opinion that he was a guy—— Mr. MICA. That just really disturbs me even more because of the

importance of intelligence in the drug war.

I met this morning briefly with the chairman of the Intelligence

Committee of the House of Representatives, Mr. Goss, and I asked

him this morning, and I am going to followup today with a written

request, for a complete investigation of the matter, because we

could have, in fact, jeopardized many lives. We could have jeopardized what I consider national security in this situation.

Now, you testified a few minutes ago that you did not transmit

any confidential information to Gen. Gutierrez when you met with

him; and that is correct?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Right.

Mr. MICA. But it is my understanding that you also briefed the

Attorney General, Lazano, in the past. Is that correct?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. What concerns me is I understand that all the files

that Gen. Lazano—— Gen. MCCAFFREY. Attorney General Madrazo—it was actually a

Madrazo visit, with Gutierrez Rebollo with him.

Mr. MICA. But on previous occasions, it is my information that

the Mexican Attorney General, Lazano, had confidential information and that, in fact, those files had been turned over to Gutierrez,

and that concerns me. I am concerned that, first, we do not have

the intelligence, the information-gathering capability to inform our

drug czar to not put you out on a limb to make statements like

this.

So, I am calling for that investigation by the House Intelligence

Committee, even though your agency is overlooking—I’m sorry—is

looking over that—it may be overlooked, but it is a very serious situation. I want to point out a couple of things.

First of all, I do not know if you realize it, but in your report on

page 53, this chart, I think, is incorrect. The chart, I think it was

put in in an averse manner. If you get today’s report from GAO,

which has the same sources, published this report correctly, and I

wish that would be changed in your report.

Furthermore, we also heard testimony here this week from Ambassador Gelbard, who is in charge of State; Tom Constantine, who

is in charge of DEA; about their roles in the drug war. They said

that they are having trouble with the administration taking action

and getting equipment to Colombia and to Peru. In fact, we have

list of some of the information that has been on a list of equipment

to be provided to those countries that has not been provided.

Now, what assurance can you give me that you are coordinating

efforts to get that equipment on the front line for things that had

been appropriated or approved in the past—and they referred to

some of this as ‘‘off the shelf,’’ and we have a two-page list of it—

let alone, our subcommittee and Congress appropriating more

funds to put up more equipment that is not getting into the war

of drugs?

37

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I would be glad to look into it. The Colombia

situation has been very complicated over the last year. When they

were decertified, there was essentially a commitment that we

would continue counterdrug cooperation in accordance with the

law.

One of the, I thought, unfortunate drawbacks was that it did affect our 614 drawdown authority with Colombia and, indeed, FMF

sales of equipment to Colombian police and military, and that has

been a problem.

Mr. MICA. Now, 614 authority has a clear authority for waivers,

and when that information was brought up by Mr. Gelbard, Ambassador Gelbard, I produced a document that showed 614 waivers

that were given to Somalia, that were given to Haiti, that were

given to others in the national interest. If it is not in the national

interest to get this equipment into the hands with a waiver from

the President of the United States, I do not know what is in the

national interest.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Basically, I share your viewpoint, Mr. Mica,

and I think what we need to do is produce such a 614 drawdown

authority and support these various courageous police and military

officials in Colombia. I think you are right.

Mr. MICA. Is that going to be forthcoming? Is that a recommendation to the President?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Without question.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. HASTERT. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. The

gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gen. McCaffrey, it

certainly is good to see you again. I thank you for your efforts. I

also want to thank you for coming to Baltimore to see firsthand a

city where out of a population of 691,000, we have documented over

50,000 addicts, which means 1 out of every 14.

I guess what I am trying to figure out today, you know, I listened

to the news conference the other day with the President, and I certainly applaud what the President is doing, and I think that everybody who sits up here wants to do everything in our power to help

you. I guess the question always becomes, what is most cost-efficient and effective? The President said he wants to put out a certain amount of money for advertising and things of that nature.

You may have said this while I was out of the room, and if you

did, I am sorry; and I am sure that is your aim, too, cost-efficient

and effective. Can you tell us the basis of what went into this strategy right here, say, for example, advertisement? You have a lot of

people who are sort of skeptical, saying, ‘‘Well, wait a minute. How

do we know that that is going to work?’’

I know that in some instances you cannot say something is definitely going to work, but I think what the American people want

and I think what all of us need is to have some kind of feeling that

whatever we are doing, whatever money we are putting forth,

whatever efforts we are putting forth are going to likely have results that are favorable.

As I listen to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there just

seems to be some skepticism, a lot of skepticism about what we are

doing. I know you have not been in office but so long, but apparVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:32 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42191 pfrm12 PsN: 42191
38

ently a lot of research must have gone into the President’s proposal

the other day. I am trying to figure out exactly how you all came

to the conclusions, how you came up with your priorities, and what

effect you think, if all of that is carried out, will have.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. First of all, I think skepticism is appropriate,

and that is a healthy way to go into this. I had to put up a strategy, define objectives, do performance measures, and then be held

accountable over time to achieve results, and to throttle back on

programs that do not work and increase those that do. So, I think

that is entirely correct.

Having said that, I would also like to differentiate between a

strategy and its funding. That is a strategy. That is based on 4,000-

plus people and their input, and I read every one of them, and I

have got a brilliant group of people that borrowed from models

around America, people who know what they are talking about. So,

I think this is pretty sensible stuff.

Now, each year, it seems to me, we have got to come down and

debate the resources that go into that strategy, and then we ought

to adjust them. This is not a 10-year, cookie-cutter solution, and I

think we need a 5-year budget. I do not think you can have a debate over the coming budget year and see the tradeoff between a

little over $3 a head on drug prevention money per child in America and $17 billion of law enforcement, prison construction and operations. So, I think we have got to get our headlights out a little

bit farther.

Now, when you come down to something specific like advertising:

Will it help? What is cost effective? It is not helpful to argue from

anecdotal data instead of baseline studies. But if you go to Miami

and look at the ASPIRA program, and if you have a survey instrument that tells you who children-at-risk are, and if you bus them

into a high school, a 4-year high school at $2,000 a head and get

a dramatic change from kids who do not become addicted, we suggest, Mr. Taxpayer, that is $2 million a child you saved in societal

costs.

We are saying that it is a lot more cost effective than busting the

young woman or man 3 years after high school and locking them

up for 15 years at what we say is $22.6 thousand a year to incarcerate a person in America, in the average Federal system.

Those are cost-effective solutions. Now, go to advertising, $175

million times two. We want half of it for free. We know Americans

spend $49 billion a year on illegal drugs. If you can keep them off

that behavior through age 21, they will not join that enormous

threat to America.

I think this will work. It works on every other product. Why can’t

we sell young Americans on a healthy, spiritually involved, productive life?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I also want to thank you for selecting Dr. Adger.

He hails from Johns Hopkins, which is, of course, in my district,

and I think you made a wonderful selection. I am sure that he will

add a lot to what you all are doing.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. HASTERT. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg.

39

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gen. McCaffrey, I

want to focus on where we are allocating our dollars and our efforts

and where I see differences between the priorities established by

the President and the administration and those which appear to be

the priorities established by the Congress.

As I look at these numbers, and I just want to see if you agree

with me generally, the Congress over the past 3 years, 2 years, at

least, has focused on interdiction and prevention efforts. The President, by contrast—and I include in interdiction international efforts, that is, efforts at source countries—the President, on the

other hand, has focused more on drug abuse treatment. You would

agree with that?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. No, I would not. I think part of the problem

is how we categorize and discuss these issues. By law, we tell Congress we spend money in two areas: demand reduction and supply

reduction. I think it is very distorting in its impact. Most of the

money we spend in America on drug efforts are law enforcement

and prisons, period.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, let us put law enforcement and prisons

aside——

Gen. MCCAFFREY. That is most of the money, and then go on to

the next one. Right.

Mr. SHADEGG. Let us look at the four efforts that the chairman

focused on at the beginning, which are treatment, interdiction,

international efforts, and prevention. If you look at page 22 of this

report, which I guess is your report, and I tend to look at the numbers, if you look first at interdiction, and you begin in 1991——

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Right.

Mr. SHADEGG [continuing]. At that point, it was 19 percent of the

total. In the budget you are requesting for this year, it has dropped

to 10 percent of the total. That is a 21 percent decrease in moneys

dedicated to interdiction.

If you then look in the second column at prevention, an area I

am interested in because I would like to see kids not get hooked

in the first place, it is the second column, again beginning at 1991

as the base year and looking at the request for 1998, you see it is

going from $1,479 million to $1,916 million. That is a slight increase, so it is a 24 percent increase for prevention as compared to

a 21 percent decrease for interdiction.

But then, if you look at the line right above that, you see that

from 1991 to now, there has been a dramatic increase in treatment

dollars. Again, looking at the base year of 1991, we are talking

about $1,877.3 million versus your request for next year, which is

$3,000, $3.5, a 38 percent increase.

So it appears, at least from these numbers, to me quite dramatically that the administration is continuing to emphasize treatment

and, to a lesser degree, 38 percent growth in treatment dollars; a

21 percent growth in prevention dollars, which are going to the

kids that I worry about; and a 21 percent decrease over that same

time period in dollars allocated to interdiction.

I see a fundamental disagreement here, and I guess my question

is, on what basis do you tell the American people that that is an

appropriate policy and why?

40

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, let me, first of all, suggest that I share

your concern for prevention, and at the heart and soul of the strategy, it seems to me you focus on 68 million children. You have got

a subset of 39 million, age 10 and below. If you can get that 39 million through age 21, we have saved ourselves enormous agony

down the line. So I basically share your viewpoint on that factor.

I also think your concern about interdiction is appropriate. How

much is enough? The peak year was in 1991; you are entirely correct. It got up around $2 billion. It dropped to a low point in about

probably 1993. We are now building it back up to where it is

around $1.6 billion, and I would certainly be open to further discussion on whether that is enough.

DOD has got a very tight budget, and they are reluctant to throw

money at Aegis cruisers in the Caribbean and AWACS flying hours

unless we can see a payoff.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, my home State is Arizona, and I am worried

about the border with Arizona and the developments in the press

lately. So, I am not so concerned about aircraft carriers as I am

doing something about a very serious threat immediately south of

the United States.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. We put a ton of money into the Southwest

Border in the 1997 budget. There is more of it in the 1998 budget,

and your point is entirely correct. We owe the American people a

Southwest Border effort with the appropriate law enforcement capabilities and intelligence.

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me go at this percentage, at this issue of what

the low point was. Again, looking at that chart on page 22, at least

as a proportion of our total effort, you can argue that we hit a low

point in 1995. It actually climbed slightly last year. In 1995, it became 10 percent of the effort. In 1991, it was 19 percent of our effort. It climbed last year to 11 percent, a slight increase; but the

numbers you have requested would take interdiction back down to

only 10 percent of our effort. Again, just a slight decrease—— Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes.

Mr. SHADEGG [continuing]. But it looks to me like the low point,

the world is kind of at the low point on interdiction.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, I think what you can also say, and I

have got a chart here to display it, we have had interdiction and

the source country strategy money going up since 1993.

Mr. SHADEGG. It did get dramatically cut prior to that.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. But you are talking a percentage of the whole

effort. Right now, at $1.6 billion, that is an increase. It was an increase last year. It was an increase the year before that. So the 3

years in a row, we brought it up; and at the Southwest Border,

more specifically, there has been a dramatic change in manpower,

technology, and funding, and there ought to be more to come.

Mr. SHADEGG. I guess let me just conclude by saying, if you look

at, at least for the last 3 years in a row, the Congress has put more

money into interdiction than the President requested, and I do not

think we are only at this level of 10 percent interdiction right now

not because of the President’s request, but because of the

Congress’s request.

Indeed, look at the younger drug potential abusers, focusing on

youth, Congress for the last 3 years has increased money for interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:32 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42191 pfrm12 PsN: 42191
41

diction and for the last year has increased money for both source

countries, and for prevention. By contrast, the President has tried

to put more money into treatment, and I guess, again—and I know

my time has expired—I am interested in the President justifying

and you justifying to the country why we ought to be—— Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes.

Mr. SHADEGG [continuing]. Increasing our allocation for treatment as distinguished from those efforts which I think focus on

youth, which include interdiction, source country efforts, and prevention.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. The search for the truth and who submitted

what budget and what action was taken is a tough one. Let me tell

you what I think is the case, and I have got a chart that I can

share with you to display it.

What, in fact, has happened since 1991, I will assert, is that each

year until the 1995 budget, the administration, whether it was Republican under Bush or Democratic under President Clinton, submitted an interdiction-INL combined budget. In every year, it was

cut by the U.S. Congress, whether it was controlled by the Democrats or the Republicans, until the election-year budget.

In fact, that is what happened. Then we started up in the election-year budget, on the 1997 budget, and on the proposed 1998

budget. So, I would suggest to you that the President’s requests for

3 years in a row was what we got funded. We got an additional

$250 million out of you this last year, which was great. Let me

just, if I can, show you the numbers.

Mr. SHADEGG. No. My time has expired. If you just said that only

in the election year did the Congress increase funding for interdiction, that is flat not true, because the Congress—— Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. We will come back to a second round.

We can follow this up in the second round if there was a questionable statement in that, because the budget that we had to deal

with in our first year was already through when we got in.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I agree. Agreed.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Barr, from Georgia.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Mr. Congressmen, I still basically agree with

your point. Prevention, Southwest Border; I am entirely in agreement with your central argument. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Barr, from Georgia.

Mr. BARR. I just do not know where to start, General. You all are

masters of understatement, I will tell you that. We had a Deputy

Assistant Attorney General here 2 days ago, who says that the extent of corruption in Mexico is not fully known. Now we hear that

our intelligence did not pick up on this problem. What an understatement.

I think we have got some serious problems here, but let me try

and start with this document. I hope you all do not distribute this

to the officers who are putting their lives on the line fighting the

war against drugs, the Spanish word for which is ‘‘guerra.’’ It was used the other day, General, up here by generals from Colombia who are, indeed, fighting a war, a war in which their citizens are being murdered; in which their military and police are

being murdered; in which equipment built in this country and furnished to them to protect themselves is being shot out of the skies.

42

We had an officer here from, I think, the Border Patrol the other

day who was telling us about men and women under his command

that are being shot. Where, in heaven’s name—and I would like to

know who, on page 5 of your report, says that this is not a war— where in God’s name did that notion come from and that language?

Is that yours? That is unbelievable, General, to talk in this report

that a metaphor of a war on drugs is misleading.

Maybe it is only misleading because it is not strong enough to

send a signal to the American people and to law enforcement officers, both on our side of the border as well as in Latin America

that people affected by drug abuse in this country are victims and

ought to be helped, that this is not a war on drugs, that that is

too harsh a term, it is not hard to understand why I think this administration’s drug policy is an abject failure.

I do not think that the figures that we are seeing are artificially

high. When I talk with police officers and parents and school children about the extent of drug usage, which is going up among

young people in many categories, I do not walk away from those

discussions, General, that these figures are artificially high. I think

they are very accurate, and if perhaps anything, perhaps not quite

accurate enough in terms of the tremendous increases that we have

seen in some areas.

We have heard other testimony, General, earlier this week and

2 weeks ago from Mr. Gelbard over at State. State apparently does

not even recognize that in Colombia there is a union between the

formerly terrorist organizations and the narcotics traffickers, and,

indeed, the term ‘‘narco-terrorism’’ is a very realistic term.

We see in Mexico a case very much like the Ames case in our

country here, where all of the signs were there for an extended period of time that something stank—bank accounts, lavish living,

and so forth—and we apparently either just turned a blind eye to

it in an effort to make it appear as if Mexico was really doing a

lot more than it was perhaps to justify loaning them billions of dollars. I do not know, but all of the signs were there, and then to

say our intelligence did not pick up on this problem is a rather

slight understatement.

You mentioned, General, that you had traveled to Hollywood for

2 days, and that is certainly a component of this, to talk with the

people out there about the glorification of drugs in our society. I

would like to see some of our people travel down to Colombia instead. It may not be quite as nice as Hollywood; it may be a little

more dangerous.

But we have heard from the men and women who do believe that

this is a war, and I think they are accurate in their assessment,

who put their lives on the line. We have heard from them, and they

have told us that we are not helping them nearly to the extent that

we should or that we have promised them.

Colombia, in particular, I am talking about. The decertification

of Mexico, contrary to what our Government leaders told the Colombian leaders, the men and women in the military and in the police are, indeed, fighting the war against drugs down there. Contrary to what we told them, the military assistance, the support

has, indeed, slowed down tremendously, and they have told us it

is hurting, hurting their effort, both systemically in terms of eroVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:32 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42191 pfrm12 PsN: 42191
43

sion of their morale of their officers, as well as their ability to actually fight the war on drugs.

I have a letter here, dated February 25 of this year, from the Colombian national police general, Gen. Serrano, to the House International Relations Committee. I do not know whether you have

seen it, but I suspect you know what it says, and that is that we

are not helping them to the extent that we can or that we promised.

I am just phenomenally disappointed in what is going on here.

I think we have an absolute failure of leadership on the part of our

Government, and this business with Mexico is just one little example of it. We apparently have not only no strategy in dealing with

this problem, but we have members of our own Government, and

we had several of them here the other day, they do not even know

who is on the damage assessment team.

I would appreciate some thoughts. I know there is a lot in there,

but it is very heartfelt, and it represents the views of an awful lot

of citizens in this country who, I think, would be as disappointed

as I am if they saw this book.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, Mr. Barr, if I may, let me, first of all,

tell you, I share your own sense of sadness about the way Mexico

has developed over the last certainly several years. It is a great

tragedy. It is something that we probably have to work with for a

decade to come to address.

I certainly share your viewpoint on the nature of warfare in the

source country zone: Colombia; Peru; Bolivia, to a lesser extent;

Mexico, certainly. I must remind you, if I may, quite publicly now,

you are dealing with a guy that has been wounded in combat three

times. I know all about war.

Mr. BARR. Let us not get into that. Nobody is questioning your

patriotism, and I am not saying that it is just a war down there;

I am saying that it——

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, regular order.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes. Mr. Barr, I just wanted to make sure you

understood that I have been in Colombia, I have been in Mexico,

I have been in Peru, and I do know what I am talking about. Now,

the problem in Mexico and Peru deserves our support, but I am not

too sure that you and I ought to see ourselves as personally responsible for the outcome of selection of their government officials.

Now, let me, if I may, directly respond to your concerns. I might

add, you misunderstood something I said. The figures that are artificially high means we do not need to tolerate drug abuse rates at

the level we currently have. Twelve million Americans regularly

using drugs is too many, and we can make it lower than that. That

is what I mean by ‘‘artificially high.’’ I am well aware, having been

in most urban areas in America and in rural, Midwest communities, that those figures are accurate and, indeed, are getting

worse.

I would also suggest I join your own viewpoint that police and

military forces in Colombia and elsewhere deserve our support, and

they will get it from me, and they have had it in the past. I know

these people, and I visited them, and understand what their concerns are, and will fall in line to try and move them forward.

44

Now, Mexico is in a very tough situation. They are under inter- nal assault from violence and corruption. That $30 billion came out

of our communities. That is what is helping destroy Mexico.

They are trying to move to a modern economy, to a multiparty

democracy. We believe their senior leadership are honest men and

women. We were wrong about Gen. Gutierrez Rebollo. There are

others we will see in the future who will be affected by this corruption, but where we find people of good will, we deserve to stand

with them and to publicly state we have that viewpoint.

Now, finally, if you will, we may just have a difference of conceptual organization. The language on not using the ‘‘war on drugs’’ comes directly from me. Now, I borrowed that basically from having a 32-year involvement in the U.S. Armed Forces in which we

went through the seventies where the armed forces almost got

wrecked by drug abuse, and we worked our way out of it, and I can

assure you it was not by arresting people and kicking butt.

We tried to use drug education prevention programs. We focused

on treatment programs. We had an advantage over civil society of

sergeants, of people who got involved with young people and treated them with dignity and gave them meaningful work. Because of

that and drug testing and the commitment of people like me, after

10 years of hard work, we are a drug-free institution today, and

that is the kind of commitment I would like to bring to America.

So if you are concerned about the metaphor of a cancer, we will

try and make sure your worries are taken into account. I know you

are committed to this issue, as I am, but I really would urge you

to understand that this is not a cop-out; this is a dedication of a

10-year confrontation with a serious issue.

Mr. HASTERT. The gentleman’s time has expired.

General, I think one of the things, we are getting in a war over

words, and we need to have a war over action, I would think. To

me, a war is something ultimately that you win or lose, and I hope

whatever this action is, it is something that we can win. Our country depends on it, our children depend on it, and certainly our future depends on it.

I just want to lay out some parameters, and I am going to have

to vacate the chair here in a few minutes. But I want to lay some

parameters that I think concerns us and certainly reflects my

views and the views of a lot of people that you and I have both

talked to.

We look at your chart here, the chart of the National Drug Control Budget, and I know the budget does not always reflect exactly

all the activity that goes on because there is resources that are already in place, resources that we have to replace, resources that

have built up over the years. So there are other activities going on.

But certainly the domestic law enforcement, which includes DEA

and FBI and INS and the joint task force and Justice and everybody else, you know, those are the people who are out on our

streets day in and day out fighting that war or that action, whatever kind of terminology you want to call it. I cannot say that it

is enough or not enough. We need to make sure that they have that

support and the means to carry out the job they have to do.

The next issue of treatment. I guess that is where the real question is, and I have talked to a lot of folks across this country. TreatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:32 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42191 pfrm12 PsN: 42191
45

ment is important. We need to take those people who have made

mistakes and have gotten involved in drugs and try to turn their

life around. The fact is, at least most statistics of people tell me,

about 80 percent of those people go back to using drugs again.

Maybe that means we need a better program, we need to find

new ways to do that, but to a lot of folks it means that it is important to do this, and it is certainly important to try to help people

who have made mistakes, but we have spent a lot of money sometimes to no avail there.

The other issue is the interdiction issue, and we look at real

numbers there. For instance, the treatment has gone from about,

I believe, $1.8 billion a couple of years ago to about $3 billion in

your budget today; and, again, you cannot reflect everything by dollars, but there has been a pretty good increase there.

When you start to look at interdiction, we have gone to a high

in the early 1990’s of $2 billion to a low of $1.2 billion, and now

we are coming back up to about $1.6 billion. We have never

reached the level that we were at one time.

To a lot of us, the interdiction is being able to take that stuff off

the streets, to stop it at the borders, to stop it coming in by boat

or by plane or by carrier. Or the x-ray machines that we need at

the border. We talk about 11 x-ray machines. We probably need

111 x-ray machines. I do not know. I am just pulling numbers out

of the air, but, you know, we need a lot of stuff to be able to do

the interdiction.

We need the people to do it, and that is an area that I think if we can stop drugs coming across the border at a cost of $2,000 a

kilo before they get on the streets and they cost $200,000 per kilo

or at some market price or whatever numbers you want to pull out,

that is an effective way to do it. But even more so, when you get

down to the international operations, you talked about Peru. I

think that we have the potential to be very, very successful there.

We need to talk—and we have not even scratched the surface—we

need to talk about what we are going to do in Southeast Asia.

Quite frankly, because we do not have the kind of relationships

diplomatically with some countries like Minmar and China, that

we cannot get our DEA agents or will not let our DEA agents or

our intelligence in there to help them solve their problems or crop

replacement situations, we need to have, and I think you agree

with us, a regional strategy there that we really seriously need to

talk about, because cocaine is one thing; heroin is something else.

Now, heroin comes from Colombia, but also a lot of it comes from

the Golden Triangle and the environs around there. We need to

talk about that, and I do not think we have even scratched the surface.

That is all part of that international effort that I think we need

to beef up and put the dollars in so we can stop the stuff, for instance, cocaine, at $200 a kilo. It is certainly pretty effective to stop

it at that price rather than to stop it at a huge price on our streets.

If you would, take a couple of minutes and kind of reflect on that,

if you would.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. The support for law enforcement is absolutely essential. This budget has gone up. It is an $800 million increase.

It still reflects the dominant commitment to saying that drugs are

46

wrong, drugs are disapproved, they are against the law, and we

will support law enforcement, and we will lock people up where

they sell them or become involved in violent crime. We ought to do

that. We ought to pay the bill up front. That is not an option; that

is an obligation to the American people.

Now, let me talk briefly about treatment. If you would like to understand the contribution of effective drug treatment in America,

you have to go ask a narcotics officer in Los Angeles, New York,

rural Iowa, or wherever, because there is not a police officer in this

country or someone involved in the American Correctional Association that does not understand that we cannot just lock people up,

put them in the slammer for a month to 7 years, and put them

back on the street.

We also have got to take into account this is a chronic, relapsing

disorder. Cures, like smoking addiction, do not come easy, but it is

relatively easy, if you have a treatment methodology and a followon program, to reduce the consequences of crime, violence, AIDS,

spouse abuse in America. I would just tell you that there is a tiny

number of Americans, percentage-wise, who are devastating our society, 2.7 million chronic addicted; and they consume 80 percent,

some argue, two-thirds to 80 percent, of the drugs in America. You

have got to go into that community.

Some of them are alleged to be committing crimes of as high as

300 felonies a year. So, when I talk to police officers, they are the

ones that talk to me about treatment alternatives to crime. I think

we have just got to go that route. We have got to make sure we

are spending our money wisely. I think your point is a good one.

I think the notion of getting enough interdiction is unarguable.

We have got to get technology and common sense and better organization into our Southwest Border. We have got to create the Customs, Border Patrol, and Coast Guard that we need for the next

century, and INS. We have got to get better organization of our intelligence service, and I owe you continuing responses on that.

Peru, we need a big idea. If we want to do something dramatic

about cocaine, Peru is the place to go, even though Colombia has

now edged out Bolivia as the second largest nation in the world on

hectarage under cultivation. Cocaine seizures in Colombia are

down, and cultivation is up by 32 percent, but Peru is where 70-

some-odd percent of the cocaine in America comes from.

I think one of the really fundamental points you made, Mr.

Chairman, is what do we do about heroin? If you want to solve heroin, you have got to recognize we have such a low part of the

worldwide consumption, that Colombia alone and Mexico could provide all of our requirements. Then we look at this incredible production of opium in Burma, Afghanistan, and Laos, which are the

top three nations in the world, and what are we going to do about

it?

I think you are entirely correct. Your trip over there was very

useful. We are going to have to try regional cooperative efforts and

not think that we can do this, the United States, unilaterally. The

Chinese must understand that they are more at risk from Burmese

heroin than Baltimore is. They have got a million addicts or more,

and it is a threat to our Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai,

and other regional partners.

47

What I would also, though, remind all of us is we look at what

comes in and out of this great country, the richest country on the

face of the earth. It is 340 metric tons of cocaine, 10 metric tons

of heroin. It is at most a millionth of the annual movement of tonnage in and out of this Nation. It is a tiny BB hidden in a bale

of hay, and we are just going to have to do better with technology

and intelligence, not manpower. There is a pretty important BB in

that bale of hay, and we are going to have to work together if we

are going to be able to find it; whether it is a needle in a haystack

or a BB in a bale, we need to work at that.

One other comment on that. I understand that there are 2.7 million people who are the problems and the recidivists in the treatment programs. I hope that we can help them. We have also got

10 million kids at risk that we need to make sure that they cannot

get their hands on this stuff or it is awfully tough to get their

hands on this stuff.

Mr. HASTERT. I thank you for your testimony. I pass on now to

Congressman Barrett.

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Only a small percentage of the baggage going on

airplanes are guns and bombs, so we have to get them all. It is not

easy and it is expensive and that is one of the problems we have

when we are trying to balance the budget.

I am curious. You were commander of SOUTHCOM in Panama.

Did you ever know Gen. Gutierrez in that capacity?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. No, I did not. I made one trip into Mexico during that period of time with Dr. Perry, but Mexico is not part of

the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.

Mr. SOUDER. Had you ever heard anything about him prior when

you were in that command? I understand that it is not completely

logical, in my opinion, that it is not a part of SOUTHCOM, but

that is another question. Had you ever heard anything about him

or concerns or—— Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, before we went down to Mexico, I think

we went down and met him on a high-level contact group in December. Before we went down there, I had an intelligence briefing

on our viewpoint, again, on the Mexican leadership I would be

dealing with, and that certainly included the Attorney General,

Madrazo, and Gen. Gutierrez Rebollo. So I went down there, having read our assessment of these two people.

Mr. SOUDER. Our assessment at that time was positive?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Indeed. Our publicly stated opinion essentially

reflected what we said in private, and we retain our viewpoint that

the Attorney General, Madrazo, is a noted legal scholar, a human

rights activist, a man of high integrity and dedication to Mexico.

The assessment on Gutierrez Rebollo, based sadly enough, on his

splendid performance against selected drug criminal organizations,

was that he was a real hard-nosed field soldier. It was sadly mistaken. The Mexicans, of course, are horrendously disappointed by

this blow to their own national security.

Mr. SOUDER. One other curiosity. You mentioned twice earlier in

your testimony to it being alleged and saying facts will unfold,

which we all understand, except it does not seem to be being denied that he was in Fuentes’s apartment. There are some facts that

48

are in dispute and some facts that are pretty irrevocable already

on the table. Would you not agree with that?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I am not trying to be legalistic, Mr. Souder.

You know, what I need to understand is that in Colombia—I already know that the President of Colombia is alleged to have been

elected with $6 million in drug money; that the Minister of Defense

that I dealt with down there, Botero, is in the slammer; that several others—Medina, the campaign chairman—are under indictment. I am aware of the corrosive power of $30 billion of drug

money on democratic institutions.

So what we are going to try to do in Mexico is try and support

this President and his senior officers as they roll up this latest corrupting influence to their police forces, but we have got to keep a

very objective eye on what is happening.

Mr. SOUDER. Our concern, and just so you understand that it is

intense in Congress right now, and if you were in our shoes, you

would understand it as well as in your own shoes, and that is, is

that I am not one who is particularly defending Colombia at this

point other than that their Attorney General and their national police and their defense are dying on the front lines, and they could

have been removed by Samper. I think we need to keep the pressure on Colombia because they are letting these people sit in prison

and operate their cartels, but they are moving.

The question, however, comes when we come back to Mexico is

that we heard at the hearing earlier this week that there are concerns about up to 90 percent of the police force in Tijuana and Baja

California, and we pulled back agents; that there are concerns

about two of the Governors of Mexico; that we have the drug czar

going down, apparently as part of a cartel; we have seen assassinations all over the country; one of the Governors, if, indeed—and I

do not know enough about it, and the evidence here is still sketchy

on the Governor, Sonora, but he is clearly the man, if not one of

the key men, behind President Zedillo’s election, which has not

come out as much in the media; that the core question here is, on

what basis, other than we met with President Zedillo, we have met

with the foreign minister numerous times.

I think they are wonderful men, but quite frankly, you thought

all these other people were good men. Our intelligence briefings

said they were good men. Gen. Gutierrez, for example. There were

others in the process that we dealt with in that period of time who

turned out—I mean, we have touted the Salinas administration,

which certainly had a lot of questions with it.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Colosio is dead. That we are looking at this type of

thing and saying, we want to believe you, we want to believe them,

but you are telling us that our intelligence is lousy, if it exists at

all.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, I really did not say that, Mr. Souder. I

said our intelligence was wrong and confirming that the Mexicans

had made a drastic mistake in selecting this general officer as their

head cop.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the questions here is that we seem to be getting surprised a lot lately.

49

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, let me also tell you that there ought to

be a twofold approach, in my judgment, in dealing with foreign governments like the French, the Israelis, the Mexicans, and the Canadians. In public, I think what I ought to do is publicly state

those ethically correct ways that we are working with a foreign

government and praise their leadership where we see honest men

and women in public life, and privately we ought to push to make

changes.

That is what we do with other major nations, and that is what

we have done with Mexico. But I would urge you to understand

that we focus a lot of attention on these countries, and we have got

people all over them. I listen to the DEA, the FBI, the agency military attaches. I have traveled there. I know these people. I do not

have a three-piece suit. I have spent most of my life banging

around the world. I speak Spanish, and I am not naive. I am committed to defending the American people.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the concerns I have, that in your report you

say that, or you testified earlier today, that we should be looking

at a new concept for enforcement in intelligence by next summer.

Did you mean the summer of next year or the summer of this year?

Wouldn’t you, having been a veteran in the Gulf war, if you had

gotten this kind of intelligence information, heads would have been

rolling already?

Well, we can argue whether it is a war or a cancer; I think it

is both.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. But this is pretty upsetting.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, it should be. I think we have got tremendous law enforcement agencies at work in the Southwest Border

and supporting Mexico right now. They probably need much better

conceptual structure to it. I think our intelligence system facing

south can be reviewed.

Now, I would not want to say that it is a failure. I have been

working with the Agency for the last 4 years, looking south, in DIA

and DEA and the other people that try and pay attention to our

southern neighbors. We know a lot more, sadly enough, about

criminal activity in the Chapare Valley than we do about drug addiction in Baltimore.

So I think that there is a lot of very capable, dedicated, and stable view of what is going on to the south. I do not think we ought

to overreact. We made a mistake in accepting the judgment of the

Mexican administration, but they are doing as good as they can.

We are just going to have to buckle down and do better.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, with that set up for Baltimore, we will go to

the gentleman, Mr. Cummings, from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. Gen. McCaffrey, you said something

a few moments ago that really kind of struck my interest in answering a question. You talked about the military and the efforts

that have been made in the military to rid this institution, that is,

the military here in the United States, of a drug problem.

Just from the way you answered the question, I take it that

there are some strategies that were used to accomplish that that

you assume can be used in the bigger picture, and I am just trying

50

to figure out how did the military do it. I guess when I look at the

military, I look at an institution that is sort of restricted.

In other words, when you are talking about the greater society,

you have got people everywhere, but when you have got military

bases, you have got certain controls there; and I am just trying to

figure out how it was done, and of those strategies what can be

used to address this problem that we have in the United States all

over our country?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Mr. Congressman, I think it is a legitimate

question. It is one I am somewhat uneasy sometimes to answer because I am keenly aware that the tools that the U.S. Marine Corps

uses or the 82d Airborne are not necessarily appropriate for a free

and open society with a fundamental commitment to rights to privacy and due process and, indeed, a sense of leave us alone.

Now, having said that, the best thing we can learn out of the

military’s experience in the seventies and eighties is these are the

same beautiful, young women and men that are in Baltimore that

are in the 82d Airborne and on ships at sea.

So I came into this position with a sense of optimism and a faith

in American young people, and I think that when they have options

and are treated with respect, when they have meaningful work to

do, when people say ‘‘zero tolerance for drugs’’ and set the example,

not people that say—like 72 million Americans who have used an

illegal drug—not people who say we have never used drugs, but we

are not going to use them anymore. But if you stay at that process

for a long time—in this case it was probably a decade—you end up

with a lot less drug use.

Now, because of the military and we had the drug testing system, we ended up with darn-near zero. Now, that may be unrealistic, zero. We have still got an alcohol abuse problem of significant

proportions in the armed forces. We have got too many people

smoking cigarettes, but we have done an incredible piece of work.

So has the New York City Police Department. So have the faculties

of a lot of colleges. So has a lot of big business. There is a zero tolerance for drug abuse in most of large, corporate America.

I am not persuaded that sensible drug prevention and education

programs cannot produce dramatic results over time. I believe they

can.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am sure you are familiar with this concept of— I forget the author’s name, this guy that wrote ‘‘Fixing Broken

Windows,’’ talking about zero tolerance and his philosophy that you

have to start with the petty offenses and be hard on the petty offenders so that problems do not increase and escalate. I assume

that you have contact with police departments all over the country,

and you just talked about zero tolerance.

Do you agree with that concept of fixing broken windows?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I have been fascinated with watching the incredible success in Miami, San Diego, Los Angeles, New York City,

Commissioner Safir and his people. It is simply awesome what U.S.

law enforcement is doing now on their own, to a large extent, with

community policing, with getting in there and getting involved with

measuring the right things. The New York Police Department does

not measure the number of arrests. They do not measure the number of kilograms of drugs seized. They measure and hold their preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:32 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42191 pfrm12 PsN: 42191
51

cinct captains now responsible for the reduction of crime that

wrecks the quality of life in New York City. It has taken them 5

years, and they are achieving incredible results.

I see it in other cities. Miami is probably half as bad off as it

was a decade ago. So I think community policing is a big contribution. We can do more to support their efforts. This High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Area program that Congress has now put $140

million into; we have 15 HIDTAs. You just designated five new

ones in the last budget. This is a contribution to America’s law enforcement, prosecution, treatment, sensible policy, so I think there

is some real progress.

Mr. CUMMINGS. There was a show on last night, one of the national shows, that was talking about we are spending so many dollars incarcerating such a large portion of our population and that

as we spend those dollars incarcerating people—and they showed

a parallel how money is being taken away from schools, from educating young children.

When I look at the charts and I look at the money that we are

spending with regard to domestic law enforcement, it just kind of

concerns me that some kind of way we have got to get to that small

population that you talked about a few minutes ago that are using

the drugs, committing the crimes, filling up our jails, and literally

taking dollars away from our children.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Sure.

Mr. CUMMINGS. It is sad.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I might add, though, that at that point you

have lost. When you are dealing with 2.7 million chronic-addicted

Americans, it is a painful situation at best. We can reduce the

damage they do to themselves or families and their communities,

but it is not an easy way out. It seems to me the investment up

front in understanding, the solution is parents, educators, ministers, coaches, local law enforcement, and positive options for

young Americans. That is the cheapest way to address a $70 billion

damage to American society out of drug addiction.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I also want to make a

brief comment, an invitation to work together. One of the things

that we have done is formed a new Empowerment Subcommittee

that I am going to be chairing to work on a number of these issues,

because in addition to the drug problem, we have to look at the economic development, the school, the juvenile justice questions, and

I would welcome you sitting in and helping us as we go

through—— Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I accept your invitation. I will do

that.

Mr. SOUDER. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Could one of you gentlemen put the chart

up that refers to cocaine casual use?

Mr. Drug Czar, I hate to criticize your report and your charts,

but I think that your report is trying to put a pretty face on some

pretty ugly statistics. To put that chart in there with that title is

a little bit offensive to me, for several reasons. Next to it, it shows

the dramatic increase by our youth of cocaine, and I looked through

the charts to see about heroin, which is, as you know, and you have

been in my community, heroin use is off the charts.

52

I submit to you that cocaine use is down because heroin is so

damned cheap you can buy it almost as cheaply as cocaine and that

it is becoming more available. The production in your statistics

show that it is available, so I am not pleased with the presentation

that shows our drug policy is working, casual use is down. If it is

down and so great, we look at every statistic, cocaine has flattened

out a bit, heroin coming off the charts, and marijuana, according

to your charts, is increasing.

So I think that you have given us an accurate portrayal of what

is happening with these charts.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, I am not quite sure that I follow your

point. In fact, cocaine use is down. It is really unarguable. It has

gone from a little under 6 million——

Mr. MICA. It is being supplanted by heroin.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. No, probably not.

Mr. MICA. Well, in my community they are dying——

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, let me, if I may, give you——

Mr. MICA [continuing]. In middle-class suburbs on the streets.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, let me give you what we think is the

case. What I will also grant you, though, is that our numbers,

which I use with great confidence, are just the best numbers I can

get, and they are subject to debate, and we owe you better statistics in the future.

But having said that, heroin use in America, the problem is there

is a lot more of it available, it is higher purity, it is lower cost, and

new populations are trying it, young people, a lot of young, white

Americans in suburbs, with a tremendous increase in the number

of folk getting in trouble because they are using such high-purity

stuff.

But heroin use so far, thank God, has not yet gone off the charts.

It probably will if we do not get organized. Now, your area, which

I was grateful to visit and listen to their problems, has had nine

youngsters die of heroin overdose in the last year, greater than the

city of Los Angeles. You are in the absolute center of the storm of

Colombian heroin, which is showing up on the Eastern seaboard,

aggressively marketed by the same criminal organization that is

pushing cocaine.

Mr. MICA. Again, the charts, we can produce these charts, but it

is the perception, too; and I am telling you that Americans fear

going to sleep at night in their own neighborhoods. I live part of

the time in Washington, DC, and I fear going to sleep in this community for the first time, and in central Florida. Your statistics, to

me, just do not jibe.

There are encouraging signs. The last 5 years, drug-related emergency department episodes did not rise significantly, and then you

still show a rise here on drug users burdening our system. There

is a steady decline in drug-related homicides between 1989 and

1995. If you take out New York City and some of the other places

where there have been some local efforts, it is still a disaster.

Washington, DC—399 people killed last year. Last night, they

blew away a couple of more, and there is a couple, I saw on the

news this morning, in critical condition. It is everywhere; it is not

just my community.

53

Federal drug prosecutions; I do not see a damn thing about them

in here. Excuse my language, but I get a little bit excited about it.

Federal drug prosecutions are down, and I do not see this as part

of the strategy.

Now, if you said that New York City, one of the reasons is zero

tolerance, if you said that for 10 years if you have a zero-tolerance

policy in your chart—we do not see the rest of this chart, but if you

look at the statistics for 10 years under the past administrations,

it was going down, down, down, and comes off the chart in 1993—

tough prosecution does work, and the Federal prosecution is diminishing.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, you know, what I think of your frustration on the terrible impact of 3.6 million addicts on Orlando, Florida and rural Iowa, and Missouri, I could not agree more. There

are more people sick, and their age rate is up, and violent crime

is disastrous.

Mr. MICA. Methamphetamine is rampant. One of your charts

shows that. They are in the little communities.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. We have tried to portray that. I could not

agree more.

Mr. MICA. One last point, and let me say a couple of things. First

of all, you mentioned that we do not have a border between Mexico

and the United States. Well, I tell you, when they murdered

Enrique Camarena, we had a border between the United States,

and we had some leadership from the Federal level, and we closed

down that border. If it is necessary and a policy of the United

States, we should close down and tighten that border, and a lot is

going to depend on what you all do in the next few hours, as far

as your policy toward certification.

You go back and see what Willie Von Robb did in closing down

the borders and tightening up. So it is part of the national policy.

The other thing, too, is I salute your education. You know I will

spend any amount of money we need for enforcement, education,

for treatment, as long as it is successful. But I ask you, the $180

million or $175 million you have put in for public advertising; who

owns the air waves in this country?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Right now, if you want to buy TV time——

Mr. MICA. Who owns the air waves? Who issues the licenses? In

your own report here, you give us information that public service

announcements have dropped 20 percent. In fact, the people own

the air waves. A license and franchise is given by the Federal Government, and up until a few years ago, the media, in fact, television and radio, who take a license and franchise from the people,

were giving free PSAs back in the 1980’s, and that has dramatically declined.

I submit that they should also be given this public franchise

back, and if necessary, we should have a requirement that they

participate in this because it is in the national interest—they hold

the public franchise—and not rip off the taxpayers in this manner.

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to make a brief comment on this chart,

too. What we see often is typical of a lot of different things, and

that is, is that middle- and upper-class people adjust when they see

the harm and when we start a crusade. To some degree, that is

54

what has happened in cocaine, the kids in the crack, the methamphetamine.

In Fort Wayne, in 1992, we had 39 hits of LSD taken. In 1994,

9,790 hits of LSD. It is the most vulnerable, least educated, and

the poorest who are getting left behind, and the only point I think

we are trying to make with this is while we need to say we are

pleased with some of the success, we cannot beat our chests too

much, because we are drowning in the highest risk areas.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. That chart is

meant to say exactly what it says: Drug use in America is down

by half. Cocaine use is down by 75 percent, and new, dynamic drug

threats are emerging, including methamphetamine. Our children

and the addicted of America are destroying our cities, our communities, and our work places. It is a very serious problem. It is $70

billion and 16,000 dead, and that is why I am over here.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Barrett from Wisconsin.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the chairman that we should not be beating our chests, but I also do not

think we should be beating you over the head, General.

I think that you have done a very good job today. I think that

you have been very honest, you have showed us where there are

problems. You have not tried to sugar coat anything. You have explained to us that this is a serious problem, and as I said in my

opening statement, I think you have one of the most difficult jobs

in this entire country.

If you ask the American people whether drug abuse is a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, they would say, ‘‘We do

not care; it is an American problem.’’ Gen. MCCAFFREY. I agree.

Mr. BARRETT. I think it is a serious mistake for us, if we decide,

well, just because the Democrats are in the White House and you

were appointed by a Democratic President, that somehow we are

not winning the war or the cancer battle or whatever you want to

call it. This is too serious a problem to just play politics with, and

we can have some legitimate differences of opinion, and we do have

some legitimate differences of opinion as to priorities pertaining to

treatment, to prevention, or interdiction, or how many dollars we

should put into police officers or prisons.

But I think that this, more than virtually any other issue, is an

issue where we have to work together. I think that you have provided the leadership on a very nonpartisan basis, which I think it

has to be. I would not want you in here being a Democratic hack.

I think that would be a huge mistake, but I again want to commend you for the job that I think you are doing; and I do not want

your job, because I think it is too hard a job.

I think it is far too hard a job, and as I also indicated in my

opening statement, Americans are very cynical about this battle because they have not seen the drug use, and they have seen people

whose lives have been ruined. So I think that we have to combat

the cynicism, and I do not think that we as an institution should

be increasing that cynicism.

So, again, congratulations, and anything I can do to help you, I

will do to help you.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Thank you.

55

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Barr of Georgia.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. General, I would suspect that you and I

would speak for probably everybody in this room and everybody in

the listening and viewing audience that we do not want kids to

smoke cigarettes. But the problem that I have—and you all’s strategy is replete with references of drugs, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, alcohol—and I think I understand

perhaps at least what you are trying to say, and that is that, to

some extent, perhaps behavior that is bad at the beginning becomes worse as kids get older. They use tobacco and they know

they are not supposed to and it just gets worse.

That is a good point. I disagree with making that point in a way

that—and this is the danger that I think linking those three really

will result in. Young people do not see these things as rationally

as we do, and if we, as the administration is doing, are putting out

a strategy that links these three things constantly, and I have

heard the President say it also—he is very adept at that; he will

get two or three words, like the business we had last year with the

balanced budget, the environment, children, and elderly, and he

just repeats it, and that is the message that gets out there.

The thing that I worry about is if we constantly keep talking

about drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, we are not going to raise the

level of seriousness and the kids’ perception of how serious tobacco

use is, we are going to lower their perception of how dangerous illicit drugs are.

To my way of thinking, and we have heard from some of the law

enforcement officials from both sides of the border here during the

past couple of weeks, the problem is not tobacco usage. There are

no tobacco traffickers out there that are killing people, that are

shooting the helicopters out of the sky and so forth. It is drugs;

that is where the immediate problem and crisis is.

I just think it can be somewhat self-defeating to link these three

because there are a lot of people that are going to see that different

from the way you and I see it. They are going to say, ‘‘Ah, ha, illicit

drugs are no worse than tobacco.’’ I know that is not what you are

trying to say, but I would caution again, in setting out a strategy,

because this is what the President talks about. He does that, and

a lot of, I think, young people are going to see that, and I think

it can be problematic.

With regard to, if I could, a couple of specific questions, we have

talked, and a number of Members have talked this morning and

this afternoon, about the problem with Gen. Gutierrez. Are you

aware of any intelligence that was coming into our Government

that indicated there was a problem with this man?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Let me, if I may, address your point on smoking cigarettes and alcohol and say that I got your concern. What

I can promise you is that my own focus ought to be in accordance

with the 1988 law that Congress passed that told me what the

Agency should focus on, and that does not include the responsible

use of alcohol or smoking cigarettes by people over 21 and 18, respectively. So that will not be part of our focus, even though I am

aware, as you are, as rational Americans, that we killed 440,000

people with cigarettes last year and 100,000 with alcohol.

56

But I agree, I basically ought to stay on my portfolio, and that

is off the table. Alcohol is a mildly addictive drug. Most Americans

do not have a problem with it. It is unfortunate that it has produced 10 to 18 million alcoholics in the Nation, hands down the

worst drug problem we face. It is not my responsibility, and I am

not going to do it.

Now, to get back to the responsibility I do have, though, on Goal

No. 1, which is to America’s youth to reject drug abuse, alcohol,

and tobacco, those are illegal activities; they are against the law.

If you look back over the history of this Agency, starting in 1989,

with the Bush administration, they clearly got the point that if you

smoke cigarettes, if you abuse alcohol, if you use marijuana or

other illegal drugs, you are involved in gateway behavior to addictive problems in life. That is really the difficulty with cigarettes, alcohol, and pot.

So we know that we have got a tremendous challenge. Cigarette

use in this country is down across the board, except with children

it is up. It has gone up dramatically. Three thousand kids a day

are starting smoking, and a thousand of them will die from it.

Now, more importantly, if you are smoking pot as a 12-year-old,

your chance of ending up using cocaine—this is just math; there is

no defined causal relationship—goes up 89-fold. If you are smoking

cigarettes as a 12-year-old, your chances of having an addictive

problem later in life go up five-fold.

So we are persuaded we ought to tell our kids, zero illegal drug

activity—no booze, no cigarettes, no marijuana, heroin, et cetera. I

think we will do that, and we will help the country out.

To respond to your second question, I believe it would probably

be useful for you, if you would care to, I would be glad to share

with you the Agency and other intelligence sources that I used and

use over time in assessing these foreign leaders and who I am dealing with; and I would be glad to show you the two classified biographies on Gutierrez Rebollo I used.

Now, subsequent to that, there is some further discussion on

whether other data bases might have had hits on him. It would not

be helpful in this public environment to discuss it in detail, except

to say that in this case, Mexico’s senior leadership made an error

of judgment and feel betrayed by treasonist activity and that we

did not pick up on it either.

Mr. BARR. Is there an inter-agency damage-assessment team operating at this point to assess the damage occasioned by this latest

problem?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes. The Department of Justice and other elements are watching the situation about as closely as you can imagine.

Mr. BARR. I am not talking about is there a group of people

watching it. Is there a damage-assessment team, an interagency

damage-assessment team that is focusing and meeting specifically

to assess the extent of damage occasioned by Gutierrez’s revelations?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Tom Constantine is doing a formal assessment

of what he thinks came out of all this.

Mr. BARR. I know, in his agency.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Right.

57

Mr. BARR. Is there an inter-agency damage-assessment team?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I am not sure I am giving you the right answer, but, yes, there is. Each of the elements of the United States

Government who are involved in supporting the Mexican counterdrug operations are trying to understand——

Mr. BARR. I know. I know each agency is. Is there an inter-agency, coordinated effort, specific effort by our Government to assess

one of the most problematic breaches of intelligence in the entire

history of our war on drugs, and if there is not, there is not. I am

just asking if there is a coordinated, inter-agency, damage-assessment team.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, I am not sure I can give you an answer

to that. Yes, I am the guy on the spot to make sure that each of

these various departments of Government, that there is some oversight of what they are doing, and so I would be glad to serve as

your focal point on that. There is a very serious——

Mr. BARR. I do not need anybody to serve as my focal point——

Mr. BARRETT. General order.

Mr. BARR. Fine, fine.

Mr. SOUDER. We are going to go to one more round on each side,

not a full round, but 5 minutes on each side, because we know we

have had you here a long time, and we appreciate it very much.

Did you have a question, Mr. Mica? I have a couple of points I

wanted to make.

Mr. MICA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you want to go

to the other side first for fairness? I will wait. I can always hold

my question.

Mr. SOUDER. They have no questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that concerns me is another chart that was in this report, and it talks

about youth attitudes determine drug use, examples of marijuana

and 12th-graders, and it says perception drops, risk perception

drops and use rises, and it clicks in in about 1992. Who do you believe these young people look up to?

I think that we are still suffering from the appointment in the

last administration of a surgeon general who said ‘‘Just say maybe’’

and that we are still suffering from a President who said maybe

if he had it to do over again, he would inhale. I think that this

chart also shows that we continue to have this problem. We still

continue to have a President who has not spoken out on the issue

of legalization.

I do not think he has spoken out once on that. I know you have

spoken out on it. This is the question of marijuana, and I wrote you

a note, as a matter of fact, on congratulating you on speaking it

out.

But the President made over 2,600 speeches and interviews between 1993 and 1995, and mentioned drugs 23 times and has not

mentioned anything on this legalization. If the President of the

United States, the chief health officer of the United States, is not

helping to set this, then how can I tell my 17-year-old that there

is risk. If they say it is OK and their risk perception drops, which

this chart shows, and usage increases, we are not getting the leadership at the national level that we need to turn this around.

58

Now we are going to do paid advertising, which, if we have to

do, we will do; but I still do not think that provides the leadership.

When is the President going to speak out?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, the chart, Mr. Mica, on youth attitudes

is University of Michigan data, and we think it is pretty good. It

goes back to the 1960’s. Dr. Lloyd Johnson and his team up there

really helped, I think, a lot of us understand how youth form attitudes on the consequences of drug abuse.

We combined it with a lot of very serious work done by Columbia

University, Joe Califano and his associates, Dr. Herb Kleber and

others. We think we do understand why youths form their value

systems, and principally, they listen to their parents. They listen

to their homeroom teacher, they listen to their ministers, the coach,

the people who they have respect and love for and engage with

them.

In this country, values are formed by ordinary people. Now, you

can get a cross-cutting problem if you have entertainment figures

in music and TV and other things that are discordant notes, but

essentially what we are is what our parents and those who love us

told us to do.

That is the problem right there. It seems to me that we not only

saw a drop-off in TV coverage, we not only saw a change in the

amount of energy that we put into some of these drug prevention

programs; we ended up with a population of parents that came

along who had used drugs, many of them, 50 to 70 million, and

they are trying to sort out what message to give their children.

Now, in addition, we have got parents who are dual-income families, they are not home 3-to-7, they are not home on weekends, and

that is another change. So we are going to have to organize ourselves to address that problem.

If my two daughters are going to be professional women and involved in the work force, and thank God they are, then we have

got to have an organizational scheme to engage our kids.

To respond to your note on the President, look, by law, I am a

non-political officer of Government. I was honored to take part in

this whole operation. I was honored to be present yesterday when

the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet of the United States,

the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, the chairman of the JCS, and the rest of us

stood up to put the strategy in front of the American people, and

the President articulated what we were going to try and do. He

said it during his State of the Union speech.

I think he and others in this Government share your view, Mr.

Mica, that we are committed to a non-drug, non-stoned America,

and we are willing to work at it. I very much appreciate the bipartisan support that I have gotten out of this Congress in the last 2

years, whether it was money or tutoring or whatever, and I think

we have got to start working partnership and stop counting the

number of words in speeches. That is not the problem; the problem

is kids and drugs.

Mr. MICA. So national leadership is not a problem on the issue

or has not been a problem.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I am quite proud of the support, to be blunt,

that I have gotten out of the President and Vice President Gore

59

and Janet Reno. Two of the most important women in my life nowadays are Donna Shalala and Janet Reno. I think they are serious,

dedicated, intelligent folks; and Dick Riley is absolutely engaged,

and Bill Perry is one of the finest public servants I have ever encountered. So, to be blunt, I am very positive. They have given me

the money I asked for and the support.

Mr. SOUDER. I also want to thank you on behalf of this committee for having worked with us. Since you came on board, we

have worked aggressively with you in this committee in a bipartisan way, and hopefully we can continue to do that, because having everybody focused is important.

Mr. Barrett, do you have any questions?

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you again, and you will get your reward in

heaven.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I would like to

turn to a topic I do not think we have really touched on today but

that worries me as well, and that is found on pages 58 and 59 of

the Strategy regarding legalization of marijuana.

I hope that we are in agreement here that marijuana is, indeed,

a mind-altering drug, that it does things to the human mind and

the human body that inherently pose a danger to society. It affects

people’s ability to perceive the world around them and to react

properly to it.

People take marijuana for the same reason they take cocaine or

heroin, and that is to alter their mind. That is why they are mindaltering drugs, and that is why they are illegal. I know that there

have been efforts. We saw unfortunately the results of well-funded

campaigns in two Western States this past year to obscure that

fact.

There are continuing efforts to legalize marijuana, and the title

of this section of your paper says ‘‘Countering Attempts To Legalize

Marijuana,’’ and you make a statement in here that we must continue to oppose efforts to legalize marijuana, but there is nothing

in here at all about what we are doing and how we propose to do

that.

There is no strategy whatsoever; it just says we are going to continue to counter attempts, and that particularly bothers me is not

even so much that there is no specifics and no plan laid out for

doing that, but the entire last, lengthy paragraph in that section

very clearly leaves the door opened that maybe we will—we are

spending taxpayer money, you state here, to review the possible

therapeutic effects of marijuana.

Frankly, I do not give a damn what therapeutic effects marijuana may or may not have; the fact of the matter is, it is a mindaltering drug, so whether or not it has any therapeutic effects, it

is still a mind-altering drug. Why, in heaven’s name, would we

want to open the door to legalize its use for medical purposes? Your

paper here seems to contradict itself.

Also, I mean, I really would appreciate—I do not understand

what is going on here, because there is nothing here about countering attempts to legalize marijuana; there is only a great deal of

detail about maybe there is a medical use for it that may lead to

60

some sort of legalization. How much money is this study going to

take?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Well, Mr. Barr, let me, first of all, join you

completely in your viewpoint that America is better off with marijuana being a Schedule I drug. No good has come out of it. A bunch

of Americans have tried it. It led to a lot of difficulty. It is a major

problem in the universities today and high schools: failure to learn,

teenage pregnancy, stoned driving and death. We know, although

we cannot demonstrate the scientific causal relationship, we know

the statistical correlation between pot use among adolescents and

later addictive problems is overwhelming.

We are opposed to the legalization of marijuana, and that strategy, that is just a marker point. We will actively follow that issue.

Without being paranoid, there is a very well organized, determined,

heavily funded, national legalization strategy with law firms and

polling firms and political operatives, and that is what happened

to a large extent in California and Arizona.

Now, they have also recognized the American people are not

going to support the legalization of marijuana. That is what the

polls are telling us. That is what parents are telling us, police officers, and ministers. Now, I think they have gone after some other

approaches that suggest medical use, growing hemp, et cetera.

Now, medical is an easy one. Intellectually, there is not a bit of

problem. We use cocaine, methamphetamine, demerol, and other

very powerful, dangerous drugs, the Schedule II drugs. We have

enormous trust in the American medical establishment, but they

all have to get passed as safe and effective medicines. If you can

make the case, pass peer group review, go to the NIH and the

FDA, great, you can become a medicine. If you are a laetrile or thalidomide, you do not get through the gates.

What we did in the 1980’s, looking at the history of it, there were

hundreds of studies of smoked dope, and out of that they said we

need to provide doctors THC, one of the active components of the

cannaboids. Since 1985, it has been in a pill form, Marinol. It is

used by some physicians for nausea for certain discomforts. It is

basically no longer very effective compared to other, much better

medications.

Mr. BARR. Could I just interrupt, not to stop you, but since my

colleague on the other side gets upset if I go a little bit too long,

and mention one other thing that you could crank into your final

remarks here.

With regard to the use of marijuana, on the one hand, getting

back to my question previously about tobacco, we have seen this

administration very clearly is engaged in a very concerted public

relations effort against tobacco usage, trying to use the FDA sort

of as its hammer in that effort, a very aggressive program, and yet

we are at this very same time, we are funding efforts to see if

maybe there is a good use for marijuana.

Even if that were a good idea, which I do not think, I just disagree absolutely with doing that, in the great scheme of things

aren’t there better things that we could be using that money on to

fight the war on drugs right now?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I think if we are going to be intellectually honest with ourselves, we are going to have to pay attention to the

61

viewpoints of the medical research community when they claim

they want smoked dope to use to manage chemotherapy nausea or

claim that it is a pain-management tool or claim that it is a glaucoma treatment. The appropriate way to do that is to not get it into

politics. Take it to the NIH and the FDA—we have got brilliant

men and women over there—and let them look at it in a scientific

manner. That is what we are doing, and I think we will end up— again, we have an open mind on it.

If some of those 435 compounds in marijuana have medical benefit, we will isolate more of them, and these brilliant people in NIH

and the pharmaceutical industry can make it available for American medicine. Other than that, it will not be a medicine, so I think

we are doing the right thing, a very sensible approach, Donna

Shalala, Dr. Harold Varmas, Dr. Alan Leshner, and we will not get

tricked on this issue.

Mr. SOUDER. That is really important, and we are going to be

watching that closely because we know the politics of science as

well——

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. And this is too critical.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. General, I will be very brief. I just want to do

three things.

No. 1, I want to thank you for what you are doing. I really want

to thank you. I agree with Mr. Barrett, you have to have one of

the toughest jobs in the world, not just America, but in the world.

I also want to thank you for when you came to Baltimore. You do

not know it, but you went into the streets of Baltimore, no guards.

You stood there with young men who had been addicted but who

had gotten off of drugs. You put your arms around them and told

them that they could make it.

So often I think what happens is people sit in towers and look

down and never come down to where the troops are, you might say,

or where the battle is really being fought, but I just want you to

know that one of those young men said to me the other day that

it meant so much to him that you took the time to spend hours in

Baltimore with them, to talk to them and encourage them to get

beyond where they are and in the difficult circumstances that they

found themselves; and I thank you for that.

Finally, I want to encourage you. I want to encourage you. I

know this must be very, very difficult at times, when you are trying to rid our Nation of a problem that touches so many people,

and it really does, in so many ways. But I just wanted to encourage

you to continue on with what you are doing.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said, ‘‘Never give up,

never, never, never.’’ I know sometimes it may get very dark, sometimes the end may seem very difficult to see, but I feel real good

about what you are doing, because when I looked at those young

men that day that you came to Baltimore a few months ago—and

these are street guys, and they had this guy—there is this white

guy, a General, of all things, to come in, and they trusted you.

They trusted that you were giving it the very best that you had,

and these are the kind of guys you cannot fool too easily.

So I just want to, you know, encourage you and thank you.

62

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Thank you for those words, Mr. Congressman.

They mean a lot to me.

Mr. SOUDER. I think that Mr. Mica had a point of personal privilege.

Mr. MICA. Just a quick point of personal privilege. General, I do

want to admit to being, without a doubt, probably one of the

harshest critics of the administration policy over the past 4 years,

but I do want to say that I will do anything, and we have worked

together despite differences, to get you the resources that you need

to bring attention to this problem to do whatever this Congress

needs to do to effectively address the problem.

So I renew my commitment to you. If we have had problems in

the past, I am not interested in the past; I am interested in the

future. We will deal with the past, but I thank you for your efforts.

I thank you for making this a national priority, and for working

with this subcommittee the way you have, and we will continue to

work with you, and we also will continue to keep an eye on your

job and the other jobs done by the administration in this effort.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to reiterate that we focus on interdiction

here and that we have more jurisdictional authority over the Defense Department, and those areas, than we do over the other

areas, although because we have jurisdiction over your office, we

get into prevention and treatment. But as I challenged you last

time you were here, we intend to, and need to, at several committee levels, look at the prevention-and-treatment programs just

as critically as we look at the interdiction programs.

There is not one of us who has not met people in every urban

area, suburban area, and rural area who have figured out the

hustle of how to go to treatment programs. I have met many people

in homeless shelters and runaway shelters, kids in schools, who

have been through as many as 7 to 10 programs, and they know

how to get through them.

The zero tolerance that we talked about earlier today and trying

to do the drug testing, and hopefully you do that in your office as

well, the random drug testing, those type of——

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Starting with me. Right.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. Modeling ourselves and asking for the

drug dogs in the schools. That is not the ultimate solution to the

problem, because the reason that people are turning to drugs has

to be addressed as well, and they are multiple. They could be

health reasons, they could be family problems, and we understand

that, but our immediate problem is to address the drug question

and to lower the risk.

We have boosted these treatment dollars tremendously without

any corresponding real evaluation and tough evaluation of insurance questions, of a whole array of issues.

But I want to thank you for your very good testimony today. The

amount of time you take here, this is really just the beginning. To

many of us, you are kind of the Gen. McArthur of the drug war.

We very much appreciate this, because in this area you came in,

you got everybody focused again.

This committee has been on the point with hearings all over the

country and here to help try to move the money. We want to conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:32 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42191 pfrm12 PsN: 42191
63

tinue to try to do that and make sure that that money, in a time

of declining budget deficits, hopefully, we make every dollar count.

To do that, we need your help; and, once again, we very much appreciate your time today.

With that, the Subcommittee on National Security, International

Affairs, and Criminal Justice is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ