U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

62–537 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

OVERSIGHT OF THE 1999 NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL STRATEGY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Serial No. 106–82

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

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

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

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

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

BOB BARR, Georgia

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

ROBERT B. CHARLES, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MARGARET HEMENWAY, Professional Staff Member

SEAN LITTLEFIED, Professional Staff Member

AMY DAVENPORT, Clerk

MICHEAL YEAGER, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 25, 1999 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National Drug Control

Policy .............................................................................................................. 26

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:

Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 118

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

of Ohio:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Prepared statement of the family of Detective Robert Clark II ............ 3

McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National Drug Control

Policy, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 32

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida:

Chart on counterdrug funding statistics ................................................. 25

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

Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Hawaii, prepared statement of .................................................................... 17

Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 23

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE 1999 NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL STRATEGY

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room

2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Souder, Hutchinson, Ose,

Mink, Cummings, and Kucinich.

Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director/chief counsel; Margaret Hemenway and Sean Littlefield, professional staff members;

Amy Davenport, clerk; Michael Yeager, minority counsel; Jean

Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Earley Green, minority staff assistant.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I’d like to call this meeting of the

Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee to order.

Our business today is to hear from the Director of the National

Office of Drug Control Policy.

Before I get into my opening statement and before the regular

order of business, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from

Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, for a special introduction to our panel.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

express my appreciation to you for giving me this opportunity.

The topic of this hearing, of course, is so serious, and the chairman is to be congratulated for his focus on this.

I know how these issues become local. In Cleveland, OH, a police

officer was killed in the line of duty while attempting to execute

a drug-related arrest. The officer, Robert Clark, was a decorated

police officer, a husband, and father of three. As part of the street

crimes unit, he routinely participated in coordinated antidrug operations. He was shot during a drug arrest by an individual that had

an extensive criminal record in several States, an individual that

seemed to have slipped through the criminal justice system, but

may not have had greater coordination and information been made

available to local law enforcement professionals.

Mr. Chairman, Officer Clark’s sister, Mary, and her husband

John, who is with the U.S. Custom’s Office, are here today. I would

ask them to stand so that I can recognize them.

Stand up, please.

2

And I would also ask for unanimous consent to submit a written

statement from them into the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of the family of Detective Robert Clark

II follows:]

3

4

5

6

Mr. MICA. We are, indeed, honored to have you with us and appreciate the tremendous sacrifice your family has paid in this terrible crisis that our Nation and law enforcement officials face in

executing their responsibility under the laws of this country.

So, without objection, we are pleased to recognize you today, and

also make that part of the record.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And, if I

could ask the indulgence of the Chair, if the Chair and those in the

audience could join in a round of applause in appreciation for the

sacrifice of the family.

[Applause.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

7

8

9

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much. It does bring to home the reason

that we are here today trying to find solutions so that a tragedy

such as that we have heard about with this family can be avoided

in the future.

We had a vote, and right now have the swearing in of a Member,

but we are going to go ahead and proceed with our regular order

of business this morning, which is, again, testimony from our Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

I am going to start with an opening statement.

I will ask unanimous consent that it be submitted for the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]

10

11

12

Mr. MICA. Let me just try to spend a few minutes, as our members join us, to express some of my concerns outside that official

statement about my review of the proposed drug strategy, the 1999

strategy that has been submitted, and some of the accompanying

documents. In light of a trip that the ranking member, myself, Mr.

Souder, and some of the subcommittee just took, I would like to

look, just for a few minutes, at an overview of where we are and

what I believe are some of the shortcomings of this proposal before

us.

First of all, I want to publicly acknowledge the tremendous job

that General McCaffrey has done. I think he has had a very difficult assignment. I think he has handled himself in a manner to

be praised by this subcommittee, by the Congress, and by the administration.

That being said, I do have some so-called ‘‘bones’’ to pick with the

proposal before us, and I am sure he’ll have an opportunity to respond.

One of my major concerns is that we look at the cost-effectiveness of our approach to this problem. We are now spending, this

past year, $17.9 billion taxpayer dollars, not to mention almost a

quarter of a trillion dollars in cost, just dollars and cents, to the

taxpayers on substance abuse and drug expenses that our country

incurs every year.

So you have to look at the most cost-effective approach. Maybe

some of these items are more on our minds, since we have just returned from some of the major drug-producing countries, but it

doesn’t take a whole lot of education or information to figure out

exactly where the core of the drugs are coming from. By the estimates of this report, we have got 60 percent, maybe as much as

70 percent of the hard drugs coming through Mexico, and most of

the cocaine and heroin is now produced in Colombia.

We learned through our trip that Colombia has now become the

major source of cocaine production, with the tremendous efforts

that have been made by President Fujimora of Peru and by the

President of Bolivia, Hugo Bonsar. So we know that drugs are

being produced—the hard drugs, heroin and cocaine, in Colombia.

We still have the problem of getting the resources—helicopters,

ammunition, eradication programs—underway in those countries.

We know that 100 percent of the cocaine is being produced in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Now 50 percent has switched over to Colombia. We know that heroin is trafficking up through Mexico, and

that’s 60 to 70 percent of it.

I point this out because the strategy does not appear to me to

be focused sufficiently to deal with these source countries. Now, in

Peru and Bolivia a few million dollars extra could make a big difference. They have shown some dramatic intentions and actions to

eliminate, not just cut back, but potentially eliminate production in

those two countries.

So it seems that a lot of our resources should be to stop drugs

at their source. What disturbs me about the budget and the strategy is that it does not seem to focus enough attention there. In fact,

I think over last year’s actual total dollar expenditure we see decreases.

13

So I have some serious concerns that we are putting a few dollars where they can do the most good, in Bolivia and Peru, and also

in Colombia.

What is even more disturbing is the situation with Mexico, where

most of the drugs are transiting. Today’s newspapers make me

even more concerned, General McCaffrey. We had the testimony

yesterday of Tom Constantine, the head of our Drug Enforcement

Agency, and he testified in the Senate. In my lifetime, I have never

witnessed any group of criminals that has had such a terrible impact on so many individuals and communities in our Nation. Mr.

Constantine said they have infiltrated cities and towns around the

United States, visiting upon these places addiction, misery, increased criminal activities, and increased homicide.

There is no doubt that those individuals running these organized

crime, drug trafficking syndicates today are responsible for degrading the quality of life, not only in the towns along the southwest

border of the United States, but also, increasingly, cities in middle

America. That disturbs me greatly.

The headlines are, ‘‘Drug Corruption in Mexico Called Unparalleled,’’ again, by our Chief Drug Enforcement Officer of our Nation.

Further, what concerns me is a lack of organization that the

ranking member and I observed, first in Panama, which has been

our major reconnaissance center. Today is almost the end of February. Monday is the first of March. We have March and April. It

does not appear that we have any coherent plans for relocating

those surveillance and incredible volume of equipment that now is

in Panama. It seems disorganized, at best. It looks like we got outnegotiated by the Panamanians, and we are turning over $10 billion in assets, and you have $73 million to relocate in your budget,

which, again, is probably an expensive policy failure by the administration.

So I am very concerned about what we are going to do. We do

not have anything in place. Our folks told us that our troops may

be living in tents or in temporary quarters if and when an agreement is reached for relocating them. This also opens a huge gap in

our reconnaissance, surveillance, and interdiction activities.

We then went to the southwest border and met with border officials and some of our ATF folks there. We were basically told, Sir—

and correct me, Mrs. Mink, if I am wrong—that there is no one in

charge of the southwest border program, that it is greatly fractionalized, that there is no direction and no or, at best, little coordination.

Certainly, the southwest border, given the chart that I have here,

has to be one of the major entry points. The border patrol told us—

and correct me again if I am wrong, anyone out on the panel—that

we have not restarted our efforts of having the reserve and military

do proper surveillance. They said they can detect most folks coming

across the border through sensors. The local border patrol folks

have requested, in fact, that that be reinstituted, but nothing in

Washington has been done to, again, provide the sensors at the

border which are so important.

Then, I know that you and the administration have been strong

advocates, and the Congress, Mr. Portman, strong advocates of

education and prevention and our Drug-Free Communities Act that

14

passed the Congress. I find that we do not have adequate resources

in this budget to even fulfill the minimal needs.

Mr. Portman told me last evening it took 16 months to appoint

board members, and most of it was a fight. The delay was a fight

between HHS and DOJ in trying to decide who would run the program.

So I have some very serious concerns about what is in the proposal, about what I read in the newspaper today, about the possible

certification by the administration of Mexico in the next couple of

days, and that we do not have coordination and action on a couple

of these fronts.

Now, I do not mean that all in a critical vein, Mr. Director. I am

wondering if maybe we need to give you additional authority. We

certainly can do a better job from our perspective in applying the

financial resources where they need to go to get the job we think

needs to get done.

Those are my candid, open remarks. We have learned from the

past that if we do not put the proper emphasis on these areas—

multi-faceted eradication, source country programs, and international programs on interdiction, education, treatment, and prevention—that it does not work. And there is no question that it

does not work if we do not have that emphasis.

So those are some of my concerns today. I think we have most

of the members of the panel back. I apologize for taking time.

Again, I do not give that totally in a critical vein, but hopefully

in a constructive vein that we can find answers to some of the

problems as we move along here.

With those comments, I am pleased to yield to the ranking member, the distinguished lady from Hawaii, who also accompanied us

on our first initial visit. We are anxious to hear her remarks. I recognize her.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to you, General McCaffrey, to this hearing.

I occupy a new position as ranking member of this subcommittee,

and the entire subject area, although in many ways is something

that I have been concerned with my entire political life, nonetheless, there is so much in this whole area that requires concentrated, detailed attention in order to understand all the inner

workings and ramifications of the problem. It is an immense task

that you have assumed, and I want to take this opportunity first

off to commend you and your staff for the exceptional work that

you have done since this organization was established.

There are so many fronts to this issue, and perhaps coming onto

it initially I would have underscored the particular attention we

have to pay to our young people, who are the real victims of this

crisis, and organize efforts to educate them and their parents and

their families about the dreadful consequences of becoming a user

and an addict; the cost to the family, as well as to the community

and to society and the Nation, as a whole, and so we concentrate

our efforts.

I serve on the Education Committee, and we concentrated our efforts in the educational aspects and the prevention aspects, and

then, when you look at the health area, you know that there is a

15

whole arena of health services and treatment, and some of the debate that goes along with those issues.

Then, traveling with this subcommittee to Central and South

America, you understand that much of it is outside our realm of

control. These source countries have total responsibility to do the

things that are necessary to curb the source, to interdict the smugglers, and to do everything they can to prevent the traffic into our

country. To some extent we are dependent upon their will and their

determination to get at the source question and all the crime and

other kinds of corruption that occur in societies that are governed

by the law of drugs.

We know significant achievements in some of these countries

that we want to pay special tribute to for their new efforts—Peru,

Bolivia, and Colombia, in particular—and all of us are concerned

about the developments in Mexico.

But, in looking at this overall picture about our drug strategy,

what comes to my mind as something that I would have always

considered self-evident was that we knew exactly what was happening within the United States in terms of where the drug syndicates were located, who ran them, who was in charge in what

city, with respect to the wholesale activities of these drugs, and

managing and controlling the flow in and out of our cities and our

communities.

I have looked over a number of the reports and descriptions of

the various functions of agencies, and I am not really quite sure

that I have a grasp of what our efforts, in terms of our own law

enforcement, are within this country.

That is an area I would like to pay special attention to as we

begin our inquiry on the scope and strategy for the eradication of

the drug abuse in our country.

I would like to know, frankly, where these people are and what

their names are. I would like to put a face to these names. I would

like to know where they are located, to what extent the intelligence

within this country can identify them, know their operations, and,

if so, why they have not been arrested and put in prison.

That’s the short view of my perspective of one small corner of

this immense subject area.

I would like to share those concerns with you, General McCaffrey, and hope that in the ensuing months we have an opportunity

to engage in discussion about this far-reaching activity that those

concerns of our enforcement part of this huge operation are fully

understood, because, to a large extent, I think my community, my

District that I represent has sort of given up on this thing. They

say, ‘‘Well, what can you do about it? It is there.’’ We do not see

many results in terms of the whole traffic.

I am alarmed because my State is listed here as one of the major

growers of marijuana, which is the leading illicit drug trafficking

in this country, and I want to know who these people are that are

bringing it in or growing it or picking it up and shipping it and

where it goes and who these people are throughout the country.

I think that most families want to have that information—the

knowledge, the belief that everything is being done that could be

16

done to help engage this Nation in this very, very critical problem

for the sake of our children and our families.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that my

statement be entered into the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

Mr. MICA. I would like to recognize now the vice chairman of our

subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, General McCaffrey, it

is always a pleasure and an honor to have you here. You have always and continue to distinguish yourself as one of our true leaders

in the antidrug movement, and I very much appreciate that, as do

the citizens of the 7th District of Georgia that I represent.

I think primarily, through no fault of your own but through some

of the policy decisions that the administration makes, the effectiveness of your personal efforts and those of the people that serve

with you, and, in particular, the brave men and women of the DEA

have not enjoyed as much success as I know they would like and

as you would like, and as, certainly, we up here would like to see,

problems with regard to Mexico being one of the foremost problems, an effort by some, I think, in the administration not to be

quite as strong on the marijuana legalization effort, as I know you

are, and on needle exchange programs.

I guess what I am saying is I think we would be a lot better off

if you were President and not just head of ONDCP, because then

you would be in a position to make the broad policy decisions and

dictate many of the steps that we would like to see and that I know

you, personally, would like to see.

But I do look forward to the questions and answers today in your

statement, and you are always very, very frank and forthcoming

with us, and I appreciate that, and I know you appreciate where

we are coming from in terms of sometimes some very tough questions.

Again, it is always an honor to be with you and with the brave

men and women that you represent in the forefront of the war on

drugs.

We had, through one of our subcommittees, a very interesting

discussion yesterday with Mayor Guiliani of New York, and I may

have a question or two to ask you, comments on some of the positions that he has taken. I think he has really done many of the

things that we would like to see done. Of course, he is the chief

executive for New York City and can make those decisions and dictate that they be carried out.

But, again, it is a pleasure to have you here. I look forward to

the testimony and to the questions and answers, and, again, look

forward to working with you in fighting the war against mind-altering drugs in the coming Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank you and now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I just want to thank General McCaffrey for being

here and look forward to getting into the questions and comments.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Hutchinson, the gentleman from Arkansas, you

are recognized.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will yield for my opening statement.

I have started reviewing the report, General McCaffrey, and I

look forward to your testimony.

I will take the opportunity just to make one remark. I believe in

the importance of educating teenagers about tobacco use and the

22

dangers of that. I always have believed, though, that we should distinguish the case of illegal drugs, the narcotics, the methamphetamine—the message on that, you know, from the antidrug message

on tobacco.

Sometimes I think we just sort of meld all of that together, and

so I just wanted to express that comment to you. I have raised four

teenagers, and I think you have got to distinguish that message out

there. Both are important, but I hope that we can really put the

focus on the illegal drugs—I think that is the greatest danger in

our country—and then we can have a separate message for the

antismoking campaign.

I look forward to your testimony, General McCaffrey, and, likewise, I thank you for your hard work for our country.

Mr. MICA. The gentleman from California, Mr. Ose, you are recognized.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this hearing

and the opportunity to go with you this past week. I am very interested in hearing what General McCaffrey has to offer here this

morning.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the Federal funding for the

war on drugs has increased for fiscal year 2000, however nominally

or however much we might think it needs to be more.

The questions that I have deal with how can the Federal Government assist localities and communities in reaching their drug prevention goals. It is the details of this that I am looking forward to

hearing from General McCaffrey about this morning.

I also want to comment on a statement that General McCaffrey

made to the Community Anti-Drug Coalition’s newsletter this past

winter. The General commented that the responsibility of combating minor use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco falls on communities and coalitions and not on the local police chief and sheriff.

My specific question—and I hope you address this—is: how can

the Federal Government encourage and equip local communities

and coalitions to actually participate effectively in this effort?

Again, these are just a few of my concerns. With respect to the

time, I will yield back whatever I have left in favor of listening to

General McCaffrey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

23

24

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Just to make sure we correct the record before we recognize the

General, on page 89 of the National Drug Control Policy I want to

present a national award for graphics liberties, which is the National Drug Control budget funding trend up, which last year the

total expenditures were $17.9 billion, and this year they are $17.8

billion, $109 million less, and it is cleverly done with the graphics

that are represented, breaking out the supplemental as a separate

expenditure. But, in fact, there are decreases in some of the areas

which I pointed out and expressed concerns about, and I have this

awesome chart that the staff has prepared, which I am going to ask

be submitted to the record. It shows the fiscal year 2000 expenditures for international dropping 43 percent from 1999 in the proposal by the administration, for total dollars spent in interdiction,

which would be down 18 percent. These are the exact figures, in

spite of the classy fashion in which the information is prepared.

Without objection, that will be made part of the record and tidy

it up a bit, I hope.

[The information referred to follows:]

25

26

Mr. MICA. With that, General, we are pleased to have you here.

We apologize for the delay. We look forward to your testimony and

look forward to working with you as we tackle this tough problem.

You are recognized, Sir.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL BARRY R. McCAFFREY, DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

General MCCAFFREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear in front of this committee and try and not only

lay out what the administration’s strategy and budget entail, but

also to listen very carefully to your own comments and respond to

your questions.

Let me also thank Representative Mink for her leadership. I look

forward to working with you as a partner in the coming years in

this committee, and for the many others in the committee who I

have worked with over the last several years.

A lot of the people who are vital to the national drug effort are

here in the room with us, and I would not be able to mention all

of them, but I would be remiss to not note Dr. Linda Wolfe Jones,

Therapeutic Communities of America; Jennifer Collier McCall of

the Legal Action Center; Sara Cason from the National Council on

Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; of particular pride to have here

Sue Thau representing Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, more than 4,000 coalitions across the country; Tom Hedrick

from Partnership for Drug-Free America.

I will try and show a smattering of this enormous effort.

Mr. MICA. General, would you mind repeating them and having

each of them stand so we can recognize them.

General MCCAFFREY. Yes, I would be glad to.

Dr. Linda Wolfe Jones, Therapeutic Communities of America;

Jennifer Collier McCall, the Legal Action Center; Sara Cason from

the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; Sue

Thau from Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the umbrella organization all across the country; Tom Hedrick from Partnership for Drug-Free America. I know all of you know Jim Burk

and the absolutely brilliant work they have done on the antidrug

media campaign. I am always proud to have DARE America

present. Jim McGivney is here representing the biggest antidrug

prevention program in the country, 26 million kids and 9 million

now in the international community. Susan Weinstein, from the

National Association of Drug Court Professionals, is here. There

were 12 drug courts 3 years ago. There are almost 500 now, either

operating or standing up. Johnny Hughes is here from the National

Troopers Coalition; and Dr. Bob Balster from the College on Problems of Drug Dependency. Many of the most serious academic researchers associate themselves with that program. I thank him for

being here, along with Joe Peters, who has newly joined us as our

HIDTA Director. He is a very experienced assistant U.S. attorney

from Philadelphia, where he is chief of narcotics and organized

crime, and we thank Joe for joining us.

Mr. Chairman, if I can, let me ask your permission to enter into

the record a written comment.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

27

General MCCAFFREY. We tried to pull together and provide you

the facts that may help guide your own deliberations.

Let me also run through very briefly, just laying out, so you can

see it and hear it, the principal subcomponents of our national effort.

[Simultaneous slide presentation.]

General MCCAFFREY. There are four volumes, one of which you

have already referred to, the national drug strategy. You just

changed the law last session. You reauthorized ONDCP. The

Speaker of the House was heavily involved in it, along with Denny

Hastert, who was his quarterback. This now represents long-term

commitment on the part of the U.S. Government, because you told

me to do this with a 5-year or longer perspective.

We have also now, by law—this is no longer collegial participation by my 50 associations in the executive branch. This is the 5-

year drug budget that I am mandated by law to submit each year.

It is still not very good, but it is now subject to your analysis and

debate and the scrutiny of the news media and these other representatives from the principal national antidrug elements so that

we can start getting into a dialog on prevention, treatment, law enforcement, interdiction over time. I commend this to your attention.

We put enormous energy into it.

We have also submitted performance measures of effectiveness.

We have revised them again. Last year we thought it was a dramatic breakthrough in trying to hold the executive branch accountable over time with achieving results.

There are now 12 outcomes that are defined by an algorithm,

and there are 82 subordinate variables that we will measure, and

I will report to this committee each year what we achieved with

the money you gave us in the earlier year.

The 1990 report makes the first attempt to give you a report on

what we claim we have achieved, and we welcome your own questions on that.

A classified volume, which is available to you in the normal controlled manner, is the national drug control strategy classified

annex, which is classified ‘‘secret’’ and tries to outline the interdiction and international law enforcement policy and programs. This

is the second time we have put it out. It is better. It is more useful

now to help govern our own internal dialog among, particularly,

the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

If I may, let me briefly show you a few charts to tell you the

principal elements.

The first chart, to your front here, again reiterates that we have

organized this effort around five goals. There are now 31 objectives.

They were designed in consultation with literally thousands of individuals and institutions across the country. We think it is a solid

piece of work. As you read it, it will make sense to law enforcement, educators, health professionals, coaches, and the men and

women of the Armed Forces—the Coast Guard and other agencies.

We think this is a good way to organize ourselves.

This is also, I underscore, not the Federal drug control strategy,

it is the national drug control strategy, so I am putting a lot of effort into it, along with my colleagues, to make sure that States and

local governments and NGO’s see this conceptual architecture and

28

try and talk about the issue and organize programs and budgets

in some common way.

We have got to acknowledge it is possible to do something about

drug abuse in America. We are persuaded by Partnership for DrugFree America data, by Columbia University, by the brilliant work

at University of Michigan Survey Research Center that youth attitudes drive drug behavior.

We are persuaded that the number of adolescents using gateway

drugs, the degree to which they become involved in pot smoking,

alcohol abuse, cigarettes, and the rest of this stuff—and when I say ‘‘the rest of this stuff,’’ I acknowledge more 8th graders than 12th

graders use heroin in today’s America. That is the second year in

a row I have said that. It is still a minute aspect of the problem,

but it is an indication that if we want to see 10 years from now

what will be the drug abuse problem we are debating, watch the

middle school kids.

As we look at the middle school kids, we think we are beginning

to see the turning point in what will have to be a 10-year struggle

to grab each group of adolescents as they hit those years and persuade them that drug abuse is harmful to their own health and development. And we are starting to see youth attitudes in the 8th

grade, 10th grade, and 12th grade have all definitively, from a

mathematical correlation point, turned around from 5 earlier years

of running the wrong way. These are modest changes in behavior

and attitudes, but, if continued, and if we focus on that age group,

in my judgment and the judgment of most of us—Dr. Allen

Leshner, in particular, our Director of NIDA—this will be the payoff.

Having said that, there may be a decade lag between an adolescent who becomes a compulsive drug user—and I know you understand this. Kids actually get addicted when they are 15, 16, 17, and

18, and some of them are completely wrapped up in drug-taking behavior; 10 years or 15 years later they are in the hospital emergency rooms or in the prison system, they are HIV positive, they

dominate the crime scene.

And so, if you look at the 4.1 million Americans who are chronically addicted to drugs, they are doing enormous damage. That is

who is in the hospital emergency room.

Social cost—there is a lot of money involved in this. These are

huge dollar amounts. And I put alcohol in there to underscore the

fact that in today’s America we are talking about poly drug abuse.

It is rare to see somebody who is in serious difficulty who is not

using heroin and alcohol, cocaine and other drugs. These are poly

drug abuse situations, and if the treatment system is not adequately focused on the client, you end up with one behavior being

modified and the addict goes to other drug-taking methods. But

$110 billion is the bottom line to the damage done in the criminal

justice system, the health system, industrial accidents, et cetera. It

is a huge problem. It dominates some aspects of our society, and

we are going to talk about its impact on criminal justice.

This assertion I would say is scientifically unarguable. If you do

effective drug treatment, if you target this drug treatment on this

modest percentage of the population which is addicted, 4-millionplus people—that is probably the most useful estimate of its size—

29

their malevolent behavior, their malignant behavior, their impact

on society will change dramatically.

You cannot cure a 31-year-old heroin addict, but you can change

their behavior, and so one of the two studies that I am most likely

to cite, the DATOS and ENTIES study, both tend to show, using

large numbers of the addicted, that if you get them into treatment

you modify their behavior dramatically. And most of those numbers

essentially say there is a 50 percent reduction in the behaviors that

are most dangerous to us.

The next one again talks about criminal activity, rather than just

drug-taking activity. If you look at things like selling illegal drugs,

shoplifting, assault, beating somebody up—down a little more than

77 percent. Treatment pays off, and there is a cost, of course, in

the criminal justice system to all these deviant behaviors.

Here is a point I think we need to make most strongly. Donna

Shalala, our Health and Human Services Secretary, I would argue

is the most knowledgeable about being opposed to the use of marijuana combined with other drugs, particularly by young people. She

has seen it all her life as a college president and professor.

It is inarguable that, although we do not claim causal linkages,

young people who smoke marijuana a lot—and you will also find

other drug-taking behavior associated with this—that their tendency to be involved in criminal behavior, deviant behavior, failure

to learn, dropping out of school, sexually transmitted diseases, all

of them are higher. And so we say that this is harmful to the physical, emotional, and moral development of young people. Physically

attacking people, destroying property, almost across the board

there is a relationship between pot use and these activities.

Let me also again make the point—and this is University of

Michigan data of Survey Research Center. It has been going on

since the 1960’s, in which we tried to follow youth behavior, selfreported, to track their attitudes. There are two attitudes that are

key: to what extent do I disapprove of drug use? The second attitude is: to what degree do I fear drug use for me?

When those attitudes go back, drug use goes up. When the attitudes start to change, their personal behavior begins to reflect it.

What we are seeing clearly, having seen a spectacular and extremely threatening 5-year rise, these behaviors, almost across the

board, most dramatically among 8th graders, least dramatically

among 12th graders—which is what you would expect—the curves

are beginning to turn around. It is still, obviously, unacceptable.

We have got one out of four high school seniors in this country regularly using drugs, one out of four, and that is the population that

will generate the chronic addicts of America 10 years out.

Let me just again remind you that if you go to the serious law

enforcement people—Lori Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, is

the basis for a lot of our studies, along with Jeremy Travis, but

also the experienced law enforcement, leadership, Louis Freeh,

Tom Constantine, Ray Kelly, and others—this huge number of

Americans behind bars, costing $36 billion. It is growing. It will go

up another 20 percent in the coming years if we do not do something differently.

If you look at that population, if you buy Joe Califano’s Colombia

University data, 80 percent of them are in there because their beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:37 Mar 22, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62537 pfrm01 PsN: 62537
30

havior is contaminated by alcohol and drug abuse. My guess is 50

percent is probably a more demonstrative statistic, but people end

up unemployed, sick, and involved in criminal behavior, and then

behind bars, resulting from the abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

If we get at that behavior—and there really are not that many

of them—1.8 million people—50 percent of them clearly are addicted to compulsive drugs. That is the population that we have to

bring under control, and I think there has to be a tough love element to it. It is not enough to have a $3 billion treatment effort.

It has to be linked to the criminal justice system.

Thanks very much.

Let me, if I may, end by also stating that our drug budget, the

fiscal year 2000 budget, which was also sent over—we will have

hearings on that next week. I would, however, underscore my appreciation for the rather dramatic increase in funding that the Congress has given us between fiscal year 1996 and 2000. That is the

piece of it that I have focused on. In that period of time, Mr. Chairman—and I thank you for your personal support—international

programs went up 120 percent. That is in raw dollars. That is not

a sound bite. That is fact—a 120 percent increase in international

programs.

You have increased interdiction funding by 47 percent in those

budget years. You have increased law enforcement funding by 24

percent.

Now, in addition, I would underscore my appreciation that prevention dollars are up 55 percent, if you would take the fiscal year

2000 submitted budget. Treatment dollars are up 25 percent, and

research money—most importantly, many would argue—up 35 percent. So we are moving to respond to the dictates of our own strategy, of our own rhetoric, and we think it is going to pay off over

time.

I would also add, however, I share—you listed six concerns, Mr.

Chairman, and I think you are right on the money on all six of

them. I think there are ways to put it in context, and I would appreciate the chance to lay out what we are doing, but I think you

are quite correct being worried about cost-effectiveness, lack of organization, what are we going to do in the interdiction effort once

we lose Panama, what are we doing on the southwest border, corruption and violence in Mexico, drug-free communities, are they

adequately funded, yes or no. And your concerns about the certification of Mexico I think are all quite valid.

With your permission, let me show you a minute-and-a-half of

video, and I would welcome your questions on the media strategy.

We went, in 2 years, from a 12-city test with 12 control cities to

national implementation using Partnership for Drug-Free America

material. Now we have got the big guns involved. Some of the most

sophisticated people in this country are involved in the effort.

We, again, are grateful that more than 200 advertising companies do this work for free. We pick up production costs, but this

work is nonprofit for the ad agencies involved. The Actor’s Guild

wave their fees. So what we are doing with our precious dollars is

targeting access where kids and adult caregivers are involved.

We have made, we think, initial and rather dramatic impact. Our

target was four times a week adolescents in America, with a 90

31

percent target penetration, would see or hear or read our material.

In fact, we are about seven times a week with 93 percent target

penetration. It is almost unprecedented in this area.

Kids see the ads, they notice them, they are responding, the calls

to community coalitions have skyrocketed, even though only 10 percent of those initial ads had a telephone number on them, and the

calls into Secretary Shalala’s information clearinghouses have gone

up dramatically.

By the end of the summer I hope we will be online in 11 languages. When we started Spanish, it went from 4 calls a day to

more than 60 per hour when we got online with targeted ads. We

are going to work, essentially, substrategies in 102 different media

markets.

We are quite proud of it.

And, on top of that, in accordance with the law, we negotiated

100 percent or more matching access, and we have done it with a

very conservative algorithm on measuring what constitutes matching. We actually have achieved 107 percent increase in access with

the dollars Congress gave us.

On that note, if you will, let me just end by showing you this

video on work that is being done by the networks to reinforce our

own PDFA efforts.

[Videotape presentation.]

General MCCAFFREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the chance

to make these statements and look forward to responding to your

questions.

[The prepared statement of General McCaffrey follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. McCaffrey. I appreciate your testimony and want to take just a minute, if I can, to introduce a couple

of additional guests that we have with us who are visiting from Bolivia. One is Juan Francisco Porque, who is the antinarcotics minister for that country; Naguida Nayar, who is the minister of government. If you gentlemen would stand up, I would like to recognize you.

[Applause.]

Mr. MICA. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Bolivia has

embarked on an unprecedented eradication and crop substitution

program, through the efforts of some support from the United

States and some international support. They have just done an incredible job of eliminating coca production by very significant percentage, and have a plan that we discussed with President Hugo

Bonsar during our visit to try to get almost all production eliminated by the year 2002. Bolivia is a small country with a big determination and some young, aggressive leaders who show what people can do when they want to turn a situation around, a model for

all of us.

We are pleased to have you with us.

General, I have several questions. I support the treatment effort

and the prevention effort and the education effort. We put tons of

money in it.

I have a little chart here that shows the national drug control

policy from 1991 through 1999. We have just about doubled the

amount of money in enforcement. In prevention, we have gone from

$1.4 billion to $2.1 billion. In treatment, we have just about doubled the money from $1.8 to $3.1. And in these three areas I notice

that we have significant increases over this period of time.

However, in interdiction we still are not at the 1991 levels, and

in our international efforts we still are not at the 1991 efforts.

Also, over the total funds that we increased last year, as I said,

we have a 43 percent reduction in international and an 18 percent

reduction in interdiction.

The trafficking pattern, as you know, has changed. We are not

seeing as much cocaine. We are seeing heroin, methamphetamines,

and dramatic increases across our Nation.

I think we are being engulfed in new drugs that are coming

across the border, and our strategy is not flexible enough to deal

with this new marketing and with the incredible volume of drugs

that is coming in.

Can you answer why we are not looking at putting more into

international and interdiction programs?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I chose 1995 to 2000. If you go back

to 1991, your data is entirely correct. I certainly have an open

mind to hearing a different viewpoint on how we could more effectively use additional dollars in both interdiction and international

programs. It is clear that Colombia, in particular, is encountering

enormous difficulties, and so the support, which we doubled last

year for Colombia, is going to be money well spent in standing with

a fellow democracy.

The one caution I would have on 1991 funding levels versus 2000

is for us to make sure we understand that when President Bush’s

team went after the Caribbean initiative and we first got spun up

96

on this, a lot of that money was accounting for train-up costs for

the United States Navy, who were working up for Med deployments in the Caribbean out of Guantanamo. So I am not persuaded

that a lot of those dollars actually reflect smart drug policy, but,

instead, are initial attempts, particularly in DOD, to respond to the

President’s instructions.

But I think you are quite right, you know. We have a responsibility to stand, not just with Colombia and Mexico, but to continue

the support to Bolivia and Peru and other nations as they succeed

in their eradication program.

I think your comment is a good one, as long as we spend money

smartly when we do this.

Mr. MICA. Well, again, we must stop drugs at their source, and

it is so few millions of dollars that these partners are asking for.

Some of the other concerns I have are the levels of funding, and

I am not sure what you submitted to OMB or what your recommendations were, but I will give you a few areas that are of concern to me: the micro-herbicide program, the R&D program, the

Customs and interdiction program, the counter-intelligence program.

I have become more and more convinced that intelligence can

help us in this whole effort of stopping drugs before they ever reach

our country.

The Coast Guard operations and maintenance budget, and the

United States-Mexico border security funding, can you tell us on

those areas what your recommendation was and why these are not

funded at congressionally approved levels?

General MCCAFFREY. I would be glad to submit the working documents, because I do certify agency budgets and I certify department budgets, and so that is all public record, and I would be glad

to show it to you.

Mr. MICA. Were your recommendations higher in these areas

than——

General MCCAFFREY. Some are a little tough. The micro-herbicide we fully support. We are going to go at it. The problem right

now is not money. I would, indeed, argue right now the problem

is we have got more money than I can safely spend. In future

years, we are going to have to bring that program online, ensuring

that we bring along with it answers to the environmental questions

and we involve the multi-national community in its execution.

So we do not have a problem with micro-herbicides. We are going

to move on that, a very intelligent program.

Mr. MICA. Do you believe that only $29 million additional for the

Mexico/Andean countries and international strategies is sufficient?

General MCCAFFREY. Probably not. I mean, these are tight budget decisions. There are unsatisfied demands in the Andean Ridge.

I would argue we have made rather substantial increases in

funding, and particularly in Colombia. I would also tell you that

some of the countries—Mexico is less interested in our money than

in our training, less interested in equipment than in intelligence

sharing. So in some cases the answer is not money.

Mr. MICA. My final question, then——

General MCCAFFREY. The Coast Guard is another one.

97

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Will deal with training in Mexico. I went

down there and offered to extend any assistance possible, and

members of our subcommittee did in our visit last week, but I have

some concerns.

Let me read from an account today, as reported in a magazine

article,

In September last year, DEA officials were snubbed by Mexican authorities when

they offered their aid in investigating a vicious drug slaying in Baja, California, that

left nearly two dozen people dead, including a toddler and a pregnant teen. One of

the reasons for the refusal could well be that the killers, according to a U.S. intelligence document, may have been Mexican lawmen attached to one of four elite

antinarcotics units trained by the DEA and FBI. They are suspected of having

ditched their Elliott Ness-like untouchable status in favor of moonlighting for the

Felix Brothers, the blood-drenched bosses of the Tijuana Cartel.

I am concerned, and I have heard reports now that, even when

we go back and see these people, that more than 50 percent of

them are failing the lie detector test, and now I am concerned that

people that we are training may be involved in some of the terrorism which is—we have gone from corruption to terrorism in

Mexico, and this is a concern to me.

Would you like to respond?

General MCCAFFREY. I would not want to comment on our intelligence appreciation of that incident or others in a public hearing.

What is unquestionable is that there is a massive threat of corruption and violence directed at Mexican institutions, in general, and

law enforcement and the military, in particular.

There are serious shortcomings in training and reliability, and

the Mexicans are struggling to build new institutions.

My own assessment, as I read Mr. Constantine’s proposed testimony before they all came down here yesterday, I really did not

factually have any substantial disagreement with any of them.

Mr. MICA. We have 10 minutes. This, I understand, is going to

be the last vote of the day. Why don’t we go ahead and vote, and

we will be back in exactly—well, we will try to make it 15 minutes,

and hopefully finish up by 12:30 or 12:45.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. MICA. I would like to call this meeting of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee back to

order.

This seems to be the day for introductions, but I would like to

take a point of personal privilege and use this opportunity to introduce my local sheriff, who has done an outstanding job in heading

up our HIDTA activities in central Florida. Many of you have

seen—they carry around this headline, ‘‘Drug Deaths Top Homicides in Central Florida,’’ and we are trying to do something about

it, and the person who is leading this charge just happens to be

with us today, Sheriff Don Eslinger from Seminole County.

Don, welcome.

[Applause.]

Mr. MICA. I have finished my questioning, at least in the first

round, of General McCaffrey, and I would like to yield now to our

distinguished ranking member, Mrs. Mink, for questions.

98

Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to assure your sheriff that I am going to do everything I can to get

him more money. How is that? Can you top that?

Mr. MICA. Working together, we can spend enormous funds,

thank you, in a bipartisan effort.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you. I have only 5 minutes, General McCaffrey, and there are really so many parts of your strategy that are

important, and they are all inter-related.

Coming new to this subcommittee, I wonder if you could just give

us a brief rundown of the difference between this 1999 strategy

and the one that was prepared previously. What are the significant

points of differences in terms of the strategy that you—I think it

was 1996 when you put out your first report.

General MCCAFFREY. Well, of course, Madam Congresswoman,

there have been nine strategies, if I remember, starting over the

space of four ‘‘drug czars.’’ In 1996, we went to 4,000-some-odd people around the country. We listened carefully to them. We put together a strategy that we have been retooling over the last 4 years.

Mrs. MINK. So what are the major differences?

General MCCAFFREY. There are no dramatic changes, except, as

you look at it, we have tried to tighten up the language. We actually switched two of these objectives among goals. We eliminated

one objective. We were trying to satisfy the demands of some pretty

knowledgeable people in law enforcement, drug research, prevention, treatment, et cetera, and I think we have gotten there.

This strategy is widely applauded and accepted across this country by the people involved in this effort.

Mrs. MINK. Now, going to that, on page seven of this strategy,

where you have the goals of 1999, I am searching for the words in

any of those goals, five goals, which relate to what I was trying to

say in my opening statement, and that is emphasis on the local,

national, State efforts to identify the drug syndicates, the drug

lords who are operating within the United States and have—what

have we done in terms of that effort, because, as I read the goals,

there is not one of them that singles out that particular effort, and

yet I know that a significant portion of your budget is devoted to

that effort.

My question really is: why is not it elaborated in one of your five

goals?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I had an opportunity to meet with

Congresswoman Mink for an hour or so this past week and took

her comments to heart, and I certainly share your belief that, although prevention and education of youngsters is the heart and

soul of this strategy, at the same time we owe the American people

the most effective defense possible to keep drugs out of the work

place, the school place, the home, and the community, and we have

not adequately done that in the past.

Now, having said that, it is unquestionable that—I mean, thank

God for U.S. law enforcement. If they give up on us, our prevention

and our treatment will fall apart. You cannot operate in a quasilegalized fashion and succeed.

I would also suggest to you that their effectiveness in going after

organized crime inside the country is extraordinary. We arrested

about a million-and-a-half people on a drug-related offense last

99

year. We have behind bars—these data are somewhat soft—about

two-thirds of the people in the Federal prison system, which is

where most traffickers will end up, serious ones, if you look at that

number it is almost 60,000, are drug-related offenses, two-thirds of

it. And, of that group, 86 percent are significant trafficking offenses.

Even when you go to simple possession, Federal prosecution

guidelines, we will not even prosecute if you do not have more than

100 pounds of marijuana on you, so you look at simple possession—

normally it is up in the ton or more if you are in the Federal prison

system.

Literally, we have locked up thousands of people, and it is hard

to find gringos who survive long in interstate criminal conspiracy

involving drugs or money laundering. Half those people we locked

up in the Federal system are Americans. The other half are foreigners, roughly.

And if you go to the State system, the number we use, there is

about 900,000 people behind bars at State level. Probably half of

them are compulsive alcohol or drug users, or more, and 22 percent

of that 900,000 people are drug-related crimes. It is trafficking. It

is that kind of activity. And so State-level authorities have been extremely aggressive in going after it.

The shortcoming probably is—and, although we are doing better

on it, it is things like money laundering. If we believe our own

data, if we are really spending $57 billion a year on illegal drugs,

where is the money going? And so we have done some—I would

hope you would have a chance to visit the Financial Enforcement

Center right outside of Washington. The Secretary of the Treasury

runs it. It is an attempt to use a $200 million bank of computers

up in Detroit, the Bank Secrecy Act, suspicious transaction reporting, and commercial data bases to go after money laundering. And

it is really beginning to pay off.

The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury run a

joint operation which is sensitive in New York and L.A. and in

other places, targeting—one of them was in the press, Project El

Dorado up in New York City—targeting money laundering.

A lot of very clever things have been done. They use what is

called ‘‘GTOs,’’ which restrict the use of set amounts of currency,

and it is starting to pay off.

I think what is happening now is these criminal organizations

are trying to use other than the U.S. banking system. I mean, you

can hide $1 million. You cannot hide multiple billion dollars. You

have got to get it into something where there is a paper record.

And they are going into other ways, trying to stay away from U.S.

law enforcement.

I think U.S. capabilities in the DEA, FBI, and Customs supporting local law enforcement have been extremely aggressive confronting urban and rural drug-related criminal organizations.

Mrs. MINK. Our budget figures how much the Federal Government is spending in the national Federal level in terms of law enforcement. Can you give us a best estimate or guess in terms of

what is being spent in the local and State areas for drug law enforcement efforts?

100

General MCCAFFREY. If I may, let me provide it to you on the

record. Two years ago the number I was using—and it is important

that I get the question written down so that the answer matches

the question—but the Federal effort, which was about $17 billion

at the time, the national effort I was listing at more than $32 billion. So most of the law enforcement capability in this country

against drug-related crime, the overwhelming majority of it is municipal police and sheriff departments. That is where our citizens

are protected from this criminal activity. It is not Federal.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the ranking member.

I am pleased to yield now to our vice chairman, Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One thing that Mayor Guiliani and those of us on the subcommittee discussed yesterday was relating not directly to his work

in the city of New York as its chief executive officer and the tremendous gains that New York has witnessed through primarily his

leadership in violent crime, crime, generally, and certainly drug

usage, but he also touched a little bit, based on his extensive

knowledge on fighting the war against drugs on all fronts, he also

touched yesterday on some of the foreign policy aspects of drug control policy.

And Major Guiliani, who I have great respect for, as I know you

do, General, said that, in his view, at the very top, not just as a

priority, but at the very top of the list of the questions that our

President and our foreign policy officials ought to ask of foreign

leaders in any discussions or negotiations with foreign leaders,

those that are involved in the drug control business, is: where are

you on helping us fight the war against drugs? And before we move

on to question No. 2 or No. 3 or No. 4 or No. 8 or assistance or

what not, that question ought to be answered satisfactorily; otherwise, we do not reach the other questions.

I think the mayor is right on target. I think that the history of

our Government’s—not just this administration, but our Government’s efforts in dealing with these matters, antidrug matters with

foreign nations, does not follow the mayor’s advice. I hope that one

day it does.

I think that we are witnessing very serious problems in Mexico,

partly as a result of this administration’s policy decision not to

place that question at the top of the list, and anything that you can

do to move them in that direction would certainly be appreciated.

I would like to specifically, General, address an issue that we

have had a number of discussions on in the past, and that is legalization efforts.

The language in your report with regard to marijuana is very

similar to the language in last year’s report. I am somewhat intrigued by this year’s report having a separate section for countering attempts to legalize drugs and countering attempts to legalize marijuana. I am wondering what sort of message that sends to

people that legalizing marijuana, even though it remains a Schedule One controlled substance and is a mind-altering drug, why that

is somewhat different, why there is not just a very short statement

that the administration will continue to resist all efforts to legalize

mind-altering drugs. I do not know why the administration has a

101

hard time just making that statement and separating out marijuana legalization.

To treat it differently I think sends a very contradictory message

that is not lost on young people. They look at this report, and it

will be cited by all sorts of legalization folks out there, and our delightful friends, George Sorros and so forth, who are in the forefront of the legalization movement, and I think it will undermine

your efforts, the way you all have dealt with this.

Why cannot the administration just come out and boldly say,

‘‘We are against mind-altering drug legalization. We are not interested in participating in studies to see if marijuana can be legalized’’? Why not have the entire burden and have it a very high burden on those that seek legalization? Why should we, our Government, which is against mind-altering drug usage, why should we

spend any taxpayer dollars? Why should we even care about efforts

to legalize marijuana?

If somebody wants to come forward and say, with a scientific certainty, that marijuana does, indeed, have legitimate medical uses

and ought to be removed from Schedule One, why not put the burden entirely 100 percent on the legalization proponents, have them

propose legislation to move it off of Schedule One? Why are we involved in any way, shape, or form with these what I consider very

almost contradictory statements on legalization of marijuana?

For example, if, in fact, somebody comes forward or one of these

studies shows that, well, maybe there is some medical benefit for

the use of marijuana, which I disagree with, does that mean that

the administration would seek to move it off of Schedule One, even

though there are other drugs on the market and more coming on

the market, as I understand the research, that can more than adequately handle the purported beneficial uses of marijuana?

General MCCAFFREY. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Let me join you in saying that Mayor Guiliani has been, of

course, an extremely effective mayor, and there is a lot to be

learned. I go up there all the time to look at what Howard Safer

and the NYPD do in community policing, and there are some very

effective linkages of drug treatment.

New York City, of course, has a gigantic addicted population,

and, whether it is from Phoenix House, Dr. Mitch Rosenthan, or

from Dr. James Curtis in Harlem with his method on maintenance

programs, there is just a lot of good thinking up there and I have

great admiration for them.

I would also agree that drug policy should be a preeminent concern of the United States dealing with our international partners.

One of the challenges is that the biggest drug problems that we

face—Afghanistan, Laos, Burma, eastern Colombia, some of the

mountainous regions of Mexico, southeastern Turkey, the Bekaa

Valley in Lebanon—it is places where organized governments have

little or no control over their own territory, and where the criminal

elements in the area—the FARC in Colombia is such a lethal

threat to democracy that their battalions have more automatic

weapons and better pay than the Colombian army. That is one of

the challenges.

102

So when you deal with the President of Colombia, you have to

take into account the degree to which he can do something about

it.

But your point is well taken, and I could not agree more.

Let me, if I can, talk about the legalization issue. I had not heard

the comment about separating them and the way that one could interpret that, and I thank you for that comment.

Now, let me tell you what our own intent was.

We, the administration, are unalterably opposed to the legalization of marijuana, directly or indirectly, and it is clear, from listening to our repeated public statements by Attorney General Reno,

Secretary Shalala, and I, in particular, but also Mr. Constantine

and others, that we are adamantly opposed to the legalization of

marijuana, and it is not open to debate.

Now, I think what has happened is the legalization people are

about as cunning a group as I have ever seen. I do not think there

are many people involved in it. As far as I can tell, there are about

five of them that pay for most of it, and about 300 of them on the

Internet that help organize it. They have done extremely well with

limited money—$15 million or whatever to intervene in California.

I think it was under $8 million in the State of Washington. So now

we have ended up with eight States and possibly the District of Columbia that have passed some form of medical marijuana act. In

Arizona it was most sweeping. Five of them are literally the same

act. It is the same TV ads that turned the States around.

Added to that is the kind of clever dealings with industrial hemp,

which is the other piece of this, and which, as I am fond of saying,

noted agronifs like Woody Harrelson are speaking out to have industrial hemp save America’s forests.

So we have focused on that issue and pulled it out so that we

can directly confront the notion that medical pot is off limits to this

discussion.

Now, why do we investigate medical marijuana’s claims? I think,

just as a matter of principle, starting in the 1980’s, any drug that

alleges it has benefit, if it can demonstrate to the NIH and the

Food and Drug Administration under clinical trials that it is safe

and effective for the purpose prescribed, then the door is wide open,

and under that logic methamphetamines are available to physicians, cocaine products are used for eye surgery, and, indeed, in the

mid-1980’s, marijuana was pulled apart, 435-some-odd compounds.

THC, 1 of the 30-some-odd active cannaboids in marijuana, was

isolated as having potential medical benefit, and it was produced

commercially as synthetic THC marinol, which is available with a

doctor’s prescription in a pharmacy today, and it is available for

use, to include control of nausea from chemotherapy.

It is not used much because it is not effective compared to other

drugs, but it is there. And we have said, ‘‘Well, we are perfectly

willing to have these bright people in NIH fund controlled studies

where other components of smoked marijuana could be looked at

as potentially beneficial, and, indeed, if smoked marijuana can

demonstrate that it is useful, then it would presumably be made

available to America’s medical community under controlled conditions.

103

I do not personally believe that is going to happen. I do not believe somebody is going to have a joint stuck in their face in an

ICU. My daughter works in ICUs in Seattle, and I do not believe

that is going to be the pain management agent for prostate cancer

10 years from now. I think it is nonsense. But it is potentially possible that there are other compounds in marijuana that might have

some payoff, and if there are, fine, provide them to American medicine.

I think we have to confront this issue directly. I share your anxiety. I think your concern is valid.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, General.

Mr. MICA. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Indiana,

Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks. I have a series of things here, some of

which can be followed up later if you want to get into more detail.

Our office will be in touch with your office.

I have one thing directly that came up right in my District in the

Drug-Free Communities Act and leads me into some policy questions, and I am going to go through and name a couple of these different categories, even though some of them are different from each

other.

In the drug-free communities program, I worked aggressively

with all these different groups in our District. A number of them

got their proposals in. One of them was from a smaller-sized county, where the biggest city in that county is roughly 12,000 people,

and they had been very active in community things and got a

grant. They informed me that they have been told that their grant

is going to be reduced 25 percent next fiscal year and 50 percent

the following 3 years because of a policy change because we did

not, in the past Congress or in your budget that is in front of us,

fund it at the level that we authorized the program.

Combined with that, to try to reach more different programs,

now the programs that already have been told this is how much

money—in the case of this one in Noble County, already hired the

personnel, started the program—are suddenly faced with having to

raise $25,000 to $50,000 a year additional. In this community, they

do not have it. Maybe in an urban area there are those kinds of

resources, but in the rural communities, if they got the grants, and

probably in some inner city communities, as well, there is not, particularly once you have started the program, the ability to suddenly

change that.

I have some concerns about what, in effect, they are going to do,

most likely, around the country is weaken the programs.

And part of our problem in the drug-free schools, which I want

to touch on next, is that sometimes we seem to give these schools

just enough to run an ineffective program but not enough to run

an effective program.

It is a dilemma that we have of how to spread the reach without

compromising the integrity of it. But what is particularly upsetting

in this case is the program started out assuming they had that and

may not have the resources to go ahead.

We can followup with that with your office, but I would like to

at least get a preliminary on the record as to why we changed this

104

after we started, or should we make that a priority in our funding

that this program needs additional dollars.

On the Drug-Free Schools Act, I am on the Education Committee

and I am going to be working with this directly and have battled

the last 2 years because this program has had a very tenuous existence in our appropriations process, partly because, while you cited

in your research a few studies that have suggested there has been

some success, the truth is, the studies with this are very mixed.

What we know is they are not doing any harm; it is just not clear

how to make these programs more effective.

I carefully went through your national strategy, and, while you

give some things in it that you did last year, there is not a whole

lot of suggestions for us to grab hold of as we retool this program,

and I would appreciate working with your office as we look at this,

as we go through our hearings, and try to target this program, in

particular.

So that is open ended. We need to work together because this is

a—we are all saying we need to do demand reduction in education

efforts, yet the facts are the studies are very mixed. A lot depends,

even in the DARE program, which I, when I worked for Senator

Coates, helped with Senator Wilson at that time do the first funding bills. It really depends a lot on the commitment of the particular officer. It is so erratic.

And then we have tracked in every school in our District to see

how they are using these moneys, and some of them are having

health clinics and some of them are doing self-esteem courses, and

some of them need to get hold of, if we are really going to turn,

rather than slightly turn, and particularly in the youth, we have

to have a more-aggressive strategy directly in the schools with the

youth.

Which then leads me, I completely agree with Congressman

Barr. Unless we can get a hold of this medicinal use of marijuana,

when I go into schools and talk about this you get, ‘‘Well, it is medicine’’ back in your face. And the more particular referendums we

are losing, it is like, no matter what else we do, we are going to

be overwhelmed with that.

I have a couple of things I just want to throw out. One is that

in your documents that you produced, one of my questions is you

have a, ‘‘Marijuana Facts for Teens,’’ a ‘‘Marijuana Facts for Parents,’’ and I am wondering whether the question of medicinal use

of marijuana is integrated in these documents in an informational

way.

Two, there is no doubt that the partnership ads are the most effective thing we have on the market. Has the PDFA or a combination of similar advertising experts been asked to look at printed

materials that are going into the hands of kids in school, or is that

something we should look at in the Drug-Free Community Schools

Act and something we should be aggressive at? And how can we

do creative things or integrating some of the people we see in these

TV ads into a print format, rather than just have dry fact booklets

or scare type booklets? Some sort of way in the schools to reach

these kids, particularly—I saw we had at least one Hispanic ad

there—one of our weaknesses has been how to reach the populations that are highest risk. Everybody is at risk in drugs. I unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:37 Mar 22, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62537 pfrm01 PsN: 62537
105

derstand that basic principle. But some, quite frankly, are higher

risk than others. Are our programs aimed at trying to do that type

of thing?

I am also looking for creative ways, both in medicinal use of

marijuana and in the Drug-Free Schools Act, to say, ‘‘What about

tying in not only the commercial television, but how can we use the

video systems in the schools to get this information out on the partnership ads and other things inside the schools?’’ Are there creative

things we can do with the Drug-Free Schools Act? Also, should we

have medicinal marijuana information and education parts as a

mandatory component of any school that wants drug-free schools

money, they have to have something? And then do we have materials to give them?

I threw far more than you can probably handle here, but I threw

that more out as a stimulus, and I do have a particular concern

with the Communities Act that I worked with Congressman

Portman to do.

One other thing. I want to commend you for this drug treatment

conference and prevention that you are going to work with Mexico.

I think one of the ways we can—while we are not likely, in the

short term, to drop certification, reaching out to these countries

now that have their own treatment problems and working together

in treatment and prevention is an important step, and I wanted to

commend you for that.

General MCCAFFREY. Thank you for those comments. I will try

and ensure that our staff responds to each one of these concerns

in turn, the four of them you have expressed.

The Drug-Free Community Act, it is interesting to me to watch

the reaction of that. That was a tiny program, thank God for Rob

Portman and Sandy Levin and Senators Biden and Hatch and others that gave us that money. It is not much money. It is about $180

million over 5 years, and it was going to ramp up 10 million, 20

million, et cetera.

It was seed money. It actually, if you look at the algorithm, it

was 435 Districts times 100,000. That is sort of where we started

in on it. But there was no intention to do a large program. It was

an HHS block grant, one time, fund these guys, allow them to hire

people, rent buildings. That was seed money to initiate a new coalition.

They are fighting over it now. There was no guarantee that if

you got a grant approved year one you would get it for 5 years. It

was never the intention, never mind that it would remain at standard funding level.

And in every case Congress wisely required matching funds, unlike most HHS programs. So we said, ‘‘If you want to come in and

get some of this startup money, you have to be—’’ there were several criteria listed. You have to be in existence 6 months, you have

to have matching funds, et cetera.

We will sort it out, and I will certainly listen to the intent of

Congress. If there is a lot more money there, we could do it a different way. But our intention was, 5 years from now, instead of

4,000 community coalitions, there would be more than 15,000, to

try to incentivize getting new coalitions to stand up and not pay

for manpower.

106

I would also tell you that the drug-free schools program—Secretary Riley and I have been working on it. We agree people are

too all over the map. The law has no controls on it. There is no

requirement to report what you spent the money on, there are no

constraints on what you can spend the money on.

Some of these programs are mismanaged. The GAO found out

about that, the ‘‘Los Angeles Times’’ did, and my own view of it is

that we are paying for some programs that do not work.

Two years ago, Secretaries Riley and Shalala and I called in the

educators of America, and we again gave them a tutorial that

NIDA—National Institute of Drug Abuse—spent a half billion last

year on research. We do have studies that talk about prevention

guidelines. There are ways to go about this that do work.

I might add, the DARE program, which I am an absolute supporter of, has revalidated their curriculum and is asking the officers to go through training and follow the curriculum, and if they

do it will help.

So we have got to get U.S. educators to understand and use prevention guidelines.

I would also tell you I do not think we are going to solve this

until the Governors get involved. We have got to have Governors

figure out where this money is going and internally ensure that it

is well spent, and right now Secretary Riley has tried to get, as I

remember, a 20 percent set-aside to begin that process, and some

States are really jumping into it, and I applaud their leadership.

Pot use in schools—are we talking to kids in the classroom? Mr.

Congressman, we are doing that in a big way. This is an integrated

campaign. We have got Ogilve Mather doing the advertising, a firm

called Fleishman-Hillard trying to integrate the thing and make

sure that it is not only inside the Entertainment Industry Council,

but it is inside the school, it is inside the Internet. I have Porta

Novelli, which has a tremendous amount of experience in healthrelated campaigns, advising me personally.

We have talked to the producers, the writers of the major TV

networks of America. We are on Fox Family TV. We are on the

Learning Channel. Secretary Riley has got an enormous amount of

information going in written form, and we are supporting other institutions that are influencing that educational process.

So I could not agree with you more. When they are in school,

they should be subjected to a scientifically correct message about

drug abuse, and it should not come from some outsider. It ought

to be their own health teacher, the coach, the social studies teacher. That has to be who communicates to young people.

There is an enormous amount of printed material going out, and

some of it is first-rate.

I, by the way, just approved the second generation and have seen

the beginnings of the third generation ads, so we are going to start

developing materials that are extremely effective.

And I thank you for your comments on conferences with Mexico

on demand reduction. We have made the argument that Mexico’s

drug abuse problem is a fraction of ours, but theirs is going up and

ours is going down. No society is immune from drug abuse. The

drug abuse problem in Caracas is abysmal, and Rio de Janeiro is

disastrous, in Bogota, in Lima. The Bolivian authorities who were

107

here have learned that the drug abuse problem down in Shapari

Valley region among their own kids is skyrocketing.

I think it is healthy for us to all understand that this is the important dimension to the drug program, and no one who handles

this stuff gets away free.

Thanks for those comments. I will try to respond practically to

your concerns about the Drug-Free Community Act, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman, and I would like to recognize

now the gentleman from California, Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Briefly, I would like to request that the record be left open so I

can submit questions for the General to respond to. I do not have

time to do this verbally. I am going to have to submit questions.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, we will make your questions part

of the record, and also submit them to the General, and the responses will be part of the record.

Mr. OSE. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Maryland, my former ranking member who I miss tremendously on the

Civil Service Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I was just floored by your statement, Mr. Chairman. I miss you, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I first of all want to thank you for all you are doing to

address this problem—and it is a major problem. And I just have

a few questions.

Yesterday, Mayor Guiliani came before the subcommittee and

criticized the use of methadone as a long-term solution to heroin

addiction. I just want to know what your view is on that and what

you think of methadone maintenance therapy.

And I want to—I mean, in my discussions with addicts that have

recovered, I must tell you that most of them have a problem with

methadone. They pretty much agree with the mayor. They feel as

if it is just transferring to another drug.

I was just wondering what your feelings are on that, and whether or not there are any other drugs on the horizon that might be

able to address the problem. I just want to know where you stand

on that right now.

General MCCAFFREY. Mr. Congressman, the problem of heroin

addiction is a pretty tough one. The number we now believe is accurate—there are probably 810,000 of us addicted to heroin, and

they, indeed, cause more damage to American society, arguably,

than any other group. They do not flame out and die younger, as

violently as the crack cocaine or methamphetamine compulsive

users, but it is just a disease. They live on until their 50’s, and they

steal $60,000 a year and commit literally hundreds of felonies, and

they cannot help themselves, and they are in misery. They get

HIV. They cost us a quarter of a million dollars a head when they

go HIV positive. They are a disaster.

A lot of them are not in treatment. The capacity to deal with

them has been limited. It is clearly the viewpoint of the Attorney

General, Secretary Shalala, and I that you have got to—and they

flow through the criminal justice system. They end up clearly beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:37 Mar 22, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62537 pfrm01 PsN: 62537
108

hind bars. And at that point we have got to get them, if we have

not got them early, and get them into treatment, stabilize them.

One important tool available to treatment is methadone and

LAM, LAM just being a longer-acting variant of methadone. There

are about 175,000 heroin addicts that are involved in about 900 nationwide clinics.

Some States have no methadone maintenance at all. Other

States prescribe dosage rates by law. Other States do not supervise

it very well. And so you end up with just methadone. There is no

assessment. I am a 16-year-old, I am a 30-year-old, I have reported

into the clinic as a heroin addict, I am now under methadone maintenance, when, in fact, perhaps I should not be. Perhaps I should

have gone to therapeutic communities and an abstinence-based

treatment modality.

So we have got to, it seems to me, have a broad-gauged approach. We do have to make methadone available, though, to that

community. When people are on methadone, they use less drugs,

commit less crimes, and work more, and in some cases it is dramatic ability to sustain this behavior for a good period of time.

I also am very uncomfortable when I hear people talk about substituting one addiction for another. I think, both clinically and

practically, that does not help. Clinically, it is incorrect. You do not

substitute a heroin addiction. You are using a compound that, although it is addictive, allows you to function not in euphoric state,

not stoned, dazed, incapable of relating to people you love or the

work force. It is quite a different product.

Now, I would also argue, you know—and I personalize it. I have

a dear friend who is a very impressive artist. He is a sculptor, a

painter. He is in recovery from severe alcoholism. He is clinically

depressed. He is using Prozac. And those of us who admire his

work and appreciate him as a friend are grateful that Prozac exists

and that he is able to use it and function.

And so if you ask me do I hope he gets off Prozac, I am not sure

I would see that as the right question to ask me. I think in a theoretical sense I would say, yes, probably. But I am more grateful

that each week he goes to work and he is living at home.

And I feel the same way about methadone and LAM. It is a tool

that physicians should use where appropriate, as part of a total

package of therapeutic care, of social services, and of linkages to

the criminal justice system.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I could go on with that, but I hear you, but we

will talk about that some other time.

You probably talked about this, but what are we doing with regard to treatment beyond methadone? What are we doing?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, NIDA and SAMHSA have put out

some pretty decent products. There now is scientific basis to understanding various treatment protocols. It is in writing. If you are the

administrator of a plan and you look at the scientific studies that

are done, you should be able to replicate, if you follow those guidelines, treatment methodologies that do work.

That was a study I put up. These are thousands of people. In my

view, it is inarguable, from a policy perspective, that treatment will

pay off. We do not have enough of it. Though I have carefully not

used the word ‘‘treatment on demand,’’ it is clear, if you are a herVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:37 Mar 22, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62537 pfrm01 PsN: 62537
109

oin addict in Baltimore and you are waiting for a slot in treatment,

you hit bottom, you are under arrest, and if you do not put me in

treatment during that timeframe and tell me to come back in 90

days you do not understand the nature of addiction.

So we do need to get our capacity where it can deliver services

for mayors and county executives and hospitals and drug treatment

providers. We have done better. We have got more funding going

into it. The number is so soft I almost hesitate to use it. I say we

have eliminated a 300,000 addict piece of the gap, but we essentially have still got half the people who are compulsively addicted

cannot get access to treatment.

If you are a doctor and you go to the Talbot Marsh Clinic, a year

after treatment there is a 93 percent chance you will not be using

drugs. If you are an adolescent and you can afford $14,000 for 28

days in the Hazelton Institute, where I would send my kid if they

were compulsive drug users, the chances are excellent, if you go

from that 28-day program to NA, AA attendance and follow-on

community care, you will be drug free. That is what we need to

provide.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Before my time runs out, the reports that you

just mentioned—you know, in Maryland one of the things that we

have been looking at is trying to figure out what is effective treatment. There is a difference. I think we have got some folks who are

not being effective. I think they know they are not being effective.

And I think the addict comes out worse off.

And so I think what we are trying to do—as a matter of fact, the

Lieutenant Governor and yours truly are going to be holding some

hearings with former addicts, 10 years clean, to talk about what

works and what does not work, because a lot of the former addicts

are very concerned about whether money is being wasted in certain

types of treatment.

So I assume the reports that you just referred to analyze treatment, various types of treatment, and what is effective and what

is not; is that right?

General MCCAFFREY. Although, again, there are gaps in it—we

are doing a lot of research right now on methamphetamine addiction—there is really nothing published, per se, right now. They are

using the same treatment protocol that they do for cocaine addiction. And I am not sure that we are going to get there until we

have some therapeutic tools, medical tools to use on cocaine products, for example. So there is a lot of research where I hope 5 years

from now we can give doctors a way to stabilize those addicted to

cocaine.

Catalytic enzyme blockers out of Columbia University, Johns

Hopkins has some research going on—we lack some tools for the

treatment community.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.

Hutchinson.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I know you are growing weary, so I will try to be brief,

but I did want to followup on some questions.

110

I was reading your testimony, and there were some statements

on page 3 about drug availability. You do not need to turn there,

but your testimony indicates that in 1992 the drug availability of

cocaine was 529 metric tons. In 1997, this has been reduced to 289

metric tons but you make the statement—and that is almost a onehalf decrease in the availability of cocaine since 1992—that in the

1980’s it was even lower. And you go ahead and talk about the

prices that are significantly lower now than in 1981. We had, I assume, interdicted, or we had done something right that would raise

the price on the streets.

My question to you is: that appears to me to be a drastic difference in cocaine from the present back to the 1980’s. Was there

something that we were doing right then that we are not doing

now? How do you explain the difference in regard to that and what

appears to me some statistical indications of growing success in the

1980’s that suffered a lapse in the 1990’s and we are trying to regain territory, but what is your analysis of that?

General MCCAFFREY. I have some wonderful support out of the

Defense Intelligence Agency over cocaine trafficking flows, and the

CIA has a wonderful officer over there with a substantial amount

of manpower.

We spent the last 3 years where now maybe our reporting is consistent and they match up in that the drug production of cocaine

matches what we claim is moving, and then matches what the

DEA and others report is arriving. I am still enormously suspect

of my own data.

The only thing I am sure of is we have got a very good handle

on coca production hectarage, and then we go in and do crop samples, and we know the alkaloid content. So we have got a good idea

on what is being made, and we follow the rest of it pretty closely.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. My question, though, is the contrast between

the 1990’s and the 1980’s. Now, if I am understanding you right,

there is a statistical variation and there is not any difference in the

level of success, but I think that is contrary to the overall statistics,

particularly the poll numbers on the use and experimentation of

drugs by minors.

So are you saying there is not any difference? That we did not

slide from the 1980’s?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, let me tell you, for 8 years cocaine

production went up, went down, did not vary by much. It was between 700 and 800 metric tons a year for 7 or 8 years. It did not

change any. And the amount of drugs coming to the United States

grossly exceeded the demand.

In the last 10 years, that demand, in terms of the number of us

who casually use cocaine, has gone down enormously. The number

we use is 6 million down to 1.3 million, the numbers who casually

use cocaine. There is another 6.3 million of us who are compulsive

cocaine users, and we consume most of the cocaine in America.

Supply still grossly exceeds demand. Demand is going down. The

drugs are, therefore, by simple economic law, you would expect purity is up, cost is down. There is no shortage of cocaine products

anywhere in America, even though the supply now is also going

down.

111

We actually, for the first time in modern history, have a dramatic reduction in tons of cocaine produced in the Andean Ridge.

But if you are a police officer or a hospital emergency room physician, it is hard for you to believe that because the population that

is addicted is older and sicker and as dangerous as ever.

Simply put, supply grossly exceeds demand. It did in 1982, it

does today, and there are less of us fooling around with cocaine

today than there were 10 years ago.

Now, I would bet when we come back here in 5 years, you are

going to find cocaine use has continued to go down and compulsive

drug users will go into treatment——

Mr. HUTCHINSON. One of the objects is to make the price higher

so that it is less available to teenagers.

General MCCAFFREY. In my view, not doable. What is doable is

to make it less available. The casual cocaine user will respond to

availability. I agree. The chronic addict will not.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me just ask a couple questions before my

time runs out. I thank you for your comments. And these are sort

of unrelated questions.

In reference to mandatory minimum sentences, in your opinion,

has the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences been helpful

to our country in making strides in the war against drugs?

General MCCAFFREY. I am basically an engineer and a systems

analyst, and, from a systems perspective, in general, it has not

been helpful, because we are spending more money locking people

up who have compulsive drug using problems, $36 billion, than the

payoff we would get from investing some money in prison-based

drug treatment and had sentences where I go behind bars for a

year, I am in treatment, I am out with a suspended sentence hanging over my head.

And so I would argue the drug court system on the front end of

it and the break-the-cycle program, which is in this 2000 budget,

again, on the prison piece of it, is the way to go about dealing with

compulsive drug users.

At one extreme, you would have the kind of notion, the Rockefeller laws, that, as I look at them, they also—they are not dealing

with compulsive drug users, by and large. They are trying to deter

young men from selling drugs for enormous profits through exaggerated sentences. So I do not think they work.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you.

Do you believe that the drug war is winnable?

General MCCAFFREY. I do not like to call it a war. I call it a cancer. I think we can reduce the rates of drug abuse in America dramatically in the coming years. Yes, I do.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That really sounds like a defeatist’s attitude.

That distresses me. I know that terminology was used before, but

I was just with some gentlemen in the anteroom and they referred

to a quote that was attributed to you that you did not believe the

drug war was winnable. That just seems to me really the wrong

message. So I would urge your office—I mean, you have got to be

the cheerleader, you have got to be optimistic. We have to have

hope in America. That just really is troublesome to me to term it

as a cancer. I believe that we can win this. I believe that law enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:37 Mar 22, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62537 pfrm01 PsN: 62537
112

forcement has that commitment, and we are undercutting them

when we do not have that message.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General MCCAFFREY. Well, let me, if I can, say I have great respect for your opinion on this. I am not a cheerleader. I never have

been. I am trying to produce results. And I do believe—again, let

me underscore a very optimistic message. The message is, in 15

years we have brought drug abuse in America down by 50 percent,

cocaine use by 70 percent. We have got a big problem out there in

our children. They are using drugs again. We never adequately got

the addict population under control, which means treatment and

coercive pressure.

If we do those things, in 5 or 10 years when we are talking about

this issue, drug use will go from 6 percent of our population to well

below 3 percent. America will be happier, safer, and have less

crime on the streets.

Now, if you ask me the question: will there be a total victory

akin to the Gulf war attack, the answer is no. But you should not

be discouraged about that. I think we need to understand the nature of the dilemma we face and stay at it.

I am all for vigorous law enforcement, and I am also an optimist.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I would like to yield for a couple of final

questions to Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, one of the many problems that is brought to my attention back in the District, in talking with some of our local government officials, as well as our Federal and State and local law enforcement officials, is illegal aliens. I know the problem is not

unique to the 7th District of Georgia, but it is a serious one in our

District.

Recently, we have heard and I have heard also from INS personnel that out in the field, down in Atlanta and other parts

around the country, the enforcement effort is not only not being increased, which it ought to be, pursuant to congressional mandate—

we have vastly expanded the number of dollars authorized and appropriated to INS for enforcement in our communities, in our regions, in our Districts, yet, not only apparently—and I have seen

the figures on this to substantiate it and the memos on it that reflect it—are some of those Districts not seeing any increases, the

money is not getting down there. They are being directed to cut

back their enforcement effort, and this is having a very profound

effect on local law enforcement, who have always looked to the assistance of INS to be able to keep and deport illegal aliens.

The particular problem right now is methamphetamines in the illegal Mexican communities in our area.

We also understand that the INS Director is indicating that INS

will start releasing aliens, including those who are charged with

drug offenses.

Do you see this problem? And is there any assistance you can be,

as the Director of ONDCP, in this regard?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I do not know the specifics, Mr. Congressman, of the decrease in budget you have commented on. I will

find out and respond to your question. Nor do I believe directly

that the illegal aliens, for example, crossing the southwest border

113

represent a significant component of drug smuggling. The drugs essentially come in in 18-wheeler trucks and fast boats out of Colombia and rail cars and welded in the compartments in vehicles, along

with every other way—backpacking across the border, mule trains,

the goofiest ways imaginable. But, by and large, it is not illegal migrants who carry drugs.

Having said that, they are a tremendous component of local

drug-related crime in some midwestern communities, and so they

are a problem—and we have substantially increased funding for

law enforcement. There is clearly more money in there, perhaps inadequate. We need to listen very carefully to your own ideas on it.

I will make sure I will go look at the deportation statistics on

drug-related crime. I hope we never release anybody drug related.

Mr. BARR. But we know that Doris Meissner is proposing that.

Does it make any sense, from a policy standpoint—and that is really your role as, essentially, the implementer of national drug control policy and the coordinator thereof, and INS is a part of that.

Does it make any sense to you to say, ‘‘OK, Congress, reflecting the

will of the people of this country to crack down on illegal drug

usage, including by illegal aliens—’’ I am not talking primarily border interdiction. That effort is moving forward and is paying some

results, some positive results. But in the interior of the country,

Congress has appropriated substantial increases in moneys over

the last few years for the interior enforcement effort by INS, and

one of the components of that is for INS to assist other Federal

agencies and local agencies in getting illegal aliens who are using

the drugs and engaging in methamphetamine traffic, or whatever,

off the streets, not in putting them back on the streets.

Does it make sense, given the fact that our Government, through

Congress, and laws and appropriations bills signed by the President, has directed that more money go to that effort, to see memos

to INS regional and district directors telling them, ‘‘Not only are

you not getting any more money; you are to cut back overtime, you

are to cut back travel, you are to cut back positions, you are to cut

back cell phone usage.’’ Does that make any sense? Does that seem

consistent with our drug control policy and with congressional

mandate?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I will take your words and go find out

what the situation is and do something about it.

Mr. BARR. Let us say hypothetically that I am correct.

General MCCAFFREY. I do not want to answer a hypothetical

question. Let us go find out what the situation is.

Mr. BARR. General, it is not a hypothetical.

General MCCAFFREY. Mr. Congressman, I have got your point. I

will look into it and give you an answer.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, because it is apparently a fairly serious

problem.

Just a couple of other quick points.

With regard to tobacco, I agree it is bad for kids to smoke tobacco. I am somewhat intrigued by the section on the youth tobacco

initiative. Apparently, the CDC is distinguishing itself in assisting

in the tobacco initiative.

I would be interested if you could get me the figures on what the

CDC is doing with regard to the terrors of tobacco versus the CDC

114

involvement in and resources directed to illicit drugs. I would really be interested to see those areas in which it is active in the tobacco initiative, because apparently they are very active in that,

contrasted with their involvement in what I think probably all of

us here agree is the more serious problem of illicit drug usage.

General MCCAFFREY. I think almost all of our Nation’s funding

on any illegal drug program is in NIDA, and NIDA’s budget has

increased substantially in the last 3 years, so I think that will be

the answer, Mr. Barr, that CDC does a lot of things—youth violence, youth tobacco, that kind of thing.

Mr. BARR. Right.

General MCCAFFREY. But when it comes to drug-related abuse

problems, it is NIDA funding. And Dr. Leshner has tremendous

support out of Congress.

Mr. BARR. OK. Finally—and I think this is something that the

chairman is interested in, also, in terms of the targets, the hard

targets in last year’s ONDCP drug reauthorization bill, could you

just briefly describe how you are going to meet the current and

former Speakers—Speakers Gingrich and Hastert now are very,

very concerned and, as you know, very active in setting targets

that can be met and that will be met, hopefully, with regard to the

drug war.

How are you going to meet those targets, the hard targets set by

both former Speaker Gingrich as well as Speaker Hastert over the

next 5 years?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, this is one of the areas where arguably we have made the most progress. We do have some extremely

well-researched and, we believe, achievable goals set out in the

PMEs. There are numbers there, IOU annual targets, and I have

required the administration’s 50-some-odd agencies to tie their

budget to those targets.

Now, in addition, the Speaker and others have added congressionally mandated viewpoints, which we have cranked into the

drug strategy. It is there. It is a target. Those targets Congress will

use as a measurement against the funding that we request, and

that it is your viewpoint that the funding is inadequate to achieve

the congressionally mandated targets, then presumably you are

going to change our budgets.

So I think we look forward to working in cooperation with Congress and seeing what your own ideas are. If there are substantial

increased resources required to hit those congressional targets,

then I welcome your own involvement and advice.

Mr. BARR. Would you submit to us a plan to meet those targets

and that plan representing a 5-year? What would you need to meet

those targets within 5 years? That seems to me the starting point

for us to make a determination what resources to provide you

should be, 5-year targets.

Now, you have made current projections, and the targets you all

are using may be 10-year, but would you provide us what resources

you need, along with a plan, to meet targets by 5 years?

If you can—I cannot speak, obviously, for all Members of Congress, but I think you would find considerable support in the Congress for meeting your needs if you can put together, obviously,

115

what would have to be a very vigorous, very proactive, very aggressive campaign to meet those targets within 5 years.

Will you do that for us?

General MCCAFFREY. Let me say——

Mr. BARR. And we will take that to the Speaker and work that

as a top-priority issue this year.

General MCCAFFREY. Mr. Barr, let me invite a continuing frank

dialog on this.

We have got a 5-year budget on the table. That will be the administration position. And I would add that it can benefit from congressional debate.

Having said that, the budget has gone up 32 percent per year in

the 4 budget years I have been involved in this. There are enormous resources flowing into this across the board, and I plan on

continuing to be adamant with the administration to provide increased funding, which, fortunately, I got again in fiscal year 2000.

Now, I do not believe it is logical to conclude that there will be

a separate budget submitted for congressionally mandated guidelines. The budget on the table is the administration position.

Mr. BARR. OMB is not terribly supportive of it, I do not believe.

General MCCAFFREY. Well, now, again, I came out of there with

some substantial increase in funding over what I got last year from

them.

Mr. BARR. Right. But below what you requested.

General MCCAFFREY. It was 32 percent per year over 4 budget

years, so——

Mr. BARR. I understand, but——

General MCCAFFREY [continuing]. I am hard-pressed——

Mr. BARR [continuing]. But it was below what you requested?

General MCCAFFREY. Sure. I can give you those figures. Again,

because I certified the agency budgets, we certified——

Mr. BARR. I would appreciate it if you would send us those figures.

Again, the administration may have a particular policy and that

policy may be oriented toward a 10-year meeting of targets. What

we are asking for—and I cannot speak for the chairman. He can

speak for himself, and he may want to weigh in—is for you to furnish us—and this is not contradictory or antagonistic to any policy

of the administration—we would like to see what you believe would

be necessary to meet specific hard targets over a 5-year period as

opposed to a 10-year period.

General MCCAFFREY. That is on the table. We absolutely have

submitted—you have now available the budget and the numbers to

go with targets in 5 years. You got that in the PMAs.

Mr. BARR. The targets, for example, as set forth on page 44, that

is what I am talking about.

General MCCAFFREY. There are congressional targets that do not

match up with the PMA targets that are on the table. I have

developed——

Mr. BARR. We want to see them matched there. That is what we

would like to see. Will you send us your assessment of that? Will

you submit that to us?

116

General MCCAFFREY. Well, in terms of developing another 5-year

budget, no. You have on the table the OMB position over the coming 5 years to achieve those targets.

Mr. BARR. We are not terribly interested right now in OMB’s position. We are interested in the position of the Director of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy.

General MCCAFFREY. I understand, and what I——

Mr. BARR. Which I much prefer.

General MCCAFFREY. I am standing behind the OMB position.

Mr. BARR. You may do that, but would you be responsive to a

specific congressional request, regardless of what OMB may eventually do with it? They may say, ‘‘This is terrible.’’ That is fine.

That is OMB position. But we would like to have hard targets,

those reflected on page 44 of your report, matched up against a 5-

year calendar.

General MCCAFFREY. There is a 5-year calendar, again, hard targets.

Mr. BARR. And what you would need to meet those.

General MCCAFFREY. Again, Mr. Barr, I do not believe that it is

logical to assume that I am going to produce another different 5-

year budget to achieve a separate set of goals. The 5-year budget

on the table is actually our position.

Mr. BARR. And you can send that up to us and say you do not

like this, but we would like to see your best judgment on how to

meet these targets within 5 years.

General MCCAFFREY. Yes. Well, I hear your concern and I look

forward to learning from the staff or from the principals your own

viewpoints on whether you believe the budget that was submitted

adequately responds to your own concerns. I have great respect for

your opinion.

Mr. BARR. Are you saying that you will not submit——

General MCCAFFREY. Correct. There will not be——

Mr. BARR [continuing]. A response to the request we just made?

General MCCAFFREY [continuing]. A different 5-year budget than

the one that is on the table. That is it. I would be welcome to let

you see the evolution of our thinking internally in the government.

That is certainly legitimate.

But, again, I would be cautious about some notion of arbitrarily

being able to match resources with self-mandated targets. I am

very uncomfortable——

Mr. BARR. Any targets in a theoretical sense are going to be

somewhat arbitrary. We are projecting——

General MCCAFFREY. No. Ours are not arbitrary.

Mr. BARR. They may not happen.

General MCCAFFREY. Yes. The ones I have developed were a 2-

year process——

Mr. BARR. Every target is, to some extent, arbitrary except yours.

That is fine. All I am saying is: why would you not be able to be

responsive to a request which I am making and which the chairman may make to give us your best judgment of how to meet the

Speaker’s targets over 5 years and what would you need to meet

that?

General MCCAFFREY. Yes. Well, I think——

117

Mr. BARR. Let me just ask this question. If you had the opportunity and the resources to meet goals in 10 years as opposed to

5 years, why would you choose 10 years?

General MCCAFFREY. Of course we would not. But what we need

to do is——

Mr. BARR. Then why cannot you give us your best judgment in

writing as to how we could meet those in 5 years?

General MCCAFFREY. Well, Mr. Congressman——

Mr. BARR. And then we can take that and——

General MCCAFFREY. Let me give you an answer to the question.

The answer to the question is there are nine appropriations bills

dealing with 50-some odd agencies of Government. And when you

are talking about machinery, people, optempo, and dollars, and creating capacity in treatment and prevention programs involving 52

million kids, 900,000 cops, hundreds of thousands of people in the

Armed Forces, I am not going to make it up on the back-of-the-envelope analysis.

Mr. BARR. I do not want an——

General MCCAFFREY. Let me finish the response. You asked the

question. I will have to lead the governmental process to give you

prudent, well-thought-out solutions that I think are achievable, and

that is what you have got in front of you.

Mr. BARR. Do you think meeting these targets in 5 years is not

achievable?

General MCCAFFREY. The ones that Congress mandated, many of

them are not achievable.

Mr. BARR. In 5 years?

General MCCAFFREY. Right.

Mr. BARR. What we would like to do is help you make them

achievable. You have a Speaker, Denny Hastert, who is extremely

interested——

General MCCAFFREY. Sure.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. And believes that they are reachable, and

is willing, I believe, to work very closely with you and the administration in making them achievable.

General MCCAFFREY. Yes.

Mr. BARR. But if we go into this and you are saying they are not

achievable and we are not even interested in working with the

Congress to try to make them achievable, then maybe we have a

problem. I would hope we would not.

Mr. MICA. If I may, I am going to interrupt. I did promise the

General that we would get him out around 1. He has another obligation. And I do want to try to conclude the hearing.

First of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit to

the general questions from Mr. Blagojevich and also have your responses made part of the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

I have a statement for the record, which we will submit without

objection from Mr. Gilman, chairman of the International Relations

Committee.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman follows:]

118

119

120

Mr. MICA. We will also, without objection, leave the record open

from this hearing for a period of 2 weeks for additional comments.

General McCaffrey, we appreciate your coming with us today. As

we conclude, I have a couple of immediate concerns.

First of all, we know where the heroin is coming from. You

talked a lot about cocaine. It has really been supplanted with heroin and meth and designer drugs, and we know where this stuff

is all coming from.

We were in Colombia, and we found that some of the funds were

diverted because of their natural disaster. We might want to get

something in the supplemental, and we would like your assistance

in seeing that Colombia, which is the source of a lot of these hard

narcotics coming into the country and through Mexico, that we address that.

Also, the ranking member has asked that we have an additional

closed hearing or a closed briefing session, which I have agreed to.

We will try to do that in the next 2 weeks. I think next week we

are occupied. But, according to your schedule—and we will have

some of the other folks in—maybe we can discuss the issues that

Mr. Barr has raised about trying to speed up and adequately

fund—if it takes another supplemental, whatever it will take.

There are still some unanswered questions relating to the organization and disorganization on the southwest border, the Mexican

question, the question of Panama, and what we are doing as far as

relocating our forward reconnaissance efforts in the drug war, so

I think there are a whole bunch of areas that we need to work on,

plus the big problem of Mexico and its possible decertification or

how we get that situation under control.

So we will reconvene in a closed session at a date mutually acceptable in the next couple of weeks here to help resolve some of

these, and also develop, in a cooperative fashion, a strategy and a

finance plan to make these things happen on a sooner rather than

later basis, if that is acceptable.

General MCCAFFREY. I will look forward to that. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. There being no further business—Mr. Ose, you did not

have any comments—— Mr. OSE. No, Sir.

Mr. MICA. There being no further business to come before this

subcommittee, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128