U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–443 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–632

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION

OF JOHN P. WALTERS TO BE DIRECTOR

OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL

POLICY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 10, 2001

Serial No. J–107–42

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SHARON PROST, Minority Chief Counsel 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 1

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ..................... 85

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 3

Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ........ 85

PRESENTERS 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah presenting 

John P. Walters, Nominee to be Director of National Drug Control Policy .... 7

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona presenting John 

P. Walters, Nominee to be Director of National Drug Control Policy ............. 11

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE 

Walters, John P., Nominee to be Director of National Drug Control Policy ....... 13

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 19

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Biden ................. 86

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Bingaman ......... 100

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Cantwell ........... 100

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Durbin ............... 102

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ............ 106

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ............ 107

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy ............ 109

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ................ 114

Responses of the Nominee to questions submitted by Senator Wellstone .......... 122

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Betty Ford Center, John T. Schwarzlose, President and Chief Executive Officer, Rancho Mirage, California, letter ................................................................ 124

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Arthur T. Dean, Chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer, Alexandria, Virginia, letter ........................................ 124

Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., Calvina L. Fay, Executive Director, 

St. Petersburg, Florida, letter ............................................................................. 125

Drug-Free Kids: America’s Challenge, Joyce Nalepka, President, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 125

Drug-Free Schools Coalition, Inc., David G. Evans, Esq., Executive Director, 

Flemington, New Jersey, letter ........................................................................... 129

Drug Prevention Network of the Americas, Stephanie Haynes, Alpine, Texas, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 129

Drug Watch/MN, Jeanette McDougal, Co-Chair, St. Paul, Minnesota, letter .... 130

Fraternal Order of Police, Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President, Albuquerque, New Mexico, letter ............................................................................... 130

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

Illinois and Speaker of the House of Representatives, letter and attachment ...................................................................................................................... 131

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

July 26 (two), July 31, August 1, August 2, and August 3, 2001, ‘‘Dear 

Colleague’’ letters ................................................................................................. 133

Page

IV

National Families in Action, Sue Rusche, Co-founder and Executive Director, 

Atlanta, Georgia, letter ........................................................................................ 139

National Troopers Coalition, Johnny L. Hughes, Director, Government Relations, Albany, New York, letter .......................................................................... 140

Partnership for a Drug-Free America, James E. Burke, Chairman, New York, 

New York, letter ................................................................................................... 141

PRIDE Surveys, Thomas Gleaton, President, Bowling Green, Kentucky, letter .......................................................................................................................... 141

(1)

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN P. WALTERS TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG 

CONTROL POLICY 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2001

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:46 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Biden, Leahy, Kennedy, Kohl, Durbin, Hatch, 

Grassley, Kyl, DeWine, Sessions, and Brownback. 

Senator BIDEN. The committee will come to order. 

Let me begin in an inappropriate way by apologizing to our colleagues and to our nominee for being late. Senator Leahy and I had 

to attend a meeting relating to another matter and it went over 

just a little bit long, and I apologize to our friend from Utah. 

I have an opening statement, but I would be happy to yield to 

the chairman of the full committee. 

Chairman LEAHY. No. Go ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator BIDEN. Today, the Judiciary Committee considers the 

nomination of John Walters, to be Director of the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy. As you all know, this hearing was scheduled 

for literally a month ago today and the terrorist attack occurred in 

New York and in western Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. For 

obvious reasons, it had to be canceled and events have sort of overtaken things and that is the reason we are as late as we are. It 

has nothing to do with the lack of consequence of this office and 

how important we think the office is and how we should proceed. 

I want to thank Mr. Walters for being patient, as he has worked 

to reschedule his schedule as well, and I appreciate it. 

John Walters is well-known to this committee, having testified 

before us a dozen times both as a Government witness during the 

first Bush administration and as a private citizen. Mr. Walters is 

also well known at ONDCP, having served as then–Drug Czar Bill 

Bennett’s chief of staff and national security advisor, then as Deputy Director for Supply Reduction under Bob Martinez, and ultimately as Acting Director of the Office. 

2

Since his time at the drug office, Mr. Walters has served as a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, president of the New Citizenship Project, and president of the Philanthropy Roundtable. I welcome him and his family here today. 

Thirteen years ago, I wrote a law that created the Office of National Drug Control Policy because I was convinced we needed to 

coordinate Federal drug policy, with one person accountable for developing and implementing an effective national strategy. 

I might at add, at that time the Democratic President didn’t like 

the idea and subsequent Republican Presidents haven’t liked the 

idea, but I still like the idea because I think there is a need for 

there to be one person on whose desk the buck stops. 

I have argued that Cabinet-level status is necessary to give the 

position visibility commensurate with the depth of our Nation’s 

drug problem, providing our drug czar the clout to stop interagency 

feuding, fight for budgetary resources, and decertify inadequate 

agency drug budgets. 

I am glad that at the end of the day President Bush decided to 

make the drug czar a member of his Cabinet. To be able to decertify an agency’s budget, as General McCaffrey did with Secretary 

Cohen’s proposed counternarcotics budget for the Defense Department, the drug czar must be on equal footing with the rest of the 

President’s Cabinet. 

As the person responsible for coordinating Federal drug policy, 

the drug czar will deal with almost every Federal agency, from the 

Department of Justice on drug courts, to the Department of Transportation on interdiction issues, to the State Department and the 

Department of Defense on Plan Colombia, to the Department of 

Health and Human Services on groundbreaking research on how 

drug use changes brain chemistry. 

The drug czar must be able to walk and chew gum at the same 

time, making sure that our national drug policy is comprehensive, 

as well as balanced. A balanced drug policy is often compared to 

a four-legged stool, with treatment, prevention, enforcement and 

research comprising the four legs. If one leg is shorter than the 

other, the stool topples over. For a long time, the demand reduction 

leg has been given short shrift. 

I was glad to hear President Bush say when he announced Mr. 

Walters’ nomination in the Rose Garden that ‘‘the most effective 

way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America.’’ He went on to pledge that his administration ‘‘will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of 

the problem.’’

I was heartened to hear Mr. Walters say in that Rose Garden 

ceremony that he pledged to spearhead drug policy which includes, 

‘‘protecting(ing) our children from drug use...help(ing) the addicted 

find effective treatment and remain recovery...shield(ing) our communities from the terrible human toll taken by illegal drugs...(and) 

stop(ping) illegal drug use and the drug trade from funding threats 

to democratic institutions throughout the hemisphere.’’ I look forward to holding him to that pledge. 

While Mr. Walters and I agree on a number of issues, including 

the critical role of law enforcement at both the Federal and local 

level as it relates to drug policy and the importance of a strong 

3

supply reduction policy, there have been a number of equally important issues on which we have disagreed on over the years. 

I am particularly troubled—and it will come as no surprise to 

Mr. Walters because we have been engaging in this for the last 13 

years—by Mr. Walters’ many writings regarding drug treatment. 

He has written that the ‘‘view that therapy by a team of counselors, physicians and specialists is the only effective way to reduce 

drug use’’ is a ‘‘myth.’’

In contrast, the top doctors and scientists in the field of addiction 

believe that addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease and that 

addiction treatment is as successful as treatment for other chronic 

diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. 

Similarly, Mr. Walters has questioned the need for Federal support for drug prevention, writing that ‘‘teaching children that drug 

use is wrong and harmful is primarily the responsibility of parents 

and local communities, youth organizations, religious institutions, 

schools, and police. Federal funding is neither necessary nor sufficient for conveying this lesson by word and deed.’’

These statements are certainly not in line with my drug policy 

views, and they don’t sound to me like they are in line with what 

President Bush has stated. I plan to ask Mr. Walters a series of 

questions today to determine whether he will stand by what he has 

written or whether he will have what is known by the cynics on 

Capitol Hill as a confirmation conversion. 

I want to make it clear at the outset that I have the utmost respect for John Walters. He is a man of principle. We have debated 

drug issues over the past decade, and I suspect we will debate 

them in the future. Though we have often disagreed, I don’t think 

that either one of us has taken the disagreement personally. So I 

welcome here today. I am anxious to hear what he has to say and 

I look forward to hearing his testimony. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I see our ranking member has moved down 

to introduce, I guess, and I know you have asked me to do this 

hearing and you have another one to do. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, that 

you are doing this hearing. You have set the standard for this committee over the years on so many of these drug issues and it is only 

appropriate that you are doing this. 

I was glad to have the chance to meet Mr. Walters and his family, his two lovely girls, and it makes me realize how old I have 

gotten. It has been a long time since my kids were that age. 

I don’t doubt, as you have said, that Mr. Walters has thought seriously about our Nation’s drug problems. I am very concerned 

about some of the conclusions he has reached and forcibly expressed on issues ranging from drug treatment to interdiction to 

sentencing issues. 

I will put more of this statement in the record. 

Mr. Walters, I would urge you, if you have the opportunity, to 

take the time to read my statement because some of the questions 

I will also submit for the record will be reflected in there. 

4

We have tried to move people along quickly on this. The Drug 

Enforcement Administration head, I think, is one of the most important in the drug war, and within just a few days of my becoming chairman of this committee I set a hearing on Asa Hutchinson. 

I think we held the hearing within a day or so of his papers actually arriving here, even before all his things were in. 

You, Mr. Chairman, and I think everybody on this committee 

voted for him and we moved him out and had him on the floor 

within a matter of days; the same with James Ziglar for the INS 

and Robert Mueller for the FBI. So when there is any kind of a 

consensus here, we are able to move very quickly. 

I do have four areas of concern here. First, there is a growing 

and bipartisan consensus that we need to do more to improve drug 

treatment and take other steps to reduce the demand for drugs. In 

fact, President Bush said ‘‘[t]he most effective way to reduce the 

supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in 

America.’’ The President went on to say he would give ‘‘unprecedented attention’’ to this. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have joined with you and Senator Hatch 

and others to introduce S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act, to put more money and Federal focus on 

treatment programs and to improve treatment opportunities and 

effectiveness in rural areas for drug-addicted mothers, and so on. 

I want to know how Mr. Walters feels about the approach taken 

by S. 304. He has faulted the concept that addiction is a disease. 

He has referred to that concept as an ‘‘ideology,’’ even though it is 

held widely, if not universally, by Government and private experts. 

He has said that he supports ‘‘good’’ treatment, but has sharply 

criticized existing treatment providers, aside from faith-based providers. 

Secondly, I am concerned about his position on issues related to 

criminal punishment. We all agree on both sides of the aisle that 

people who break our laws have to be punished. Those who traffic 

in and sell drugs deserve to be incarcerated for substantial periods 

of time. When I was a prosecutor, I always asked for extra penalties for traffickers in drugs. 

But many of us in both parties have come to question our reliance on mandatory minimum sentences for a wide variety of drug 

offenses, as well as the 100-to–1 disparity under current law between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. 

In his writings, Mr. Walters has been hostile to reconsideration 

of these issues. He wrote as recently as March of this year that the 

idea that we are imprisoning too many people for merely possessing illegal drugs or that criminal sentences are too long or 

harsh were ‘‘among the great urban myths of our time.’’ That statement flies in the face of the widespread dissatisfaction with mandatory minimum sentences among policymakers and Federal judges. 

Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conference, 

made up of representatives from all 12 U.S. circuits, have called for 

the repeal of Federal mandatory minimum sentences. I don’t think 

the Chief Justice is one to fall prey to an urban myth, especially 

on something like this which has such a severe racial impact, as 

African Americans are much more likely to be sentenced for crack 

5

offenses. The facts show that overwhelmingly, facts developed by 

both conservative and liberal organizations. 

Mr. Walters has referred to the racial impact of the sentencing 

disparity as a ‘‘perceived racial injustice.’’ He even testified before 

Congress trying to ‘‘[b]lock lower crack sentences’’ and strip the 

U.S. Sentencing Commission of their powers. I would suggested 

that it is not ‘‘perceived,’’ not with the numbers that we have seen. 

In fact, what we found is that blacks accounted for 84.7 percent of 

those sentenced for crack offenses which carry the highest penalties, and whites for 5.4 percent. I think there is something going 

on there. 

Third, Mr. Walters’ reaction to popular and legislative judgments 

by various States to allow limited use of marijuana for medical purposes also causes me concern. He said the Federal Government 

should just step in and take away licenses from any physicians who 

would follow what their State voters have decided on. It kind of 

runs roughshod over any federalism concerns, but his draconian response about stripping them of their licenses raises questions about 

his sense of proportion. It is a very blunt instrument to tell voters 

in a State that they don’t know what they are doing. 

Then I want to know what he thinks about our anti-drug role in 

Latin America. I don’t disagree that reducing the supply of drugs 

would have tremendous benefits for our Nation, but I agree with 

President Bush that the reason so many drugs find their way to 

our shores is because there is substantial demand for them and a 

lot of money people are willing to spend. 

My concern is that it seems almost every question—and I have 

not read all of Mr. Walters’ writings, of course, and that is why I 

will submit so many questions on this. There seems to be no question about drugs to which the answer is not simply a hard-line, law 

enforcement response, even on complicated issues on which there 

is diverse opinion. I don’t think this unbending, ‘‘my way is the 

only way’’ attitude is what Americans want to see here. I think we 

need a greater reliance on data and pragmatism, and less of an ideological determination. 

I believe Mr. Walters is an intelligent and accomplished man. I 

am certainly going to give his testimony and his responses to the 

committee’s questions close attention. They deserve it. Obviously, 

we would have had this hearing a month before, except for the 

tragic events of the 11th. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you because I know you 

have bent your schedule four ways to Sunday to make this possible. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

VERMONT

As all of you know, this hearing was originally scheduled for the morning of September 11, and was of course postponed as a result of the terrorist attacks in New 

York and Washington. I wanted to make sure we rescheduled this hearing as soon 

as possible, as drug abuse remains a vital problem for this nation and we need to 

continue to pay attention to our domestic priorities even as we engage in our necessary response to terrorism. So I thank Senator Biden for working with me to find 

a new date for this hearing, and I look forward to a comprehensive examination of 

this nomination. 

I come to this hearing with many concerns. I do not doubt that John Walters has 

thought seriously about our nation’s drug problems, but I do doubt the conclusions 

6

he has reached and -forcefully expressed on issues ranging from drug treatment to 

interdiction to sentencing issues. In short, I am not yet convinced that he is the 

right person to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

We have worked hard on this committee to ensure a speedy and fair hearing for 

the Bush Administration’s executive branch nominees. Within days of the Senate’s reorganization and my taking over as Chairman, I noticed a hearing on Asa 

Hutchinson’s nomination to head the Drug Enforcement Administration. After we 

had the hearing, I expedited the process to provide a quick Committee vote, and 

then worked to secure a vote on the floor so that Mr. Hutchinson’s nomination could 

be approved before the August recess. I similarly expedited the process for the nomination of James Ziglar to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and will 

continue to do my best to make sure that the Administration receives the quickest 

evaluation of its nominees possible, consistent with the Senate’s obligation to provide advice and consent. 

The voluminous and opinionated record that Mr. Walters has developed requires 

a thorough examination. I have four areas of concern about his record that I would 

like to see addressed in this hearing. 

First, there is a growing and bipartisan consensus that we need to do much more 

to improve drug treatment and take other steps to reduce the demand for drugs. 

President Bush has said that ‘‘[t]he most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs 

in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America’’ and has promised that 

his Administration will concentrate ‘‘unprecedented attention’’ on the demand for 

drugs. In the Senate, I have joined with Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and others 

to introduce S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act. 

That legislation would increase the Federal focus on treatment programs, with targeted programs to improve treatment opportunities and effectiveness in rural areas, 

programs devoted to drug-addicted mothers, and more. I am curious to find out 

whether Mr. Walters believes the approach taken by S. 304 is a helpful and appropriate one, and whether he shares in this growing pro-treatment consensus. Mr. 

Walters has faulted the concept that addiction is a disease, referring to that concept 

as an ‘‘ideology’’ even though it is held widely—if not universally—by government 

and private experts. He has written that ‘‘the culture of victim hood lies at the core 

of the therapeutic world view,’’ a statement I hope he can explain today. He has 

said that he supports ‘‘good’’ treatment but sharply criticized existing treatment providers, aside from faith based providers. In short, although Mr. Walters has not developed a lengthy record on treatment questions, some of his statements have 

caused great concern among those who care about treating drug addiction. I look 

forward to hearing a further explanation of his views today. 

Second, I am concerned about the nominee’s position on issues related to criminal 

punishment. We all agree on both sides of the aisle—that people who break our laws 

must be punished, and that those who traffic in and sell drugs deserve to be incarcerated for substantial periods of time. At the same time, many of us Democrats 

and Republicans—have come to question our reliance on mandatory minimum sentences for a wide variety of drug offenses, as well as the 100 to I disparity under 

current law between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. In his writings and 

statements, Mr. Walters has been hostile to reconsideration of these issues. For example, he wrote as recently as March 2001 that the idea that we are imprisoning 

too many people for merely possessing illegal drugs or that criminal sentences are 

too long or harsh were ‘‘among the great urban myths of our time.’’ This statement 

flies in the face of the widespread dissatisfaction with mandatory minimum sentences among policymakers and Federal judges. Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist and 

the Judicial Conferences of all 12 U.S. circuits have called for the repeal of Federal 

mandatory minimum sentences. 

The disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine has been a significant 

contributing factor to the disproportionate imprisonment of African-Americans. 

Under current law, it takes only 1 percent as much crack cocaine to trigger equal 

mandatory minimum penalties with powder cocaine. This disparity has a severe racial impact as blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to be sentenced for crack offenses. For example, in FY 1999, blacks accounted for 84.7 percent of those sentenced for crack offenses and whites just 5.4 percent. There is also reason to doubt 

the logic of the crack-powder distinction on law enforcement grounds. Since cocaine 

is imported and distributed in powder form, and only manufactured into crack at 

the retail level, those persons at the highest end of the drug distribution chain are 

rarely affected by the increased crack penalties. In other words, the harshest sentences are reserved for less culpable offenders. 

Despite these troubling facts, Mr. Walters has referred to the racial impact of the 

sentencing disparity as a ‘‘perceived racial injustice’’ and urged Congress in 1996 

testimony to ‘‘[b]lock lower crack sentences’’ and to strip the U.S. Sentencing ComVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
7

mission of authority even to propose changes in criminal penalties where Congress 

has adopted mandatory minimums. 

Third, Mr. Walters’ reaction to popular and legislative judgments by various 

States to allow limited use of marijuana for medical purposes also causes me concern. Numerous states have considered and passed medical marijuana initiatives, 

some by substantial majorities. Mr. Walters has responded to this trend by advocating that the Federal government use the Controlled Substances Act to take away 

the Federal licenses from any physician who prescribes marijuana to a patient in 

States that permit the practice. Such a step would prevent these doctors from prescribing or possessing any medication that is Federally controlled, basically making 

the practice of medicine impossible. In addition to running roughshod over any Federalism concerns whatsoever, Mr. Walters’ draconian response raises questions 

about his sense of proportion. Although shutting down the process as he has suggested may be effective in rendering these State-passed initiatives meaningless, his 

proposal is a very blunt instrument, to say the least. 

Fourth, I am concerned that Mr. Walters will seek to have the United States overextend its antidrug role in Latin America. Throughout his career, he has been a 

prominent spokesman for the cause of drug interdiction. Prior to the development 

of Plan Colombia, he said that ‘‘we need to do more in Latin America’’ in ‘‘[lighting 

drugs at the source.’’ He has also been a consistent supporter of increasing the U.S. 

military’s role in preventing drugs from entering the United States. I do not disagree that reducing the supply of drugs would have tremendous benefits for our nation. At the same time, I agree with President Bush that the reason that so many 

drugs find their way to our shores is because there is substantial demand for them. 

The costs—both financial and political—of our involvement in the internal affairs 

of Latin American nations require close scrutiny. I have been skeptical about Plan 

Colombia, and I would be skeptical of additional proposals of that nature. I am curious to find out whether Mr. Walters would recommend that such proposals be offered. 

My fear is that for Mr. Walters, there is no question about drugs to which a hardline law enforcement response is not the answer, even to complicated issues on 

which there is diverse opinion. I am not sure this is what American needs in its 

new drug czar. What we may need is a greater reliance on data and pragmatism 

and less of an ideological focus. 

Clearly, I have numerous concerns and questions about the positions this nominee 

has expressed. But I will consider this nomination with an open mind. In making 

this statement today, I am attempting to put my concerns on the record so that Mr. 

Walters will have ample opportunity to respond. Despite my numerous disagreements with Mr. Walters’ past statements, I believe him to be an intelligent and accomplished man, and I will give his testimony and his responses to the Committee’s 

questions the close attention they deserve.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to yield now, if I may, to my colleagues. 

Mr. Walters, why don’t you come on up to the table there while 

our colleagues are speaking about you? 

The way we are going to proceed is recognize both my colleagues, 

who I suspect are going to attend the hearing as well. They are 

both members. 

Chairman LEAHY. They probably are going to say nice things 

about you. 

Senator BIDEN. And then we will go to you, Mr. Walters, and at 

that point I will ask you to introduce your family again to the 

whole committee, and we will hear your statement and then we 

will begin questioning. 

Senator Hatch? 

PRESENTATION OF JOHN P. WALTERS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL 

POLICY BY HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

8

It is with great confidence and very high regard that I introduce 

to the committee John Walters, the nominee for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP. 

As everyone is keenly aware, Mr. Walters’ hearing was postponed 

on September 11, literally in the wake of the terrorist attacks. 

Since the September 11 attacks, there has been a lot of discussion 

about the nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism. We know 

that insurgent groups in Colombia have long been characterized as 

narcoterrorists because of their known use of cocaine proceeds to 

fund terrorist acts, including the kidnapping of Americans abroad. 

We know that proceeds from the manufacturing and trafficking 

of opium poppy have helped sustain Osama bin Laden’s terrorist 

organization, Al Qaeda, for years. We also know that terrorist organizations routinely launder the proceeds from drug trafficking and 

use the funds to support and expand their operations internationally, including purchasing and trafficking illegal weapons. I am 

sure in the coming months and years we will continue to learn 

about the clandestine connection between drugs and terrorists. 

Mr. Walters will be starting his tenure as drug czar at a very 

precarious time, but I know he is the right person to fill this position. He will have to work closely with law enforcement and intelligence authorities to ensure that the international component of 

the Nation’s drug control policy is designed not only to prevent 

drugs from being trafficked into America, but also to prevent the 

manufacturing and sale of drugs for the purpose of funding terrorist activities. 

Mr. Walters is eminently qualified to carry out this task and I 

am confident that he will be a first-rate Director. After all, having 

served in ONDCP and the Department of Education with Bill Bennett, he learned from the person widely regarded by Republicans 

and Democrats alike as one of the most talented and effective drug 

czars we have ever had in this country. 

I would also like to praise General McCaffrey and his efforts as 

well. He worked very hard and did many good things. 

John Walters’ career in public service has prepared him well for 

this office. Like you, Mr. Chairman, he has worked tirelessly over 

the last two decades helping to formulate and improve comprehensive policies designed to keep drugs away from our children. Also 

like you, he has truly unparalleled knowledge and experience in all 

facets of drug control policy. 

As an assistant to Secretary Bennett from 1985 to 1988, Mr. 

Walters was responsible for managing drug prevention policy and 

programs for the Department of Education. As Director Bennett’s 

chief of staff at ONDCP, Mr. Walters was responsible for drafting 

and implementing a sensible and effective drug control policy. As 

Deputy Director for Supply Reduction at ONDCP, Mr. Walters formulated interdiction policies to keep drugs away from America’s 

youth. 

Lest there be any doubt that Mr. Walters’ efforts proved successful, let me point out to the committee that during Mr. Walters’ tenure at the Department of Education and ONDCP, drug use in 

America had fallen to its lowest level at any time in the past 25 

years, and drug use by teenagers had plunged over 50 percent. 

9

Since leaving ONDCP in 1993, Mr. Walters has continued to remain a vocal, committed advocate for curbing drug use. He has testified numerous times before Congress, including this committee, 

on drug policy issues, and he has also written extensively about 

this subject. 

Since 1996, he has served as president of the Philanthropy 

Roundtable. In that capacity, he has worked with foundations and 

private donors in many areas of charitable giving, including support for both drug prevention and treatment programs. 

Mr. Walters enjoys widespread support from distinguished members of the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal 

Order of Police and the National Troopers Coalition, and from 

mainstream members from the prevention and treatment communities, including the Partnership for a Drug–Free America, National Families in Action, and the Community Anti–Drug Coalitions of America. 

Yet, despite this groundswell of support, ever since Mr. Walters’

name was first mentioned in connection with the drug czar position 

some individuals and groups have attacked his nomination with a 

barrage of unfounded criticisms. Today, I am pleased to have the 

opportunity to set the record straight and to emphasize why our 

country needs John Walters confirmed now. 

We all agree that if we are to win the war on drugs in America, 

we need a comprehensive policy aimed at reducing both the demand for and the supply of drugs. Mr. Walters’ accomplished 

record demonstrates that he has always believed that focuses on 

both demand and supply reduction are important. 

For example, in testimony given before the Senate Judiciary 

Committee in 1991, Mr. Walters, then Acting Director of ONDCP, 

laid out a national drug control strategy that included the following 

guiding principles: educating our citizens about the dangers of drug 

use, placing more addicts in effective treatment programs, expanding the number and quality of treatment programs, reducing the 

supply and availability of drugs on our streets, and dismantling 

trafficking organizations through tough law enforcement and interdiction measures. Again, in congressional testimony given in 1993, 

Mr. Walters reaffirmed that an effective anti-drug strategy must 

‘‘integrate efforts to reduce the supply of as well as the demand for 

illegal drugs.’’

Some have voiced concern that Mr. Walters will put prosecution 

before prevention, tougher laws before treatment. To the contrary, 

Mr. Walters’ record is replete with calls for more and better prevention and treatment programs. 

For instance, the drug strategy announced by Mr. Walters in 

1991 had as its highest priority ‘‘preventing drug use before it 

starts.’’ And he wasn’t just mouthing these words, for prevention 

spending increased by 88 percent during his five-year tenure at 

ONDCP. No other component, including law enforcement and interdiction, was increased more than prevention. 

His record on drug treatment belies that concern as well. In 

1993, he testified that more and better treatment was sorely needed, and he worked to remedy the shortfall. During his tenure at 

ONDCP, spending on drug treatment increased 74 percent. Mr. 

10

Chairman, this is not the record of a man who would turn his back 

on prevention and treatment efforts. 

John Walters remains committed to treatment and prevention 

programs. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I introduced S. 304, the 

Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act of 2001, 

which both you and Senator Leahy have been kind enough to mention and for which both of you are some of our strongest supporters, as you have been in these drugs areas. This is a bipartisan 

bill that we drafted together—you, Senator Leahy, and Senators 

DeWine, Thurmond and Feinstein in particular. 

This legislation, as you know, will dramatically increase prevention and treatment efforts. In drafting the bill, I repeatedly solicited Mr. Walters’ expert advice. I know that his record clearly reflects that he agrees with all of you and myself that prevention and 

treatment must remain integral components of our national drug 

control strategy. 

John Walters knows what it takes to reduce youth drug use, and 

he will be taking the helm at ONDCP at a critical time. According 

to the most recent national surveys, youth drug use, particularly 

of so-called club drugs such as Ecstasy and GHB, tragically is 

again on the rise. 

Over the past two years, current use of Ecstasy among 12-graders increased dramatically by 140 percent. During this same period, the number of emergency room visits resulting from the use 

of Ecstasy increased 295 percent, and 80 percent of those visits 

were by patients under the age of 25. 

It is simply shocking that by the time of graduation from high 

school, over 50 percent of our youth have used an illicit drug. We 

must act immediately to reverse these soaring numbers and to prevent our youth from endangering their lives. So I look forward to 

hearing from Mr. Walters what he plans to do to reverse these dangerous developments. 

Fortunately, Mr. Walters will have extraordinarily talented deputies to help him with this daunting challenge. In selecting Scott 

Burns, a fellow Utahn, I might add, to handle State and local affairs, Dr. Barry Crane to head the Office of Supply Reduction, Dr. 

Andrea Barthwell to lead the Office of Demand Reduction, and 

Mary Ann Solberg as the Deputy Czar, the President has assembled a team of dedicated and knowledgeable professionals. So I personally look forward to working with Mr. Walters, his deputies, 

and the administration in finding new ways to solve rather than 

surrender to America’s drug problem. 

Mr. Chairman, no Senator has worked harder and longer on the 

drug issue than you, and it is a testament to your dedication to 

America’s youth that you are chairing this important hearing. You 

and I both want to see youth drug use rates fall, and we know that 

one of the keys to this goal is prompt passage of S. 304. 

In that regard, I am very grateful for our chairman, Senator 

Leahy, and for his working with you and me and others on this 

very important bill. I hope we can get that through within the relatively near future so that we can do even more and give the tools 

to Mr. Walters and others who are serving. 

Another one of those keys, Mr. Chairman, is John Walters. The 

President shares our commitment to a balanced drug policy, and he 

11

has expressed his eagerness to begin working with us to attack the 

problem of drug abuse. 

Rightfully, the Senate has been focusing primarily on passing the 

anti-terrorism bill and legislation related to the September 11 attack. However, in light of the documented connection between 

international drug trafficking and terrorist activities and the ongoing war against drugs and terrorism, now more than ever the administration and the country need to have its drug czar in place. 

It is of utmost importance that the Senate act on Mr. Walters’ nomination immediately. With Mr. Walters in place, I look forward 

to working with my Senate Democratic and Republican colleagues 

to carry forward our fight against drug trafficking and terrorism. 

Mr. Chairman, 24 members of Speaker Hastert’s Task Force for 

a Drug–Free America, including the Speaker, have signed a letter 

in support of John Walters’ nomination, and I ask that this letter 

and other letters written in support be included in the record. 

Senator BIDEN. Without objection, they will be. 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for you giving me 

this time. I have such high respect for John Walters, and I know 

that he can do this job and do it well. It is something that needs 

to be done, and needs to be done now, not just for our youth, but 

in order to stop terrorism throughout the world as well. 

So I want to thank you again for holding this hearing and being 

willing to take the time to do this. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you. 

Senator Kyl? 

PRESENTATION OF JOHN P. WALTERS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL 

POLICY BY HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to join in Senator Hatch’s introduction of John 

Walters as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

As all of us are well aware, this is the last Cabinet position to 

be filled, and as Senator Hatch just pointed out, it is vital to continuing this country’s anti-drug efforts, as well as contributing to 

our war against terrorism. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am biased. My daughter, Christie, is a 

good friend of John’s wife, Mary. My granddaughter, Alyssia, goes 

to elementary school with Rebecca, John and Mary’s daughter, and 

I have worked with John Walters. But I will tell you that he will 

be a superb drug czar. I am as convinced of that as anything I have 

ever been convinced of. 

I suspect that upon close examination—and I know that all of 

you have concerns about past writings or statements—upon close 

examination, I think you will find that there is far more in common 

than there is any disagreement between the various approaches to 

fighting what we all agree is a scourge on our society that has to 

be dealt with. 

When people talk about John Walters, they talk about his qualifications, and I doubt there is anybody at least technically more 

qualified to serve in this position—over 15 years of experience in 

handling drug policy. 

12

Let me add a couple of things to what Senator Hatch said, and 

maybe repeat one or two as well. John Walters started his public 

service at the National Endowment for Humanities as Acting Assistant Director and Program Officer in the Division of Education 

Programs. That was from 1982 to 1985. 

Senator BIDEN. Does Senator Helms know that? 

Senator KYL. As I said, there may be more in common here. 

From 1985 to 1988, he worked at the U.S. Department of Education, serving as Assistant to the Secretary, and there he led the 

development of anti-drug programs for that Department. He was 

the principal author of Education Department handbook ‘‘Schools 

Without Drugs: A Guide for Effective Education and Prevention 

Programs for Parents and Educators.’’ Over one million copies were 

requested and distributed free of charge. 

After his service at the Department of Education, he cofounded 

the Madison Center, a public policy organization devoted to advancing and improvement in education and related fields, including 

early childhood education and drug abuse prevention. 

From 1989 to 1993, he served in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and as was noted, during that time was 

chief of staff for William Bennett, Acting Director, and Deputy Director for Supply Reduction from 1991 until leaving that Office. 

For the past five years, he has been president of the Philanthropy Roundtable, a national association of over 600 foundations 

and individual donors providing publications and programs on all 

aspects of charitable giving. 

John Walters believes in a well-balanced approach to the drug 

problem, and I am delighted that he now has an opportunity personally to respond to some of the distortions and 

mischaracterizations of his positions with respect to the balance 

needed to address the problem of drugs. He understands all aspects—treatment, prevention, education, and interdiction. 

To just cite some different statistics that relate to the same subject as Senator Hatch brought up, during his tenure at ONDCP 

overall Federal spending for drug control programs increased by 83 

percent, almost $5.4 billion. Spending on prevention programs increased by 113 percent, $914 million, and treatment spending increased by 98 percent, $1.1 billion. 

So as I said, this is a man who participated in a well-balanced 

program for drug abuse. As noted earlier, drug use by 1992 had 

reached the lowest levels in the past 23 years. His career, in other 

words, reflects a deep-seated commitment to anti-drug efforts in all 

respects. 

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, 

American families, schools, those who are addicted to drugs, police 

officers, and our communities deserves to have somebody at the 

helm of ONDCP who will really lead the national effort to combat 

drugs. John Walters has the experience, the knowledge, the ability, 

and most importantly the passion to spearhead the ONDCP. 

I hope that we can move very quickly to confirm him. The President and the Nation need him in this position. 

Thank you. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you very much, Senator, for a very good 

statement. Please come and join us. 

13

Mr. Walters, will you please stand and be sworn? 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before the 

committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Mr. WALTERS. I do. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you. Before we proceed any further, would 

you be kind enough to introduce to the rest of the committee your 

family who is with you today and anyone else you would like to introduce? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. WALTERS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, Senator. My wife, Mary, is here, and 

my daughters, Michaela and Rebecca. My wife, with no intended 

disrespect for the committee, is going to take my daughters out because I can’t change nature; they are probably not going to be able 

to sit through this. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, if you could do that, it would be cruel and 

unusual punishment to make them sit through it. 

By the way, I think there is some candy in the back room back 

there, if you want to head back that way, and you can hang out 

there if you want, or however you would like to proceed. I thank 

the girls for coming. 

I invite you at the appropriate time, which is now, to make any 

opening statement you may have, John. 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, Senator. The committee has a copy of 

my written statement which I would ask you include in the record. 

Senator BIDEN. It will be included in its entirety. 

Mr. WALTERS. I will just summarize a few points. I would like 

to thank Senators Hatch and Kyl for their kind introduction. 

It is an honor to be here, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Leahy, Chairman Biden, and the other members of the committee. It is an honor 

for me to have been nominated by the President for this important 

position, and I am pleased with the effort that has been made 

under difficult circumstances of the last month to hold this hearing. Thank you for your assistance. 

Also, I want to thank you and the other members of the committee and your staff for the willingness to consult with me during 

this process, to talk through some of the issues that are of concern 

to you and to others. And I hope I will be able to work with you 

in the future, should the committee and the Senate see fit to confirm me for this position. 

We all know the tremendous toll that drug abuse has taken on 

our society. The challenge of reversing or pushing back against 

that terrible threat is made somewhat less daunting by, in my 

mind, the history of strong bipartisan commitment to work on this 

problem and the many facets necessary to achieve success, particularly success in reducing drug use and addiction among our young 

people. 

You already have alluded to, as have others, that the President 

shares this commitment, as he had made clear in the remarks he 

made on the occasion of my nomination, and particularly his emphasis on expanding Federal resources for treatment, announcing 

his intention to request over the next 5 years $1.6 billion to expand 

14

the treatment program, as well as additional monies for prevention 

programs involving parents, community coalitions, and expanding 

drug treatment, in particular, in the criminal justice system. 

As you know, I began working on the drug policy issue during 

my service at the Department of Education in the mid–1980s. As 

assistant to then–Secretary William Bennett, I, as has been alluded 

to, became the principal staff member responsible for managing 

drug prevention policy and programs. 

During my tenure, which began in September 1985 and ended in 

1988, I was one of the principal authors of the guide ‘‘Schools Without Drugs,’’ referred to here, a guide for teachers and parents. Almost two million copies of that guide have been distributed to citizens throughout the country. It was a how-to guide for prevention 

programs in the home and in schools and communities. 

I was the senior manager of programs to link schools and communities together, called the Schools Without Drugs Challenge Program, as well as the developer of a prevention public service campaign and the implementer of the 1986 Drug–Free Schools and 

Communities Act which vastly expanded the drug prevention funding from the Department of Education to schools and communities 

throughout the United States. 

I will not summarize the other parts of my career. As was alluded to earlier, Mr. Bennett and I left the Department. We intended to go into the private sector. We were starting a non-profit 

that would be involved with education reform, as well as drug prevention and early childhood education. 

Unfortunately, that lasted only several months because the first 

President Bush asked Mr. Bennett to become the first drug czar. 

I went with Mr. Bennett to that office. We had long discussions 

with you, Mr. Chairman, and other senior members of this committee about the first drug strategy and its construction and implementation. 

I served first as chief of staff to Mr. Bennett and was involved 

in the construction of the strategy throughout the various agencies 

and programs. In the latter part of the Bush administration, I 

served as supply reduction deputy. 

My tenure at ONDCP, with the strong bipartisan support in Congress, sought to expand a balanced program of drug prevention and 

drug control. We sought not only, as was alluded to earlier, to bring 

together, organize and make accountable and effective programs on 

law enforcement and national security, but in prevention and treatment. 

Our efforts to focus on expanding treatment I am particularly 

proud of because I believe we provided more resources during that 

period, during that administration to drug treatment, and increases, than any administration before or after. And I believe 

those are needed and provide a basis for the expanded efforts we 

have been talking about and I think everybody agrees we need in 

the future. 

We also launched particular new programs to expand prisonbased treatment and prevention programs. We launched a new 

$100 million-a-year community coalition initiative, modeled on the 

successful Robert Wood Johnson program. We also expanded resources to law enforcement, and I am proud to say we expanded 

15

anti-drug interdiction and national security programs not by taking 

money from other parts of anti-drug programs on the prevention 

side, but by making the priority of drug control a more central part 

of our national security agenda. The national security agencies and 

the interdiction agencies became a more complete and full player. 

I believe these balanced policies that we established and that we 

have been discussing already here today are crucial for successful 

drug control. And I think the proof that they can be successful has 

been the decline in drug use, and I am proud that use reached one 

of its lowest levels in the last several decades in 1992, and particularly that drug use by young people, as has been alluded to, aged 

12 to 17, dropped by 60 percent from 1985 to 1992. Cocaine use by 

those young people dropped by 78 percent. 

Sometimes, as you know, people say we can’t make any difference. We do make differences, we have made differences. We 

make differences everyday, and I think it is important that we 

build on those, but to build on them we have to first recognize 

them. 

Let me conclude this brief summary because I know you have 

questions and I don’t want to eat up the time. But given some of 

the comments that have been made in the public and in the press 

about my record in the past, let me try to state concisely my views 

so that we can explore this and we follow up what I put on the 

record. 

I believe in drug prevention programs. I believe in efforts by parents, by schools, by workplaces, and by communities. I think my 

record in office and subsequently reflects that. I believe in drug 

treatment, in particular, public and private. I believe that it works 

in prisons. I believe that it works in diversion programs and in 

drug courts. 

I believe also in law enforcement and interdiction playing an important role. I believe that drug control efforts should be expanded 

to our foreign policy priorities in appropriate ways, not that it is 

the only foreign policy priority. But I believe the record of the administration I last served in and I believe the discussions I have 

had with members of this committee, as well as others, indicate 

that I think there is an appropriate role, and I understand how 

that can fit into other priorities. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank a couple of people 

in closing who are in the audience here and have been helpful—

who have been willing to consult with me during this process and 

who I look forward, should the Senate decide to confirm me, to 

working with in the future, including some people I know that are 

well known to members of this committee: Mr. Dick Bonnetta from 

the Partnership for a Drug–Free America; General Art Dean and 

Sue Thau from CADCA; Melanie Heaps from Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities; John Avery, Association for Treatment Professionals; Johnny Hughes from the National Troopers Coalition; Steve Young, newly-elected national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, and Jim Pasco of FOP; Jennifer Collier of 

the Legal Action Center; Chief Bob Warshaw, who worked in the 

previous administration as Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs and was chief in Rochester, New York, formerly; Linda Wolf 

Jones, of Therapeutic Communities of America; Judge Karen FriedVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
16

man-Williams, National Association of Drug Court Professionals; 

Betty Sembler and Calvina Fay from the Drug–Free America Foundation; Judy Cushing, President of the Oregon Family Partnership; 

Henry Lazono, California for Drug–Free Youth; Barry Crane, who 

is in the audience, who has been nominated to be supply reduction 

deputy at ONDCP and has written extensively. 

These are just some of the people, but people who made the time 

to come here today, some from a long distance, and I wanted to 

publicly thank them for their advice and counsel and their support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 

Walters follow.]

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. WALTERS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Chairmen Leahy and Biden, Ranking Member Hatch, and distinguished members 

of the Committee: 

I am honored to appear before you today as you consider my nomination for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). I want to thank each 

member of the Committee for the guidance, counsel, and support offered during the 

nomination process. If the Senate permits, I will be pleased to join my colleagues 

and take my seat as a member of the President’s Cabinet. 

Illicit drug use and its consequences exact a tremendous toll on our society. As 

you know, developing an effective arid comprehensive drug control policy is a challenge that is complex and multifaceted. This challenge has been made somewhat 

less daunting by the history of strong bipartisan commitment to our shared national 

goals of reducing drug use, especially among our youth. 

The President shares this commitment and made clear when he nominated me 

for this position that the drug issue is of foremost concern for the public health and 

national security of the United States. I fully endorse the President’s pledge to increase federal funding for drug treatment by $1.6 billion over five years and look 

forward to working with Secretary Thompson on this important initiative. I strongly 

support the President in his heartfelt belief that in order to succeed in our efforts 

to craft a solution to this problem, the Congress and Executive Branch must transcend traditional political and party boundaries. 

Over many years now, both as an official of the United States Government and 

as a private citizen, I have had the privilege of working with most of the members 

of this Committee in an honest and cooperative effort to shape the most effective 

drug control policy possible. Although we have not agreed on every policy in the 

past, I have never doubted that we all share a deep personal concern for the good 

of our nation as it relates to these critically important matters. If confirmed as the 

ONDCP Director, I expect that our discourse will continue to be constructive and 

guided by a mutual desire to achieve a society less threatened by illicit drugs. 

I have always believed that the fundamental elements of effective drug control 

policy are consistent with common sense. We need to prevent young people from experimenting with drugs in the first instance and starting on the path that all too 

often leads to addiction, crime, and personal and familial destruction. We need to 

help those who have become addicted get off and stay off drugs. We need to use 

the coercive power of the criminal justice system and other supply reduction programs to support domestic prevention and treatment efforts, as well as pressuring 

and disrupting drug trafficking organizations. 

Despite the all-too-frequent claims of a vocal few that our drug control efforts are 

without merit and destined to fail, we all know that dedicated Americans throughout our country are making a difference every day in their communities by teaching 

the young about the dangers of drug use, treating the addicted, and protecting fellow citizens from the predatory drug trade and the destruction it inflicts. These 

community leaders deserve our full and unqualified support. They deserve our sincere thanks and our best efforts to .bring the widest possible attention to their important work. 

But even though much is being achieved, none of us-particularly those working 

hardest in this field-is satisfied with the status quo. Despite our best efforts, there 

are too many of us using drugs. There are particularly too many of our young people 

using drugs at very early ages. There are too many of us chronically addicted. The 

drug trade is too prosperous. 

17

Every responsible American wants to see us join together as individual communities and collectively to better address all aspects of the drug problem. Every responsible American wants to see us drive down drug use to lower levels. Every responsible American wants us to counter the irresponsible counsel of the legalization 

movement, which would sacrifice our the health and safety of our children to advance its own selfish agenda. We owe it to those concerned citizens to forge a united 

effort with renewed confidence, commitment, and effectiveness to reduce the drug 

problem substantially in the next several years and maintain our diligence to keep 

it in decline. Drug legalization, it has been noted, is a counsel of despair, a policy 

of hopelessness. Let me be clear, our experience-our recent experience, even-teaches 

one lesson more clearly than any other: when concerned Americans push back on 

the drug problem, it recedes. 

I began working on drug policy issues during my service at the U.S. Department 

of Education in the mid-1980’s. As an assistant to then Education Secretary William 

J. Bennett, I became the principal staff member responsible for managing drug prevention policy and programs for the Department. During my tenure, which ranged 

from September of 1985 to September of 1988, I was:

• principal author of an Education Department handbook, ‘‘Schools Without 

Drugs,’’ a guide for effective education and prevention programs for parents 

and educators. Millions of copies have been requested and distributed freeof-charge to schools and families throughout the country; 

• senior manager for the Department of Education’s recognition program 

that gave national attention to schools with effective drug prevention programs; 

• senior manager for the ‘‘Schools Without Drugs’’ public service campaign 

that broadcast prevention education advertisements; 

• senior manager for the ‘‘Challenge’’ newsletter that distributed drug prevention strategies and successes to every school district in the country; and 

• senior manager for the implementation of the expanded prevention funding initiated by the 1986 Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

William Bennett and I left the Department of Education in the fall of 1988 to 

found the Madison Center, a non-profit institute designed to continue our work on 

education reform and drug prevention education. We were just beginning our new 

efforts when President George Bush nominated Mr. Bennett to be the first Director 

of the ONDCP and he asked me to join him as his Chief of Staff. I served at ONDCP 

from early 1989 through the end of the Administration, as Chief of Staff for the first 

half of that Administration, as Acting Director from December 1990 to March 1991, 

and as Deputy Director for Supply Reduction from May 1991 until the end of the 

Administration. 

During my tenure at ONDCP-with the strong bipartisan support of the Congresswe sought to achieve an expanded and more balanced drug control strategy. In fact, 

I managed the drafting of the first National Drug Control Strategy to make our 

goals clear and to subject them to debate and further improvement. I am proud that 

the first Strategy highlighted drug treatment as a fundamental component of our 

multi-faceted approach at a time when treatment programs did not enjoy popular 

support. With the help of Congress we put resources in place to support the policies 

and programs advanced by the Strategy, many of which continue to enjoy tremendous success. From FY 1989 to FY 1993 (in 1996 constant dollars):

• overall federal spending for drug control programs increased by 61 percent or by $4.9 billion as compared with the FY 89 level; 

• prevention increased by 88 percent or $873 million; 

• treatment increased by 74 percent or $1.04 billion; 

• domestic law enforcement increased by 84 percent or $2.9 billion; 

• interdiction decreased by 8 percent or $136 million; and 

• international programs increased by 52 percent or $193 million. 

It is important to note that those budgets funded expanded anti-drug interdiction 

and national security programs by making drug control a central priority for the 

limited resources of those agencies of government, not by redirecting funds from 

agencies tasked with carrying out critical domestic demand reduction programs. 

Currently, we are enjoying significant bipartisan interest in expanding our nation’s commitment to effective drug treatment programs and research. I am proud 

to have been a major architect of a drug strategy from 1989 to 1992 that called for, 

and obtained, larger increases in treatment resources than any administration before or since. We targeted those resources to areas experiencing a heavy demand 

for drug treatment services by creating a capacity expansion program (that remains 

a critical component of our treatment infrastructure), launching new initiatives to 

18

match better the specific needs of individual drug addicts with proper treatment modalities, and expanding the availability of prison-based treatment programs. 

In addition to the gains we made concerning drug treatment, I also am pleased 

that we were able to direct greatly expanded budgets and programs for drug prevention activities. In addition to enhancing substantially existing education and prevention programs, we launched a new $100 million per year community coalition initiative that enabled new federal funds to support a program created by the Robert 

Wood Johnson Foundation, and mobilized the efforts of private service organizations 

in a campaign to discourage drug use by young people, as well as supporting the 

advertising campaign created by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. 

I firmly believe that the balanced policies and programs we established in that 

first Strategy, as well as the supporting budgets the Congress provided, helped 

make the efforts of millions of Americans more effective and contributed to real results:

• By 1992, drug use in the United States had fallen to the lowest level of 

any time in the past quarter century; 

• Specifically, between 1985 and 1992 ‘‘current’’ (defined as monthly) use 

of all illegal drugs by 12–17-year-olds dropped by almost 60 percent; marijuana use dropped by over 66 percent; and cocaine use dropped by over 78 

percent.

Those achievements are measures of what we can accomplishment when we commit to working together to overcome the many challenges posed by illicit drugs. 

Those achievements are not the result of our efforts in government, but of many, 

many dedicated Americans working together on all aspects of drug control policy. 

It would be an arrogant mistake for national leaders to take credit for these reductions which in most cases are the hard fought victories of parents and teachers, of 

police officers and members of the clergy, of neighborhood orange-hat patrols and 

treatment providers. The people who work hard each and every day, focusing on individual to individual, are where success in this effort rests. But they also need-and 

deserve-national leadership, and the resources that support their efforts. If confirmed, I will dedicate my office to working within the Administration and with the 

Congress to provide the support they so richly deserve. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering any 

questions the Committee may have.

19


81443.008
20


81443.009
21


81443.010
22


81443.011
23


81443.012
24


81443.013
25


81443.014
26


81443.015
27


81443.016
28


81443.017
29


81443.018
30


81443.019
31


81443.020
32


81443.021
33


81443.022
34


81443.023
35


81443.024
36


81443.025
37


81443.026
38


81443.027
39


81443.028
40

Senator BIDEN. Well, thank you very much. 

We will do five-minute rounds for the first round here. I am also 

supposed to be chairing a hearing, which I am not going to chair, 

upstairs on Afghanistan in the Foreign Relations Committee. But 

I am going to go do exactly what the chairman did here. I am going 

to go up and make a brief opening statement there at the appropriate time and I may leave for ten minutes. I just wanted to explain my absence when I do, but this is more important. 

Let me start by saying, John, I don’t have to read any of your 

quotes or anything. You and I have known each other for a long 

time. I can’t think of anybody that I have liked better who I have 

disagreed with more. 

In 1996, you testified before my committee, and my staff excised 

this and reminded me. It was on the national drug control policy. 

I said, ‘‘Look, John, I love you. We always argue a lot, you and I. 

While we always disagree, I am not sure we disagree as much as 

we like to disagree,’’ and I went on from there. 

The point is I have a slightly different recollection of some of the 

reasons why things happened in the first go-around. If I remember, 

during the tenure of Bill Bennett, consumption did drop. But I am 

the one that put the money in. You guys opposed the additional 

money for treatment. This wasn’t one of these things where you all 

came out and said, hey, let’s have more treatment money. It was 

a big fight. Were it not for Dr. Kleber, we wouldn’t have gotten 

there because Kleber was the only ally I had in that outfit at the 

time. 

Now, you had a logical argument, a good argument, and we all 

agreed at the time we weren’t sure who was right; we just had a 

different view on how to approach it. The argument was you all 

didn’t believe there were enough treatment professionals out there 

to be able to accommodate and use the treatment money well. At 

least that was Dr. Bennett’s argument as to why we should not be 

putting more money in treatment in the first three budgets. 

But let’s get the record straight there. It did go down, but it 

didn’t go down because you and Dr. Bennett were arguing for more 

money for treatment. That significant increase got put in over your 

objection. Now, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be the drug 

czar. 

The second thing is I also think that some of the stuff that is 

being used to make the case against you now is being used to make 

a case against you because you were in your political mode, not a 

substantive mode. I mean, the guys behind you are the guys who 

helped me write the crime bill, the thing you called irrelevant, ‘‘the 

irrelevant crime bill,’’ if I am not mistaken. 

I don’t know whether you guys remember that, but this was the 

guy who thought the crime bill as irrelevant, and still thought it 

was irrelevant and wrote about it being irrelevant as little as a 

couple of years ago. I don’t take that seriously because I know you 

don’t think it is irrelevant. I took it as your being a partisan, which 

is understandable. You had a Democratic President you didn’t like 

very much and so you had to write that stuff. 

But one thing is at the core of my concern, and we know each 

other too well, so I am not going to ask you any baited questions. 

I am going to ask you a general question that I would like you to 

41

respond to, and this is going to disappoint my staff because they 

wrote a hundred questions that are very specific. 

You very strongly believe in this notion of devolution of Government. You very deeply believe that and I respect that. I think you 

are dead wrong, but I respect it. The President believes it, too. You 

believe, as you have written numerous times, that law enforcement, drug treatment and education are local functions; the Federal Government should not be in the business. You have written 

that extensively. 

You have a very compelling ideological point of view, and when 

you write it, you write clearly and concisely. Everything I know 

about you in the years we have dealt with it is your views on how 

to deal with the drug problem are consistent with that philosophy. 

It is not at all inconsistent, which brings me to this dilemma. 

I don’t doubt you think treatment makes sense sometimes. My 

recollection was you weren’t real crazy about my idea of drug 

courts when I introduced that legislation. I may be wrong, but I 

don’t think you were. I will go back and dig up the record, but you 

weren’t so crazy about those. Again, local responsibility. What is 

the Federal Government doing involved in all this? 

Drug treatment that the Senator from Alabama was pushing 

very, very hard—he is not here at the moment, Senator Sessions—

in prison, mandatory drug treatment in prison, imposing that view 

on States—I don’t remember what your view was, but I don’t remember it being supportive. I could be wrong. 

But here is the point: If, in fact, these are local responsibilities 

by and large, the difference in degree that we have is really consequential potentially. I don’t suggest you think treatment can 

never work. I think you do think treatment works sometimes. My 

impression from 15 years of knowing you is that you don’t think 

it works well enough to warrant the investment and the priority 

that it has had. 

I introduced a bill on pharmacotherapy when you guys were 

there for a $10 billion commitment, $1 billion a year over 10 years, 

that you guys opposed. You opposed it then and I think you still 

oppose it now. You have written cogently about the fact that you 

don’t think that anti-addiction medications are a particularly useful way to go about this issue, a gigantic issue about methadone, 

whether or not we should be promoting it, and so on. My recollection is you view those things as substitutes for an abuse that exists 

already and they don’t go to the heart of the problem. 

You may be right on all of this, but I just want to make sure I 

got it right, that I haven’t just been in a fog for the last 10 or 12 

years as to what our disagreements are. You know my views thoroughly. I have put out a thick old book every single year since I 

have written this legislation, and I know you have read it and I 

know you know it. 

So here is my generic question: Is addiction, not the first time 

one consumes an illegal substance—once someone is classified as 

being addicted, is that a moral problem or is it a medical problem 

at that point? I assume you believe we could agree on a point at 

which someone is addicted to a substance, physiologically addicted, 

or do you think that is possible? 

42

Mr. WALTERS. Well, let me simply say first I don’t want to pretend to be a physician—I am not—but I accept the Institute of 

Medicine criteria for substance dependency. 

Senator BIDEN. Now, at that point is that a moral or a medical 

problem? 

Mr. WALTERS. It is a medical problem and it is a problem of engaging an individual’s own resources, as well as outside experts, in 

overcoming the addiction. So I am not trying to evade the question 

here, but I do think on the issue of disease, for example—this gets 

at the question of disease, obviously—if the understanding of disease is that it is something like diabetes where an individual’s adherence to behavior that moderates the effects of the disease—to 

take medicine, change diet, exercise—these are an important part 

of their recovery, then I don’t have a problem with that. 

Some of the context that I have written in and some of the criticisms that have been of concern to people, whether they are in context or out of context, have been more or less in my mind, at least, 

intended to say for people who think one thing is going to solve 

this, there are important limits to almost everything we do in drug 

control. And there is no silver bullet, and we ought not over-promise. 

I have been concerned in my career that drug policy gets caught 

up in rhetoric. You have made a point that I have been involved 

in that, too, and I will confess that I have. But the rhetoric I have 

been most concerned about is that we over-promise, and as a result 

we play into the impression that nothing works. Of course, we all 

know a lot works, and we are trying to make the things that work, 

work better. 

So on the issue of what approach do we take, I think that people 

can take a variety of approaches and a combination of approaches 

that involve drugs, from methadone to naltrexone to other drugs 

that are coming on line to help in addiction treatment. 

But I think also we have—and I think it has been more recognized—we have to expand the scope of what we talk about in addiction and recovery, programs especially for people who have had severe and extended periods of addiction. We have to talk about recovery. 

What I have been doing for the last several years at the Philanthropy Roundtable insofar as it has touched the issue of drugs, 

(which is not the focus of the Philanthropy Roundtable), has been 

working with donors in the area of treatment and in the area of 

working with people in community institutions—employment, recovery and reentry of people from the criminal justice system, 

working with people on educational opportunities, as well as child 

care opportunities, especially in neighborhoods that are poor and 

have been affected particularly harshly by the drug problem. 

So coming back to the point you made about local responsibility, 

almost everything the Federal Government does that it doesn’t 

carry out itself it relies on local people to do the real work—law 

enforcement, treatment, and education. I have been struck by, and 

I know that you have been in Government longer than I, how blunt 

an instrument the Federal Government is. 

People look to it for help, but the frustration always is you can’t 

really do much. You can enable people to do things that are crucial, 

43

but we rely on them to do them. My career out of Government has 

been to talk about how to better use those resources and how local 

governments need to build the coherence in their own systems to 

handle those resources and do a better job. I did not intend to say 

that Federal resources were not important. 

On the area of treatment funding, I don’t remember the precise 

distinction between the request figures and the enacted figures on 

treatment funding. But I wasn’t just at the Office then; I was the 

guy who had to negotiate the final tough parts of the budget and 

strategy. And I remember being on the phone with colleagues in 

HHS, in Lou Sullivan’s office, screaming at them that we were 

going to decertify them because of the request amount that wasn’t 

enough for increases in treatment. 

And that wasn’t because they were against treatment. It was because, as you know, the appropriations process made it such that 

they believed other parts of their budget that were important— Head Start, other programs in HHS—were going to take the hit. 

We got more money, however. 

Now, I think we can all debate about what level was enough, but 

I don’t remember us not stepping up to the plate and I don’t remember us not being willing to fight inside the administration, and 

it was as hard to get those dollars on the prevention side as it was 

to get those dollars on the supply side. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, my time is up in this first round, but you 

sure fooled me because you were on the other end of the phone 

with me and with my staff saying, and Dr. Bennett was saying we 

shouldn’t be spending this money. I don’t doubt for a minute what 

you say inside the administration, but you sure in hell fooled me. 

Now, I will yield to the Senator from Utah. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Youth drug use, Mr. Walters, remains markedly higher than it 

was back in 1992. For me, the problem is—and I hope that you 

agree—that even if teen drug use has leveled off in the past few 

years, it is leveling off at unacceptably high rates. For instance, use 

among eighth-graders since 1992 has increased by 129 percent for 

marijuana, by 80 percent for cocaine, and by 100 percent for both 

crack and cocaine. 

Teenage drug use dropped dramatically during your tenure at 

the Department of Education and at ONDCP. I am curious to know 

what worked previously to slash drug use rates among our youth, 

and what do you think accounts for this drastic increase and what 

would be your strategy for bringing these current numbers down? 

Mr. WALTERS. Senator, I think we were benefitted by a broader 

consensus than has existed over the last several years about the 

priority and about the seriousness of the drug problem and about 

the need to focus energy on young people. I think some of that is 

coming back. I think the effort now, the ads on television that are 

now focused on parents and engaging parents as a vehicle to be involved in the behavior of young people, of supervising their time, 

but also just of sending the message—I mean, society became more 

blase about it. 

I do think that questions were raised that didn’t exist at the latter part of the 1980s and early 1990s about whether or not even 

current law and current sanctions in society disapproving of drug 

44

use were appropriate. We know that the most important influence 

on young people is what they thing their parents and other responsible adults around them think and what those adults around them 

do as an example and what their actions indicate about the truth 

and the seriousness of their words. 

If you say don’t use drugs, but you don’t really act as if you care, 

if you don’t follow up about where young people are after school 

and what they are doing when they appear to be erratic in their 

behavior or when there is a question about how they are spending 

their time or what they are doing with their time, then you are 

sending a message. 

When there are more or less known open sales of drugs around 

schools or along the routes children take back and forth to schools, 

or there are accepted parties, or when we say this is going to be 

a rite of passage for American young people, I think you end up 

with mean ages of first use that are as low as they are today which 

is shocking for drugs, and I think you end up obviously with larger 

numbers of initiates. 

What we do in terms of programs and activities all have to focus 

on use, and particularly I think there is now uniform agreement 

that we need to stop young people from using and we need to stop 

them from using for longer periods of time because that is a key 

to diminishing addiction and long-term use patterns in the country. 

Senator HATCH. In addition, the perception that youth drug use 

is confined to our urban areas is proving to be mistaken. According 

to a report funded by the DEA, drug traffickers are infiltrating 

rural America, as they have already done in urban and suburban 

areas. 

The report found that eighth-graders living in rural areas, as 

compared to eighth-graders living in urban areas, are 104 percent 

more likely to use amphetamines, including methamphetamine, 50 

percent likelier to use cocaine, 34 percent likelier to smoke marijuana, and 83 percent more likely to use crack cocaine. 

Now, this is particularly troubling to me and my constituents 

from my State which is mostly rural. Specifically, what can I tell 

my constituents back home that the Government is doing to protect 

children living in rural areas from becoming victims of illegal drug 

trafficking and use? Will you take a different approach from that 

used in urban and suburban areas, and if so, what different approach would you take? 

Mr. WALTERS. I think some of the basic approaches obviously involving parents remain the same, but the ability for us to deliver 

both the resources to help parents in organizing and cooperating 

with schools, also frankly the resources obviously in connection 

with public health services and law enforcement, are not as available in many rural areas. 

I have heard this when I was in office and I have heard it subsequently. Many rural areas can easily be swamped by demands for 

treatment, demands for law enforcement. I think part of the advantage of the expanded HIDTA program, for example, has been to try 

to organize resources in larger geographic areas that could be flexibly applied to needs as they arise, because when you don’t have as 

much to apply against the problem, it is a quick mushrooming of 

45

use and supply that can overwhelm the available resources. So I 

think that is helpful. 

I also think we need to be careful that we don’t fall into the kind 

of nationalizing trap of one size fits all. We need to vary and work 

with and talk with people that are working successfully. My view 

in my career in Government and out is when you have a problem, 

try to find somebody who is solving that well and see what lessons 

and see what kind of attention we can give to that in order to get 

more people working successfully, because most people want to 

solve problems rather than flounder around and if we give them 

both the resources and the example, they are eager to do things on 

their own. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman LEAHY. [Presiding.] Welcome, Mr. Walters. I checked 

the numbers and I am told that there are 4,161 Drug Enforcement 

Administration agents working to prevent drug crime and apprehend law-breakers. Do you believe they are doing a conscientious 

job? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. And then we have Asa Hutchinson, a conservative Republican. He and I have been on opposite ends of a number 

of things, but a man I strongly supported for the post as head of 

DEA. He was confirmed in August and sworn in on August 8. 

Would you say he is doing a pretty good so far? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Even before he was there, the DEA agents 

were not just sitting on their hands; they were working hard to 

protect America. 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, there are 10,522 Customs agents. Their 

job responsibilities include preventing illegal drugs from entering 

the country. Would you say these Customs agents have been working hard and with dedication throughout President Bush’s tenure 

so far? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. There are 11,523 FBI agents. They are working to prevent and solve crimes, including drug-related crimes. 

Would you say that these FBI agents, these men and women, are 

performing their jobs admirably? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course, there are thousands and thousands 

of State and local law enforcement officers, including those I used 

to work with when I was in law enforcement, whose responsibilities 

include drug crimes. They certainly have been working all year, 

have they not? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. The Bush administration hasn’t said we won’t 

do anything on drugs until you come along, is that correct? 

Mr. WALTERS. I haven’t been told that. I think people are continuing to work hard even when I am not there. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I agree with you because I know from 

any discussions I have ever had with them and everything I have 

ever heard them say that President Bush, like most Americans, 

46

wishes there was no drug abuse in this country and is very much 

opposed to it. 

I only mention that because apparently a number in Congress 

have said that the Bush administration was paralyzed and nothing 

was happening, pending your nomination. I felt the President was 

working pretty hard and I just thought I would get this on the 

record because I thought it was an unfair charge being made by 

these members of Congress. 

I will put their letters in the record, but I wanted to stand up 

for the 4,161 Drug Enforcement agents, the 10,500 Customs 

Agents, the 11,500 FBI agents, and President Bush, and point out 

that they have been working. Obviously, the administration would 

like to have you there, too, but these others have been working in 

the meantime. 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has estimated that less than 7 

percent of all Federal crack defendants are high-level drug offenders—less than 7 percent—so they have recommended that Congress 

reduce the sentences for crack offenses. I have always found the 

disparity unjustified, but you have criticized the Sentencing Commission for its recommendations and conclusions. You have urged 

that crack penalties be retained. 

Do you believe today that the current penalties for crack offenses 

should be retained? 

Mr. WALTERS. I think we should examine them. I have been concerned by both what I think is pretty widespread concern about the 

level and the extent of the sentences. And I think as a part of looking at the drug strategy from top to bottom we ought to work with 

you and other members of the Congress. 

I think the President has indicated a willingness, and the Attorney General— Chairman LEAHY. But do you have any feelings one way or the 

other as you look at it today? 

Mr. WALTERS. I am less concerned today about the level of the 

sentence than the justness of the sentence in terms of proportionately provided punishment to people who are engaged in trafficking 

and the effect— Chairman LEAHY. I am not sure I understand what that means. 

I am just from a small town in a little State. You big city guys, 

I have to keep up with you. 

Mr. WALTERS. I am from Michigan, but I would not want a 

change in the law to be one that either went as far as to normalize 

the drug trade as an acceptable activity or to send a signal that 

there was a consensus that drug trafficking in serious, addictive 

substances is not a serious concern of legal, political and national 

authorities. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I understand it takes 1 percent as much 

crack cocaine to get the same kind of mandatory minimum that you 

could with powder cocaine. In other words, you have to have 100 

times more powder cocaine to get the same sentence. That worries 

me because 38 percent of crack users in 1995 were black, but 88 

percent of those who were sentenced were black. 

Now, you say that is a perceived racial injustice. Those are pretty 

amazing numbers. I mean, as a Vermonter I would worry about 

anybody using powder or crack cocaine. I am not suggesting otherVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
47

wise, but it seems that if you are a powder cocaine user, not an 

awful lot happens to you. But if you are a crack cocaine user, you 

are heading to the slammer. 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. Well, Senator, I don’t need to tell you, you 

were here when some of this legislation was passed originally, and 

the concept, in part, was the greater danger of addiction and trafficking in crack cocaine and, in fact, the greater danger it posed to 

some of the poorest and least well-endowed communities in America. 

Chairman LEAHY. It seems their danger is they all go to jail, 

whereas if they are in white, affluent America, they won’t. 

Mr. WALTERS. I think that concern is an issue that warrants a 

review of the sentences, but I would like to just say one thing 

about the background of my opinions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please. 

Mr. WALTERS. When I was at the drug office, and subsequently 

now working with people in communities with donors, what I saw 

was people who in many cases have borne the brunt in terms of 

ravaging not only families, but economic foundations of their communities and the other institutions of their communities; people 

who, unlike some of the suburbs, had to worry about their children 

walking past open-air drug markets to school. 

Most of those people, I found, wanted the same thing that the 

people in the suburbs wanted, which is why can’t we close these 

drug dealers down and keep them off of our streets? I mean, it is 

inner-city neighbors that are walking their streets at night unarmed in orange baseball caps and have sometimes been pushed by 

frustration to burn down crack houses. The people in the suburbs 

don’t have to do that. Also, it is the inner-city neighborhoods that 

have faced the fewest resources in rebuilding. 

So my concern in the discussion of racial equity—and I think I 

have said this and I have tried to be clear; maybe I haven’t been 

as clear as I should in writings or testimony—is that the equity not 

be detached from the victims of open-air drug markets. When you 

look at maps of metropolitan areas, the communities that are affected by those are not randomly distributed, and I don’t think it 

is unreasonable to hear the calls of those citizens and want to provide law enforcement protection where open-air drug markets and 

other kinds of open trafficking—

Chairman LEAHY. If you had the same open-air drug markets in 

wealthy suburbia, you would be hearing the same complaints. Unfortunately, in wealthy suburbia oftentimes you see a very, very 

nice high school with signs outside saying this is a drug-free high 

school as the kids are peddling drugs from their very expensive 

cars that belong to their parents to each other or as they are buying designer clothes and everything else. 

I know you are not suggesting that drugs aren’t in both wealthy 

suburbia and inner cities, but I just want to make sure that we 

have the same resources to approach it and we don’t take the only 

resources and if you are white, wealthy suburbia, we will get you 

into a rehab thing and we will take care of you and we will make 

sure there is nothing on your record, and if you are in black innercity America, we will send you to jail for 20 years. 

48

Mr. WALTERS. I agree with you. My own view of my work in the 

last several years has been not so much focused on law enforcement, obviously, because that is not where I have been. But I think 

the problem is in stabilizing neighborhoods once law enforcement 

is provided with effective treatment, with effective housing, with effective economic development, better schools. 

And I have been, in fact, working with donors to try to bring that 

about in the private sector. Obviously, there is public sector money 

here, too. We ought not to make drug enforcement a kind of maw 

that sucks in generation after generation of young black men in our 

inner cities and grinds them up and destroys their lives. But I do 

believe you have to balance that concern with not allowing the 

drug trade to grind up those communities and addict and destroy 

the lives as well. 

So we have to be able—in this case, I guess maybe it is a ‘‘walk 

and chew gum’’ requirement. We have to be able to sustain lawful 

order and we have to rebuild and sustain the outlets for healthy 

development and economic and social well-being of the citizens. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, my time has expired. I am going to yield 

to Senator Kyl. I have also been called to go back to the floor to 

try one more time to see if we can move this terrorism bill. 

I am going to submit a number of questions for the record in case 

I don’t get back. If I get back, I will ask them. I would ask you not 

to consider these boilerplate questions. I have thought long and 

hard on them, and I would want you to do the same. If I don’t get 

a chance to ask you them here, we are going to have to sit down 

and talk about them. 

Senator Biden will take the first step on this, but then after that 

a determination of when this may be set on the agenda. I will be 

largely influenced by those questions. If you think any of the questions are not fair, I wish you would just call me up and tell me so. 

I think they are, but if you think otherwise, call me up. They are 

not trick questions. I am trying to get an honest answer from you. 

Senator Kyl? 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by 

putting a slightly different perspective on the timing of the hearing 

and the fact that we haven’t confirmed a Director yet. 

While the Chairman, I think, is correct that one can’t infer that 

we are paralyzed as a result of the fact that we don’t have a Director because of the literally thousands of people who in one way or 

another are working hard on the problem of drug control, by the 

same token I don’t think we can infer that it is a good thing, or 

even acceptable, that we don’t have the leader, the Director of the 

Office, in this position. 

Chairman LEAHY. If that was directed at me, I thought my question was very clear on it and I thought his answer was very clear. 

Senator KYL. It was, Mr. Chairman, directed at the inference 

which one might take from your comment, and I am sure you 

would not want it left pregnant out there that it is okay to have 

a nominee for this important office still hanging fire in mid–October, the last month, of course, obviously having interfered with our 

responsibilities, and rightly so. But I do think it is important that 

we move this forward as quickly as we can. 

49

Chairman LEAHY. I will make sure you are given an extra 

minute for the time on this. But as you referred to me, I am perfectly willing to have my question be on the record as it was asked 

and Mr. Walters on the record as answered. I think we both understood each other very, very well. Obviously, any Senator can draw 

any inference they want and usually will. 

Senator KYL. I want to alert my colleagues and caution the public about a report on John Walters that is being circulated by an 

organization called the Coalition for Compassionate Leadership on 

Drug Policy. A few weeks ago, this binder with information regarding John Walters was delivered to our Senate committee offices. It 

was prepared by the CCLDP and contained a report on John Walters. 

I just have a caution of three words: follow the money. The 

CCLDP’s Web site is registered to the Soros Foundation, in New 

York. The Soros Foundation was founded by multi-billionaire 

George Soros, whose major interest is to advance the legalization 

of drugs. I am familiar with George Soros and other legalizers because of the three separate legalization ballot initiatives that they 

helped to fund in my own State of Arizona. 

In 1996, when Arizona had its first ballot initiative to legalize 

over 116 Schedule I drugs such as heroin, LSD and marijuana, 

over $1 million in out-of-state money financed the initiative, at 

least $430,000 of which was from Soros. 

In 1998, when Arizona had another ballot initiative regarding legalization, out-of-state donors, including George Soros, contributed 

approximately $400,000 to help its passage. 

Just last year, another legalization initiative was in the works to 

further decriminalize drugs by immunizing people who took socalled medical marijuana from a variety of crimes, ranging from 

possession of cocaine and meth to selling drugs to minors. Again, 

out-of-state donors, including George Soros, spent almost $500,000 

in support of this initiative. 

Soros has founded a number of organizations, many of which are 

members of CCLDP. Some of the official members of that include 

organizations who support legalization, including NORML, the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, and the Marijuana Policy Project. So, again, follow the money. 

While the CCLDP report purports not to take a position on the 

Walters nomination, it is filled, in my view, with distortions and 

inaccuracies, two of which are especially disturbing. 

First, it characterizes John Walters’ record on treatment as ‘‘relatively limited,’’ notwithstanding all the things that we cited before 

about his qualifications in that regard, 15 years of experience in 

treatment, and the other items that we noted before. 

Second, the report distorts the scientific evidence surrounding 

the needle exchange programs by incorrectly stating that overwhelming evidence shows that increasing the availability of sterile 

syringes curtails AIDS and hepatitis. That, of course, ignores the 

body of scientific research cautioning against needle exchange programs, including the analysis of Montreal, Canada, NEP which 

found that drug users enrolled in the NEP were twice as likely to 

become infected with AIDS than non-participants. That is from 

Lancet, the British medical journal. A study of the Vancouver NEP, 

50

the oldest and largest in North America, revealed that both AIDS 

and drug use increased over 25 percent since that exchange program started in 1998. So I just want to caution people that some 

of the material that they have been getting is designed to manipulate and distort John Walters’ distinguished record. 

The question I would like to ask is this: It seems to me that the 

real question here is the announced policy of President Bush which 

everyone on this dais so far has extolled as a balanced, reasonable 

and appropriate response to the drug problem in the United States. 

My question is, Mr. Walters, will you faithfully execute the policies that we have been extolling up here of President Bush in the 

execution of your responsibilities as Director of this Office? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. I wouldn’t have taken the job, obviously, 

if I couldn’t do that, and I believe the President’s statements and 

his proposals are consistent with what needs to be done in this 

country. So I have no reservation and am eager to help in any way 

I can in carrying out those policies. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KENNEDY. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. 

I welcome Mr. Walters. I enjoyed our chance to talk in our office 

and I appreciate your coming by. And I welcome this last response. 

I think all of us are aware that the President, I think, to his credit 

has called for the closing of the treatment gap. 

You have had important responsibilities in this area for a number of years, and written about it, commented on it, and exercised 

important responsibilities. For many of us who believe that this 

kind of demand side that exists in our society which has been a 

scourge among the young people of this Nation needed to have a 

greater voice for the treatment of the various challenges that young 

and old alike have faced. 

Now, I was here in 1988, and we had the Nunn–Moynihan task 

force that at that time announced that what we really needed—and 

it went into very great detail and examined the materials and 

talked about a 50–50 balance. That wasn’t accepted by a narrow 

vote, one or two votes in the Senate. It was actually rejected. Then 

we went ahead with the 1988 Act on this and you had 4 years of 

important responsibility. 

You know, you can look back in terms of the resources and the 

funds that were out there when you were there, and we have seen 

since that period of time some enormously compelling information 

that has been made available to us: the Cal data that for every dollar we spend on drug treatment, we save as much as seven dollars 

on costs relating to crime and health care. 

The RAND study says treatment for heavy cocaine users is 3 

times more effective at reducing cocaine consumption than mandatory minimum sentences, and 11 times more effective than interdiction. 

The NIDA study says methadone treatment has shown to decrease criminal behavior by as much as 50 percent. The Department of Justice said in 1997 that offenders who successfully complete drug court programs are one-third as likely to be arrested for 

new drug offenses or felonies and one fourth as likely to violate 

probation or parole. 

51

I have looked at your record. I have tried to find out where you 

fought, like you mentioned to the former chairman of this committee, Joe Biden, or where you have written, where you have advocated, where you have pointed out what have been the findings 

of the scientific reviews about the importance of treatment for this. 

And I can’t find it; I don’t see it there. 

I hear your answers to this and they have been positive. You talk 

about child care, employment, recovery programs, all of those kinds 

of things. But in your writings we find really the contrary to that, 

and that is what is of central concern to me, whether you really 

have the belief that this is of importance, that this is of consequence, that you want to go out and try to do, I think, what 

credibly the President has said, because there is very little in the 

4 years that you had important responsibilities. 

The fact is, over that period of the 4 years, in terms of treatment 

and prevention the budget never got even up close to a third during 

that period of time, maybe 32 percent or 33 percent, not that budget in and of itself is all of the answer. I mean, the money isn’t all, 

but at least it is a pretty clear indication as to where it is, and that 

is where we really find the difficulty. 

Now, what is your sense? You are going to be asked in terms of 

policy what you think it has to be. Let’s say that money is at least 

an indicator of what are going to be our priorities. What would you 

like to see? 

You have had a long time to think about this. How would you 

allocate resources in terms of interdiction, prosecution, treatment, 

prevention? Give us some idea of where you stand on this issue. 

I have got a short time, too, and I want to give you a fair chance 

to answer it, but I do have other questions. 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, Senator. I mean, I don’t know exactly 

how to meet the question you have about my intent underneath all 

this. I can tell you that when I worked at the Office initially, when 

we looked at the treatment problem and talked about increases in 

the treatment system and trying to do that in a concise way, we, 

came up with a program that still exists today called the Capacity 

Expansion Program to target resources to where there was a measurable need. We discussed and implemented programs to match 

modalities of treatment to the needs of those who needed those 

services. We tried to support additional programs to both conduct 

research and to bring those together. 

As you probably see from my resume, I was actually Acting Director of the Office for a period between Mr. Bennett’s departure 

and Governor Martinez’ arrival in November to March. And during 

that period of time, there was an actual meeting with the President 

on the budget and remaining drug policy issues, and I was the one 

representing the Office at the Cabinet and there was one fundamental issue that was a debate between myself and then–OMB Director Darman and that was the increase in money that we were 

requesting for treatment. And I was the one who had to make that 

argument and it was not an easy argument, so I haven’t—

Senator KENNEDY. My time is up. What do you think for interdiction, what do you think for prosecution, what do you think for 

treatment, and what do you think in terms of prevention? I mean, 

52

what would you say you would like to see? What are you going to 

advocate for? 

The President says he wants to reduce the treatment gap. You 

are going to have important responsibilities. What would you say? 

Out of a dollar, what would you spend on each one? 

Mr. WALTERS. Well, I think it is remarkable to have a President 

who begins with a $1.6 billion commitment to treatment at the 

start of his administration. 

Senator KENNEDY. Let’s just take one dollar, without getting into 

how much the budget can afford. Just on one dollar, that was my 

question because I know my time is up. Out of one dollar, what 

would you like to see as someone who has looked at this and 

thought about it? 

Mr. WALTERS. I don’t mean to evade your question. It is hard for 

me to say, not having had discussions with what people have out 

there. If we are not talking about cutting things in order to make 

an artificial percentage—

Senator KENNEDY. If I can just finish this question, I am not ask- ing you whether it is a $1.6 billion or $1.9 billion or what we have 

to cut in Head Start. I am not asking you that. You just have percentages. The President says we have got ‘‘y’’ amount of money to 

spend. I want to know from you how you think it ought to be spent. 

Mr. WALTERS. Just the Federal money? 

Senator KENNEDY. Just one dollar, say, of the amount that is 

going to be available. How much do you think ought to be on interdiction, how much in terms of prosecution, how much ought to be 

in treatment, how much ought to be in prevention? 

Mr. WALTERS. I don’t want to mislead you and make a commitment I can’t live with, obviously. I don’t think there is anything 

wrong notionally to talk about those as equal parts of the overall 

strategy. I think to qualify that, I have to say that there are parts 

of the drug strategy that the Federal Government is a partial player in and it is a partial funder of, but State, local, private resources 

are there that help to balance it. 

If I understand the concern you have, if driving in the direction 

of apportioning the four parts, if you want, among prevention, 

treatment, law enforcement and international programs into equal 

parts is—I don’t think notionally that there is anything wrong with 

that and I don’t disagree with it. 

But I am aware that the devil is in the details in these things 

because appropriations bills are divided and people do have to 

make tradeoffs and there are some things the Federal Government 

does that other levels of government can’t do. 

So I am not trying to be evasive, but I am trying to be candid 

with you. I, as you have, have fought for these monies, too, and you 

have got to authorize them and you have got to appropriate them 

and you have got to be willing to stand in the draft of all the other 

competition at the time. And I have been struck by one of the problems in getting money for treatment is the people who need these 

services are not active and vocal constituents frequently. And so 

when it comes time to make phone calls and to wire members 

about their support, they aren’t there. 

So I mean I would like to do more. I think it is unprecedented 

that a President begin with this level of commitment for treatment, 

53

and I honestly am not ashamed of the record that we had in the 

administration I served in. It was the largest increase in treatment 

funding. And it is not just dollars; I recognize that. 

I am sorry that Senator Biden remembers this another way, but 

it was not an easy fight, and it was not an easy fight inside the 

administration and it was not an easy fight inside Congress. So I 

recognize that we have differences on issues, but on this issue I 

have fought and I am proud of that record and I would intend to 

follow through on that record if I was confirmed. 

Senator KENNEDY. My time is up. 

Senator DeWine? 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Walters, the percentages are always an interesting question 

and I am a huge proponent of a balanced anti-drug approach. I 

think we do have to point out, or I will at least point out that when 

we look at that we also have to look at the total government dollars 

that are being spent, not just Federal dollars that are being spent. 

For example, one of the things that is done in regard to trying 

to drive drug consumption down is we go to the source countries 

and we do things in the source countries. We do things on our borders. Those are pretty much exclusively the obligation of us, the 

Federal Government. And so it skews it a little bit, I think, when 

we look at the pie charts and whether it is the Federal Government’s money. But I believe in the general concept that we need 

to have a balanced drug approach, and I am glad that you do as 

well. 

Let me ask you a question. You talked a little bit in your written 

statement about your work in expanding the availability of prisonbased treatment programs. I wonder if you could just take a couple 

of minutes and tell us where you think we are in this area. I mean, 

this is something that is clearly our responsibility. These are Federal prisons, these are our prisons, these are the ones that we have 

the responsibility for. 

As I have said many times in the past, we already pay to house 

these prisoners and to feed them and to clothe them, and while we 

have got their attention involuntarily it sure makes sense to try to 

do some treatment and we are crazy if we don’t. 

How are we doing in the Federal prison system, if you know? 

Mr. WALTERS. I don’t know, in detail. I do know that the opportunities for treatment in the Federal prison system have expanded 

from the start that was made when I was last in Government. I 

think all the reviews are that these have positive results. 

We also tried when I was in Government to expand resources for 

State and local prison-based treatment by opening up as an option 

to the block grant resources being moved into the prison system. 

Senator DEWINE. I wholeheartedly agree we should do this. 

Mr. WALTERS. I also am aware that some recent studies, I believe, have suggested that a substantial increase in the effectiveness of prison-based treatment to produce long-term recovery is 

provided by follow-up programs after the individual is back out in 

the community. This makes sense from what we know about treatment generally. 

Senator DEWINE. From what we know about treatment everyplace else, it makes sense in prison. 

54

Mr. WALTERS. I think in terms of looking at making the system 

more effective, not only do we have to talk about the allocation of 

slots, but what kind of slots, how we match them, how we handle 

outreach, how we handle follow-up services, because we know especially for long-term substance abusers this can be an extremely 

long process. It is talked about as a chronic, relapsing disease. 

What that means is we have to be able to have some continuity. 

I think the criminal justice system not only in prisons, but in diversion programs like drug courts, give you a way of influencing 

behavior in a positive way using the criminal justice system. I had 

the opportunity since I was nominated of visiting a drug court with 

my former colleague, Reggie Walton, whom I believe this committee 

has recently confirmed for a Federal position on the bench. 

Part of his calendar in D.C. was the juvenile drug court, and I 

made contact with him after my nomination and I went down and 

talked to him about that. I think he took a system that wasn’t running as well and helped turn it around, and it is a big loss to D.C. 

But these programs obviously work because they provide the kind 

of continuity, and I think in some cases it was obvious from his impression an adult that will help and be involved in the life of young 

people who have not had the kind of guidance that they need in 

a serious and sustained way, getting them the resources for treatment, but also for getting back on track in their education and 

back in their community. 

So I think those are important levers where the discussion of opposition between the criminal justice system and prevention and 

treatment is wrong-headed. These are systems that work together, 

and when they do, we get the best results. 

Senator DEWINE. I agree. 

Let me turn to education. I know that when you were in the Department of Education, one of your major responsibilities and roles 

was on education reform and drug prevention education. I happened to serve in 1989 and 1990 when I was in the House of Representatives on the National Commission on Drug–Free Schools 

and we looked at where we were 10, 11 years ago, at that time. 

How do you think we are doing today, and what do we need to 

be doing? How are our schools doing? We identified a lot of problems in 1989 and 1990 on this commission report, and I know that 

you worked on a lot of those problems in that same general era. 

Where do you think we are now? 

Mr. WALTERS. I have been touched by the number of people who 

are working in this area everyday very hard and have felt that the 

culture has kind of turned to become an adversary to their work 

in the last decade. It has not made this a serious matter; it has 

made it a questionable matter, and dabbling in drug use was now 

kind of fashionable and chic. 

Parents and teachers and community leaders felt that they had 

been orphaned after being given the kind of support and leadership 

that made it possible for them to extend their efforts. That doesn’t 

mean they have stopped working, and I think it is important that 

we not forget that everyday a lot of people in all aspects of this 

problem go to work and save lives. And they have not asked for 

recognition, but they would like people to stop making it harder. 

55

And if we can give them some additional help, that would be more 

than welcome as well. 

So I think to reestablish the consensus that first of all says what 

society thinks about drugs in a consistent manner with what parents and I think the vast majority of Americans think, and give 

that message to young people—you shouldn’t use it, it is wrong, it 

is harmful—and now we have been reminded that enemies of the 

United States also believe that drug use is harmful to our people 

because they would like to promote it. 

So I think we have a remarkable opportunity for consensus. We 

are rebuilding the cultural consensus against drug use and we 

have a lot of people that are not only doing a lot now, but are energized to do more if we can support them both with programs but 

also with vocal leadership on this issue. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, it is a relationship clearly between what 

the community is doing and what the schools do. And they cannot 

be separate and apart; they have to be tied in together. I would 

hope, after your confirmation, this would be one of the things that 

you would look at. 

We have a bill that I expect we are going to pass that makes 

some reforms in that, and I think that will do some good. But ultimately the question is going to be, and always is, what is the local 

community doing. I think it is a role that you could play a very significant role in. In my home State of Ohio, it is 630-some school 

districts, and you just multiply that all the way across the country. 

I guess we are doing a tag. Over to Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. [Presiding.] I thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Walters, welcome. I would just like to ask one more question 

before I move on on prevention and treatment. In 1996, you wrote 

on the Federal funding role in preventing drug use, ‘‘Teaching that 

drug use is wrong and harmful is primarily the responsibility of 

parents and local communities.’’ ‘‘Federal funding,’’ you wrote, ‘‘is 

neither necessary nor sufficient for conveying this very personal 

message to children on a consistent basis.’’

In 1995, in the newspaper the Washington Times, you wrote that 

‘‘Individual program mandates should be abolished so States and 

localities can establish and pursue their own priorities for fighting 

drug use and drug crime. Law enforcement, drug treatment and 

prevention and education are local responsibilities. Therefore, the 

new block grant program should be designed to restore local responsibility by phasing out these programs after three years.’’

So under your formulations, I would conclude that States and localities would have no requirement to spend any money at all on 

prevention or treatment after three years, if they so desired, and 

would not receive any Federal money at all to use, even if they 

wanted to, for that purpose. So I have a difficult time reconciling 

these statements with your previous answer about treatment and 

prevention. 

In 1995 and 1996, you seemed to be clearly against any Federal 

money spent specifically on treatment and prevention, and now you 

are apparently saying something that is quite different. So before 

I move on, could you finally reconcile your thinking then and your 

thinking now? Has it evolved, has it changed? Are you not today 

of the same thought process as you were back then? 

56

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, I have changed my view on that, and that 

was a change from when I was in Government and let me explain 

why. I was concerned at that time that both the management of 

the Federal resources and the level of support for those resources 

was dropping off and was drifting, and that for many communities 

the ability to manage and direct and to have accountability in prevention, treatment, and even supply reduction programs was diminished. I was also working at that time in an organization that 

was designed to try to provide greater onus for local institutions to 

take greater authority and accountability for local actions. 

I may have been wrong about the direction in which funding and 

management was going, although I am not sure about the management part. But at a time when the attention of the country here 

was shifting, I thought it would empower the people at the local 

level who were working everyday to make decisions about resources 

that would be most effective to them and to find long-term support 

that would be directed toward results. 

I would not recommend that today. That is not the President’s 

policy and I wouldn’t have taken this job if I disagreed with him 

on that. I believe we need to maintain Federal support for these 

programs. When I was last in Government, we did that in both prevention, treatment and on supply reduction programs, and I think 

we need to make them more accountable and effective. 

So, yes, I did have a change of thought during that period of 

time. Again, maybe I was wrong about what was happening, but 

I did think that things were moving so that the resources weren’t 

going to be sustainable or were not going to be managed as well 

as they should. 

Senator KOHL. All right. I will take you as you wish to be taken, 

at your word. 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Walters, in a 1995 commentary in the Washington Times you wrote about the Gun–Free School Zones Act. This 

is the bill that makes it a Federal offense to carry a gun within 

1,000 feet of a school. Basically, the bill and the fix we made in response to the Supreme Court challenge in Lopez were efforts to address the ever-growing problem of school violence. 

In your article, you quoted me as saying that the bill was a common-sense approach to the issue of guns in our schools, which is 

what I did say. Then you commented on that statement that I 

made by writing, ‘‘The Gun–Free School Zones Act does not rest 

upon common sense; it defies it.’’ Six years later, I still believe that the Federal Government has 

an important role to play in addressing school violence, and it is 

still common sense, in my opinion, to do everything we can to help 

keep guns out of and away from schools. 

Given the number of school shootings in this country since you 

wrote your article, have you changed your mind at all on the importance of the Federal Government’s role in trying to stem school 

violence and crime generally, and in the wisdom of having a law 

that says you must not carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. I would support the law. I mean, I wouldn’t 

again take an office that I couldn’t support the law. Let me just 

say, at the risk of having Senator Biden accuse me of having a conVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
57

firmation hearing conversion, in taking on this responsibility, and 

I think frankly in my past record, I have not been ashamed of saying that certain things are Federal responsibility, where others 

have argued otherwise, other conservatives, other Republicans. 

I tried to make a point, maybe not a point I should have made, 

with that law that—and, again, talking about at that time being 

concerned with the integrity of local institutions where most of the 

resources that even the Federal Government delivers have to be 

carried out, the concern I had was that the tendency to nationalize 

these discussions would diminish the attention to what inevitably 

still is going to be local manpower, local teachers, local parents, 

local law enforcement. 

As I said earlier in regard to some of the other questions, I am 

not opposed to Federal resources being applied to help here because 

there are situations where that is crucial. And I agree with your 

point, if I understand it, which is you can’t stand back on some of 

these issues and say ‘‘I don’t do windows’’ here at the Federal Government; that is your job. 

But I also think—just in defense of my thought here, I also think 

that there has been, and other people on both sides have talked 

about this, a tendency to erode the responsibility and authority of 

local institutions who are the first-line people, who are inevitably 

going to have more of the resources and more of the actual involvement with individual problems in communities. 

And one of the things where we have seen renovation, whether 

it is education or law enforcement or treatment or health care, is 

when accountability has been restored to those institutions by local 

citizens. The Federal Government can help, but its help has to be 

such that it doesn’t cripple, in my mind, the integrity and the proper management of local institutions. I wouldn’t write the same 

thing today, Senator. 

Senator KOHL. Well, to my colleagues I want to say that I have 

always dreamed about being chairman of the Judiciary Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. I am not chairman either. Go right ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. I suppose you also dream that the nominee 

would have criticized one of your bills, too, that you asked him 

about. 

Senator BIDEN. [Presiding.] And he criticized your prison funding 

thing, if I am not mistaken. 

Senator SESSIONS. Maybe. I will have to check on that. 

Just briefly, I want to make the point that I don’t believe there 

is a conflict between education, prevention, law enforcement, and 

treatment. All of those are part of the way you fight drugs. 

You come at this position with extraordinarily wonderful experience. You presided over the drug czar’s office, at least the executive 

director of it or whatever the title was, second to Bill Bennett, and 

succeeded him for a time during the greatest achievement of reduction of drug use in the history of this country. 

This idea that the war on drugs has been lost is baloney. We won 

the war on drugs and made tremendous achievements and improvements in it. From the time of, I think, the last year of President Carter or the first year of President Reagan until former 

58

President Bush left office, according to a University of Michigan 

study, the most authoritative study of high school seniors in America, drug use declined every single year. It was reduced by over 50 

percent. We have people who say the drug war was a failure. 

Let me ask you, isn’t the best way to deal with treatment is not 

have people become addicted at all? 

Mr. WALTERS. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Isn’t it true that treatment can help a number 

of people, but once people become addicted most people never get 

over it? It is a long-term personal disability of some kind. They suffer from it in various ways the rest of their lives. 

Mr. WALTERS. I think we always have hope that people will be 

treated. I think many families and friends of individuals are aware 

that there are people who have tried for years and years to fight 

their addiction and regrettably have not been successful. 

I think that we need to try harder. We all want research, we all 

want treatment to work better. We also, I think, have to give the 

prevention message to young people that it is not a matter of you 

can play with drugs and if you get in trouble, we will definitely be 

able to treat you and you won’t have long-term consequences. You 

are playing with a serious threat to your future well-being. 

Senator SESSIONS. Treatment is helpful to a lot of people, but a 

lot of people, it never takes and it is such a tragedy. If anybody 

has ever seen and known people who have gone through treatment, 

it costs them immeasurably. Some are able to beat the addiction, 

some are not. 

I visited a treatment center not long ago and the guy told me 

that with regard to a lot of these people, they will be in and out 

of here the rest of their lives and the only thing that will cure their 

addiction is death. Many do it by suicide; they do it be overdose. 

They end up going to jail. It is just a sad thing. 

So stopping people from trying drugs, reducing young people’s experimentation with drugs, as you presided over a 50-percent reduction, means you are going to have ultimately 50 percent fewer addicts. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. WALTERS. We hope so. I also want to make clear, though, 

that I share your concern about the dangers here. I think we can 

save more people from addiction, but it is not a substitute for stopping people going into the beginning because we know that if—I 

mean, this has been repeated over and over again—that if young 

people do not experiment with drugs by the time they reach roughly age 18 or 20, they are unlikely to try and then become a candidate for addiction later on. 

That is something we ought to be able to do as a society to take 

care of our young people in early parts of their lives. And if we do 

that, we are attentive to that, we don’t have all the consequences 

of drug addiction to deal with later. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, would you say that you are proud of the 

results that occurred during your tenure in the drug czar’s office? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, I am. 

Senator SESSIONS. And would this Nation have been better off if 

you had those same trends continued after you left office? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, I mean certainly. 

59

Senator SESSIONS. Drug use went up among high school seniors 

when you left that office immediately almost, did it not? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, but I want to be careful. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know you don’t want to get into that, but I 

want to get into that. 

Mr. WALTERS. But I want to be— Senator SESSIONS. President Clinton talked about ‘‘I wish I had 

inhaled.’’ He joked about it, he sent a mixed message. He slashed 

the drug czar’s office, and drug use started going up after 12 consecutive years of decline, culminating during your time there in 

which we achieved the greatest reduction of any period that occurred. I think that is the fact. If you can keep people from starting 

drugs, it is better than having treatment. 

Now, President Bush, I know, Senator Biden, cares about treatment, and I do too. He has got a $1.6 billion increase for treatment 

which you support, but I just don’t think we ought to overlook the 

combination of law enforcement, good education, and creating, as 

you said, the need to rebuild the cultural consensus against drug 

abuse which has been lost to a sad degree. We need to rebuild that 

and I think we can start seeing those use numbers go down. 

Do you believe it is possible that we can start seeing drug use 

numbers by high school students, teenagers, start going down 

again? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. I think in some cases you are seeing with the 

new national survey that younger people—the youngest age cohort 

is going down. 

I appreciate your kind words toward me. I want to be careful, 

though, because it is not just a matter of me, but I think it is fair. 

We worked with a lot of people, including people on this committee 

and the Congress, and we tried, I think, all of us, to empower people, some of whom are represented behind me from organizations 

that are working there. 

I don’t believe that I, or even the administration I served was the 

cause of this, but we have to not get in people’s way. And we did 

try to support them and I think one of the things I looked forward 

to, should the Senate agree to confirm me, was working with you 

and some of your colleagues up here. 

I mean, I have testified here with some of you in the past even 

after I left office when this topic was not in season and when people still were willing to fight for resources and attention, and try 

to push against what I think was a difficult environment. But I 

want to be clear that I don’t expect to have to, but I also would 

never expect to be able to do this alone and I am counting, if I am 

confirmed, on people like yourself and the other members of this 

committee to be as vigorous. And the President’s commitment here, 

I think, is also crucial in providing the level of support to give not 

only the resources, but the tone and cultural support for what 

needs to be done to get drug use down again to the levels we had 

before. 

Senator SESSIONS. I want to say that is correct. I know as a Federal prosecutor at the time, Senator Biden was the champion, with 

other members of this committee, improving the ability of those 

fighting the war on drugs to be successful, and it worked. I think 

my concern is we are drifting away from what worked, and I think 

60

it is ultimately the cultural challenge to keep the message that 

drug use is unacceptable. 

Within the last week, Senator Biden, I saw a promo for a sitcom 

in which one of the persons—this is the kind of promo that would 

be repeated over and over again: well, I don’t know why I did that; 

maybe I was high on speed. I think those are almost the exact 

words. That kind of thing has got to undermine this cultural consensus that drug use is not acceptable. Somehow you achieved that, 

you and Bill Bennett, to a good degree, and if you can reestablish 

that, I think you will see the numbers go down. 

I do believe that there a lot of things we can approve this drug 

effort in and I am open to that. I think we ought to narrow that 

gap between crack and powder sentences, and if nobody else is 

going to offer legislation to do it, I am. There are some other things 

we can do. I do believe in increased treatment, but the whole package—one is not hostile to the other; they all are part of the way 

to have victory in this effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Durbin? 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Walters. Mr. Walters, I have asked these questions I am about to ask you of everyone, from Democratic administrations, Republican administrations, since I have been on this 

committee for the last few years, and they reflect my genuine concerns about how the laws will be implemented by the people who 

are entrusted with that responsibility. 

I have asked these questions of Attorney General Ashcroft, Attorney General Reno, General McCaffrey and virtually everyone who 

has come before us. So they are not directed at you personally. 

They are things that are on my mind whenever we talk about drug 

policy, but I will have to say that some statements you have made 

prior to this hearing lead me to have greater concern about where 

you stand. 

The first one has to do with racial profiling. We have heard over 

and over from everyone that racial profiling has to be eradicated, 

that we have to put an end to it. Yet, if you look for the clearest 

illustration of racial profiling in America, it is in the enforcement 

of our drug laws, where we have a small percent of our population 

who are disproportionately arrested, convicted and imprisoned for 

drug crimes. And those are people of color, African Americans, Hispanic Americans. 

Now, what I have read from your writings is that you claim that 

this racial profiling is an urban myth. That troubles me because if 

you are entrusted with a multi-billion-dollar agency to guide the 

thinking about the enforcement of drug laws in our country and 

are not sensitive to this disproportionate treatment of minorities 

when it comes to drug crimes, that troubles me greatly. 

Have you changed your opinion? Do you still believe racial 

profiling in drug sentencing is an urban myth? 

Mr. WALTERS. Let me just approach it this way because I don’t 

understand racial profiling exactly as identical with the sentencing 

issue. I understood racial profiling to be the stopping or arresting 

61

or apprehending of individuals on the basis of a profile, whether or 

not there was any actual criminal activity or probable cause. 

Senator DURBIN. That is the point. 

Mr. WALTERS. I mean, I am not trying to avoid the question, 

but—

Senator DURBIN. Let me be very clear. 

Mr. WALTERS. Okay. 

Senator DURBIN. The State trooper that pulls a car over because 

he sees a person of color in it is guilty of racial profiling. When that 

person is then arrested and then is convicted by a court and then 

is incarcerated, the initial act of racial profiling has played itself 

all the way through the system. They sit in the cell because the 

initial focus was on a person of color. 

If we know that African Americans represent 12 percent of our 

population and 13 percent of drug users, how can we sit here and 

ignore the fact that 87 percent of the drug users who are not African American are not being arrested, are not being convicted and 

are not being incarcerated? 

The war on drugs is a war that is looking for people of color. Do 

you believe that is an urban myth? 

Mr. WALTERS. It was not my experience when I was in the Office 

that there was an intention—if anything, there was a contrary intention in regard to race. The goal that I think we have talked 

about prior to your arrival was that the original mandatory minimum sentencing in the Federal Government was to protect against 

what was then perceived to be an intention by Colombia suppliers 

to market crack into the inner city. 

At that time, Congressman Rangel and the Black Caucus in the 

House vigorously supported that legislation to help protect people 

in the inner city from what was thought to be the most dangerous 

and addictive substance we had ever faced as a part of the drug 

problem. 

I understand the concern about the application and the result of 

the law. I will say that my experience with the vast majority of 

people in law enforcement and in the criminal justice system is 

that they do not intend to be racially biased. They are as sensitive 

to the issue of the perception that there is this kind of bias in the 

system. I think most of them are working very hard. 

Most law enforcement personnel that I know, know what bias 

means. They have felt it personally. Whenever someone in law enforcement does something wrong and it is widely publicized, in the 

eyes and in the words of people that they see they are accused of 

being the bad cop or the bad prosecutor, too. So they know how corrosive, they know how dangerous that is. 

I think everyone, I presume, that you have asked this of that has 

been confirmed in the administration—most of the people I have 

ever worked with and are now either in the administration or out 

would say we need to work very hard to make sure the system is 

both fair and is perceived as fair. I have talked about a willingness, 

as a part of a review of drug policy, to work with members of this 

committee, the Attorney General, the President, who have talked 

about a need to review these laws. 

As I said to you when we met privately—I want to be frank here, 

too—my concern is in my experience working both with foundations 

62

and charitable donors and in Government is that the process not 

end up depriving people who already desperately would like protection for their children going to school, for their communities, in the 

same way that other parts of our society get that protection from 

the law enforcement protection to make their streets safe and their 

homes and communities safe. 

My experience being in those communities was that frankly those 

people would say, why can’t we get the same—why are there openair drug markets here, when they wouldn’t be tolerated where most 

of the better-off people live in the suburbs? And I think the answer 

to that question, as I tried to indicate earlier, is we not only have 

to provide law enforcement resources; we need to work to stabilize 

communities so that employment and housing—and it is not just 

everything has to be done, but what has to be done is effective linking of treatment resources. 

That is why I think there has been promise to things like community coalition programs that take the relevant institutions and 

stabilize a place that first has to have the open-air drug markets 

closed and keep it from being generation after generation of young 

black men in the inner city being sucked into the criminal justice 

system and being ground up. That is not what any American 

wants. 

It is not simply a law enforcement matter, although we have to 

make sure law enforcement is just. It is also a matter of bringing 

back lawful order and institutional integrity to communities 

throughout, especially those that have been hardest hit by drugs. 

Senator DURBIN. The point I am making, Mr. Walters, is this: 

You are talking about the enforcement of the law. First, I share 

your admiration and respect for the men and women in uniform 

who put their lives on the line every single day to protect us, all 

of us. And I think that it is incumbent on all of us as political leaders to work with them and try to develop policies that really do 

beat down the racial profiling which is undermining respect for the 

law in many segments of America. 

I have been in Chicago police cruisers and I have gone down the 

street and I have seen the open-air markets. I have seen the African American selling drugs, but I also notice the color of the buyers, the customers. They are white kids from the suburbs, and the 

people who are going to get arrested are not the white kids from 

the suburbs. That is what the statistics tell us. If we are going 

after this system in a fair-minded and even-handed way, everyone 

should be held accountable under the law and not one group picked 

out over others. 

I really need to satisfy in my mind whether you think what I 

have just said is a reality or a myth before your vote comes up on 

the floor. 

Mr. WALTERS. Let me answer another aspect to that as well as 

the central question. I have written and I have tried to provide 

some additional evidence as to why I think simply the use of figures capture the whole problem. And I have tried to explain—I 

don’t know the extent to which I have been able to do that—the 

background for some of the remarks I have made in the past. 

But I also think that we are all in agreement, or there is a wide 

consensus that it is counterproductive to use the criminal justice 

63

system to take users and incarcerate them for extended periods of 

time. I know I have been accused in some places of being for long 

jail terms for users. I have never been for long jail terms of users, 

and I don’t think that users get long jail terms now. I don’t think 

the data supports that. 

But I do think that early-level people involved in the trafficking 

and probably addictive use of drugs ought to be more vigorously diverted into programs that provide them treatment and more extended supervision to get their lives back together, like drug courts 

and other kinds of diversion programs. 

So I think part of the answer to this question is to change the 

mix on the ground in some places to provide proper sorting of people who need treatment help, rehabilitative help in appropriate settings, rather than the long-term incarceration. 

But I also have been candid in saying I don’t believe the frequently stated argument that there is a lot of people who are simply users who are serving extremely long jail terms because the 

system, I think, already makes a sorting effort in this regard and 

it is a disservice to the people working there to suggest otherwise. 

Can we do a better job? Do we need to do a better job? Yes, but 

it is not also going to be the ‘‘silver bullet’’ answer that if we get 

a proper mix of diversion programs we are not going to have to still 

enforce the law, because we are going to have to enforce the law, 

obviously. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you. 

John, you and I have been doing this a long time. I have changed 

some of my views. Is there any change in your thinking about how 

to deal with this drug problem that has occurred since we began 

this trek back in the first years of the Bush administration? 

I know we began it, both of us, earlier than that, but—I am 

sorry, Sam. I beg your pardon. It was just pointed out you haven’t 

questioned yet. I apologize. I yield to you. I apologize. I am sorry. 

I didn’t see you there. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very 

kind. 

Mr. Walters, welcome to the committee. I am delighted you are 

up for this office. You have got an impressive background and impressive resume. I have got two questions areas that I want to 

focus on, if I could. One is on teen drug use and the other is on 

methamphetamines, which is a big problem in my home State. 

In teen drug use, I was looking back through the record of when 

you were in the drug czar’s office before and there was a very impressive reduction in teen drug use that took place during that period of time. People are pointing out that most adult users and virtually all adult addicts of illegal drugs experimented with them as 

teens. So if somehow you can get them through those teen years 

without experimenting, you are limiting your group of people that 

is likely to use drugs for the rest of their lives, or worst still, even 

addicted to them. 

Your record in the drug czar’s office between 1985 and 1992 

showed that teen use of all drugs dropped by 60 percent and regular teen use of cocaine dropped by 78 percent, which I found an 

64

extraordinary achievement and a cause for hope that Federal policies really can have a difference and have an impact. 

As you look at that number and as you contemplate going into 

this office, what are the key areas of policies and practices that you 

think contributed to those numbers that I am hopeful, if approved, 

you will use in the office this time around? 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, Senator. I think the basis is the establishment and maintenance of a consensus about the danger and the 

unacceptability of drug use in society. I think the bringing together 

of key institutions so that that is not just empty rhetoric, that we 

have both national leaders but also that our institutions of health 

care, education and law enforcement are working together, and 

supported in the effort to convey that in the environment that 

young people feel is happening. 

They are acutely aware and sensitive to adults saying one thing, 

but not meaning it, or saying one thing and doing something else. 

What we had was a period of time when there was, I think, a 

greater visibility of adult leadership in the Nation, as well as in 

communities, making clear that young people should not, and 

adults did not use drugs, and that it was unacceptable. We need 

to rebuild that. 

I also think that there was more support, as I have said earlier, 

for the people working in this field effectively. I think we have 

more people working in the field, frankly, now. They are more organized. We have learned a lot over those years, with parents groups, 

community coalitions, law enforcement and treatment providers 

working in teams with critical institutions. We need to do more on 

this. 

I do think there is a lot more to build on, but what we have to 

do, and what I have heard from people in the last several months 

is a great desire to have a clear and consistent voice from our national institutions that makes this more of a clear priority for 

young people. 

There has been some drift. There has been talk about should we 

legalize drugs. There has been a greater fashion and kind of joking 

about drug use in the media and in entertainment. No one wants 

to be humorless here, but I do think it is grossly misleading to target this kind of message on young people and to therefore not make 

clear to them the real dangers of addiction. We see them in everyday in everything from child abuse, to broken families, to crime, to 

lives that are wasted, to kids dropping out of school. 

There is a tendency to want to pretend as if, I think by the people who make the joke, that that is not a reality. And that is really 

educating kids with a misguided view that this is not a serious 

matter when they start flirting with, experimenting with, or walking down a path that for all too many of them can get them in an 

situation of dependency and destruction. 

Senator BROWNBACK. That just seems to me to be such a key 

issue to really set that standard clear for teens because if you could 

catch it at that point or stop it at that point, we can stop our problems from being magnified so much more later on. 

In my home State, methamphetamine is a major issue and a 

major problem. Last year, law enforcement seized over 700 labs in 

65

the State of Kansas. This year, we are on track to do even more 

when this year is completed. 

Have you given much thought to this problem and how you 

would be addressing it? 

Mr. WALTERS. Not as much as I would like to and would be able 

to do after consulting with folks, if the Senate sees fit to confirm 

me. I think the extent of this problem obviously has emerged since 

I left office, and the severity we see today. 

I have been encouraged, though, in the conversations I have had 

that I do think that again the HIDTA program, which was small 

when we started the Office, has been a helpful program in bringing 

Federal, State and local law enforcement resources together to respond more quickly to some of these, especially in rural areas or 

in areas where the resources both for cleanup of toxic chemicals as 

well as simply law enforcement and treatment resources in some 

cases have not been available when small areas get overrun. 

This is incredibly fluid. It is obviously capable of being a market 

and manufacture that can have very small, very quickly moved, 

very quickly developed suppliers. And I think we also need to do 

a better job of explaining the scope and dangers of the problem to 

the American public that it has now grown, it is now visible. 

There is a tendency, I think, here to be a little bit slow. I also 

think there is a sensible tendency to not make every new drug or 

trend the top danger because people get weary of that, and I think 

it is calling ‘‘wolf’’ when you shouldn’t. But I do think that is not 

the case here and I don’t believe we have the understanding yet 

in the public mind of exactly how extensive, dangerous, what the 

growth has been and it is more serious. 

So we need to put more attention on it, but the specifics of how 

you would address it I would reserve to the kind of conversations— I mean, I would intend to have them with members of the committee and Congress, as well as with State and local officials that 

are dealing with both supply and demand issues out there. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It is a key issue for us. I hope we are able 

to move the nomination forward aggressively and I think you are 

going to do a wonderful job in that position, given the past record 

of the successes that you have had there. We need to really redouble this effort of drug use and getting on top of that in this country. 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Senator. 

John, would you move HIDTA out of ONDCP? 

Mr. WALTERS. My inclination now would not to. I don’t think that 

is a likelihood. I do think that as we expand some of these programs—and I would like to be able to consider, with the consultation of Congress if I were confirmed, expanding some of these programs perhaps significantly as a way of delivering resources, not 

only the HIDTA program in the Office, but, of course, we have the 

ad campaign, we have the community coalitions, we have some 

other programs that are run by the Office. 

And there have been, as you know, GAO investigations and reports about the proper management and staffing of these and 

whether the Office has the expertise or should have the lead for 

some of these. I do think that with—again, I don’t think this is 

66

something where there is any need for any kind of conflict over, but 

I do think that we need to improve the staffing of some of these 

programs and maybe either create a cooperative arrangement with 

other agencies or expand those that already exist for contract and 

grant management, or in some cases look at other ways of delivering the resources and monitoring and managing them so that we 

don’t have some of the problems of the past. 

In some ways, it has grown. When I left the Office, it was roughly 145 people. It essentially had the HIDTA program, which was 

smaller, but it did policy, budget and the coordination job. Now, it 

is $500 million in discretionary funds, as you well know, and it still 

has about 140 people and it is supposed to be doing what it did before, plus all these discretionary grants. 

I know people work hard there. I am actually more of a champion of bureaucrats, I know, than is common. I have worked well 

with career Federal civil servants for most of my career in Government and I admire them and they work very hard. But I think we 

have got to look at whether we are going to need relief, especially 

if we are going to expand some of those. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, prior to this you have had a rational position that said, I assume, because there were so few people relative 

to the grant authority, that, without reading all your quotes back 

to you—I hope they don’t read my quotes back to me someday, but 

you did at one point think that the grant authority should be 

turned back to the appropriate agencies not within the shop that 

may become your shop. 

Are you saying now, which is a legitimate thing, either we should 

turn these programs back or we are going to increase your staffing, 

one of the two? Is that realistically what we are faced with from 

your perspective? 

Mr. WALTERS. It may be possible to expand the support provided 

by other agencies for a part of the grant program. I want to be 

clear on this point because I think these programs are central to 

the mission of the Office and the overall effort. It is not a substitute for what is done in HHS or Justice. You understand what 

I am saying here, but the integrity and fidelity to purpose and effectiveness of the program is first and foremost. Any change in 

staffing, I think, has to be obviously and rationally designed to 

make those work. 

Also, they are all programs that provide resources to people out 

in the country to do the real work. We have to consult with them. 

You created the Office. You know it is not just a requirement or 

a hoop. The Office can’t work without that kind of consultation because it can’t sit back and think of things and tell other people to 

do them. It has to be able to work with the knowledge that people 

in the field have of what is going to work. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, that is one of the reasons we have the shop. 

I have been maybe chairman or ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee too long, but you are sounding like a State Department guy in that answer. 

It seems to me, and I think this is logical, you point out that the 

amount of the grant authority, the responsibility given to ONDCP 

for programs like drug-free community support, the youth antidrug media campaign, HIDTA programs, counter-drug technology 

67

assessment, all programs that the Congress rightly or wrongly—I 

think rightly—thought should be funded, like HIDTA for dealing 

with the problem in your State, which I might add when we were 

back in those days I wrote a report saying ice is coming and it was 

coming in your way, and no one wanted to listen to it at the time—

it wasn’t made a priority because guess what? They were doing it 

in vans, mixing the stuff in vans on the thoroughfares and the freeways in California and it got too hot for them, so they moved to 

areas where it would work. They went and polluted Montana, and 

then Montana came down on them and they moved into the Midwest, Iowa first and then your State. And it is all predictable. 

I have got more bad news for you: heroin is coming to your high 

school like you have never seen before in your life. I wrote a report 

two years ago. No one paid any attention to it, no one wants to 

hear it, but it is coming. It is so pure they can now smoke it. It 

is the way in which crack got introduced in those communities. 

And John is right about it. 

It was two guys, a guy named—I won’t mention his name again, 

but a guy, a senior black Congressman in the House and a senior 

white Senator here, me, who were the guys that came up with that 

crack penalty. The intention of the crack penalty was to try to save 

African-American communities. All the experts we consulted told 

us that this was what we had to do. 

The reason crack multiplied so greatly is that you found that 

prior to crack, there were more male addicts than female addicts. 

That became a great equalizer; it became one-to-one. Why? Women 

didn’t have to snort that stuff and distort their nostrils and have 

their eyes blurry and all those things they didn’t like to have happen to them. They could smoke it, and they could do it real quickly 

and get a high. All of a sudden, we had within a matter of five 

years as many women addicts as we had men addicts. 

Now, the same thing is happening with heroin. They are going 

to get these high school kids using heroin because, guess what? 

You can smoke it. It is over 90-percent pure. It is what they called 

chasing the dragon back in the 1910–1920 era. It is so pure you 

can smoke it and you literally follow the smoke and inhale it. It 

is that pure. During the Nixon administration when I first got 

here, we were talking about heroin from Mexico with 6-percent purity. 

So it is coming and they are giving it to these high school kids. 

They are giving it to them to get them going. And if you think you 

have got a problem getting someone off of these other drugs, you 

get a poly-abuser who is a heroin abuser and you are talking a long 

time. 

My point, John, is I know you know all that. My point is that 

we have these programs now and you have made an accurate observation about them. So what are you going to propose as a solution? 

The solution can’t be I am going to keep the same number of people I have and I am going to be able to administer it very, very 

well. It is either going to be I have got to increase my administrative capacity or I have got to move the programs out. So what are 

you saying? That is what I am trying to get to. 

68

Mr. WALTERS. Senator, I understand, but I also want to be fair 

to the consultation issue here. I have not been able to talk to the 

program people. I have not been able to talk systematically to the 

people who receive these grants and work with them. I have talked 

to some people in those regards, but to be fair I would need to 

have—my intention would be the following. 

I have no intention at this point in time, nor do I know of one 

in the administration, to move these programs out of ONDCP. I 

would like, though—I think it is incumbent upon the Office to deal 

with some of the management issues that have been raised in past 

GAO reports and in other committee reports about the management of these programs; also, as a part of a review of the drug 

strategy, to look at the shape of the future of these programs that 

we would like to propose. 

But to do that, I also need to be able to talk to the program people, the people outside and inside Government, you and your staff 

and other members of Congress and their staff that are relevant 

here. These are very effective, very important programs, and not 

just because somebody says they are effective. 

But I believe that the media program, the community coalitions 

program, the HIDTA program, the CTAC program are all programs 

that have produced front-page results, as you know, and not always 

recognized for the effort. So I am not, and I don’t think I have ever 

indicated that I would be willing to damage the programs. But in 

order to maintain the integrity of the programs and the proper 

management, you are right, something has to give. There has to be 

some different people or structure. 

Senator BIDEN. No, I am not suggesting you would damage the 

programs. I suggest we have a difference of point of view as to 

where the programs are most likely to get the most attention and 

be administered with the greatest efficacy. 

When we wrote this law, one of the reason we put some of these 

programs with your office is so that you would have control because 

we lacked the faith that other institutions, great institutions, 

would have the time or interest. It is not among their highest priorities. 

You are going to cure cancer at NIH. At HHS, you want to be 

able to have an anthrax vaccine. That is going to trump HIDTA. 

Over at the Justice Department, putting the program in the Justice 

Department that relates to—and I am not sure you think it is a 

good program—relates to reaching out to teens about not using 

drugs—if you put that over in Justice, it is going to get trumped 

by task forces to go after the Mafia and it is going to get trumped 

by other things. 

So the reason they were put in your office was that it would be 

the only thing on your agenda. So let’s not make—I know you don’t 

mean to, but I want to make sure there is a philosophic reason 

they were put there. I don’t have any doubt you support the program, or some of the programs, HIDTA, for example. I don’t doubt 

you support it. My argument would be if you transfer it, you dilute 

it because no one is going to take as good care of it and view it 

as high a priority as it is within your shop. So that is where we 

may have a philosophic difference. 

69

So, understand, if you are confirmed and if you go to transfer it, 

you are going to have me all over you. That doesn’t mean I will 

win, but this is going to be holy war if you want to do that because 

I think the best way for it to be effective in the Midwest is if it 

is administered by you, not administered by Justice, not administered by HHS, not administered by anybody else. 

I know you know this, but a lot of people don’t know this who 

don’t spend as much time in this as you or I do where the philosophic ground maybe doesn’t meet here. That is the reason why I 

was asking you about whether or not you would transfer 93 percent 

of your budget out of your budget, because 93 percent of your budget is this grant authority. That is 93 percent of your budget. 

I don’t know what heft or clout you have. Once you transfer that, 

I am not quite sure where you go from there. That is the only point 

I want to make. I understand about efficacy and efficiency, but it 

also goes to who has the greatest interest in making sure that the 

programs, in fact, function well. 

Anyway, I don’t want to argue with you about it, just so you understand my view. 

Mr. WALTERS. Senator, let me just say I don’t believe we have 

a philosophical difference about this. 

Senator BIDEN. Okay. Now, one of the things that I have 

thought—and I may be wrong about this; obviously, I may be 

wrong. My sense is that one of the reasons why the tone you take 

when talking about treatment—let me just put it that way—is different than the tone that Kleber takes—and it is different, by the 

way—or that I take or that other people take—and there are a lot 

of people who agree with you on tone as well as substance—is that 

I get the sense that you think if we talk too much about treatment 

working, we are going to provide a front-end crutch to the non-user 

who is considering using who can say to himself or herself, well, 

you know, they tell me this is dangerous and they tell me this 

could become addictive and they tell me this is bad, but, you know, 

if I try it and if I get addicted, I know I can get cured because I 

can get treatment. 

Is that part of your thinking? I don’t mean is that the dominant 

theme, but I mean does that play in anywhere when you talk about 

this liberal society that views the—I forget the phraseology, but 

you know it better than I do. Is that part of it at all? 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you for letting me respond to that. That is 

not my view. I have in the course of my writings, as your staff may 

have seen—I don’t expect anyone to read all my writings—not even 

my mother—but I have been critical in the course of discussing policy of all aspects of drug control policy. And I haven’t met anybody 

who works in these fields, frankly, that doesn’t think we can’t do 

a better job and has their own recommendations for reform. 

I support treatment. We had a little bit of a discussion of this 

when you were out of the room, so I want to be fair. My recollection 

of the fights, as I understood them, both inside the executive 

branch and with the Congress about funding and about resources 

was that we weren’t bashful, and that I recognized that we did not 

always meet the proposals that you had. I still have a complete collection of your drug control strategies. 

70

Senator BIDEN. By the way, I am not suggesting I was right 

about it all, okay? So let’s make that clear. 

Mr. WALTERS. I want to be clear, and this is something that has 

been frustrating in the period of nomination when I can’t speak 

publicly, and I appreciate this opportunity to do so. 

I support treatment. I have supported treatment. I have worked 

hard to make programs like the capacity expansion program work, 

to build the initial—at a time when, quite honestly, Senator, I 

think we actually were in more agreement, when there were big 

parts of the Federal Government that wanted to talk about treatment but not really deliver the resources, or didn’t really want to 

implement the programs effectively or wanted to implement them, 

apropos of your comment about where the programs are in 

ONDCP, and say, oh, yes, sure, give us the money over here and 

we will put it in another part of the department where we want 

the resources to go. That is why I said I don’t think we have a philosophical difference on that issue. 

I support treatment. What I have partly tried to write about, and 

obviously not clearly enough in some ways or we wouldn’t be having this discussion, is everybody says we are for treatment, prevention, law enforcement and research. But as you know, because we 

sat in a room like this with less people behind us and talked about 

this in hearings, they don’t work that way. 

They believe there is one thing, or they don’t really care about 

the other thing. I genuinely, and I know you do, believe that you 

have to make the parts work, and the hard part of the job is to 

maintain that coherence between the parts that have to work here, 

to get the law enforcement system to divert people into treatment, 

to help sort the treatment system to help go out and work with 

people that need the resources. If they need outpatient, that is one 

thing. If they need residential treatment or if they need after-care, 

that is another, or need mental health services. 

You and I understand that the tendency to talk about this for 

shorthand that we have to have in a public debate masks the very 

serious problem in managing and apportioning and regulating the 

resources so that we get people treated and don’t just walk away 

and say, well, we are for treatment, so we have solved that problem. The same is true of, I think, some of the other parts of this 

problem. 

But if I have left the impression that I don’t believe in efficacy 

or don’t support treatment, I did not intend to mean that. That is 

not my view, and I think my work inside the administration, and 

frankly my work, the limited amount I have with donors now in 

the private sector—most of that is in regard to treatment programs, frankly. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, it is not only me, as you know, that has 

wondered about your notions about treatment. I will ask unanimous consent—it is easy to do, since I am the only one here—that 

a letter from the president of the Betty Ford Center be entered in 

the record. 

I will just read one partial paragraph from it. It says, ‘‘Mrs. Ford 

and I are convinced that Mr. Walters may not have the confidence 

in the treatment and prevention strategies that we believe are necVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
71

essary for the creation and implementation of a balanced and 

thoughtful to U.S. drug policy.’’ I am not going to question you on it, but I will make a copy 

available to you. 

There are other folks you have worked with who—well, let me 

put it this way. One of the things that we used to debate and I 

wonder if we could raise it—we debated it lot with Bill Bennett as 

well—in the days when you guys were running the show under 

Bennett and I used to raise this issue of treatment, you all kept 

talking about diverting people to treatment. 

I used to always point out that there are enough people in every 

city in America who walk in voluntarily every single day, not having been diverted at all, who are committing crimes, because they 

have to commit crimes to maintain their habit—it doesn’t justify 

the crime—who walk in, raise their hand and say take me. You 

know, like ‘‘take me before I kill again.’’ Take me. And they are 

told in New York City and my little city to come back in a week, 

a month or six months. 

So this notion that we have to divert people into treatment—we 

do; it is a good thing to divert people into treatment. That is what 

the drug courts do. That is what we are doing with in-prison treatment programs, et cetera. We used to have this debate that, well, 

our effort has to be to divert. 

Don’t we have to just make available the good treatment because 

there are so many people out there seeking it? 

Mr. WALTERS. In many places, yes, I think that is true. 

Senator BIDEN. Can you name me a big city in America over 

300,000 people that is able to handle those who voluntarily walk 

in the door on the basis that if they come, there is treatment available for them? For the record, check it out. I would be surprised 

and pleased if you could name me a single city in America that can 

do that. I sure can’t think of a rural area. 

The rate of increased drug use is greater in rural America than 

it is in the inner city. And there is a simple reason for that. I 

mean, Aromingo Avenue is already occupied in Philadelphia. All 

the drug dealers have it. You go and try to get a corner there and 

you got shot dead. I mean, literally, you get shot dead. 

So why not go to Harrington, Delaware? You know, you don’t 

have to compete with anybody. Why not go to Aberdeen, Maryland? 

Why not go to these small cities and towns? And there is no treatment available in those places. All my friends and your friends behind you are cops. If you ask them if they could increase their law 

enforcement force by 5 percent or they could increase the number 

of treatment facilities they had in the district they cover by 25 percent, which would they take, I will lay you 8 to 5 they would all 

take the increased treatment facilities. That is all I get from my 

cops in rural areas: Joe, I got no place to put these folks. There is 

no place for them to go. 

So talk to me about that. I mean, what about that? Are we short 

on treatment facilities for people? 

Mr. WALTERS. Sure. I think that is part of the reason why the 

President proposed as an initial start the increase in the treatment 

program and directed the assessment for both the delivery of those 

resources, but also the shaping of a more comprehensive system, 

72

with the Federal Government taking a lead here that I believe is 

unprecedented from any President at the beginning of this term 

with that kind of commitment. 

Now, is that going to solve all the problems? Of course, it is not 

going to solve all the problems, but it is a start that we can begin 

to work with. I think the conversations I have had with some of 

the people behind me that are not cops but are working in treatment-providing—they support that and they support the desire to 

deploy those resources with the necessary focus on needs and to 

work on the problem of providing those resources in rural areas or 

widely diffused areas where it is much harder to get the kind of 

especially multi-modality treatment and other kinds of services in 

tandem when you have people that need them and their recovery 

is going to depend on a multiplicity of modalities, from mental 

health to different kinds of treatment, whether it is outpatient or 

residential or assistance with recovery in the community. So we 

have to also do this in a way that looks at the contours of the need 

and tries to provide resources that are deployable by the people 

that are facing these needs. 

Senator BIDEN. Can we talk about what constitutes successful 

treatment for a minute? I have really spent a lot of my adult life 

trying to figure this out. My observation has been that we hold as 

a measure of success the treatment community to a standard that 

we hold very few other people. 

For example, we don’t hold the education system in America, notwithstanding all our new focus on education and testing, to a success rate that requires a 90-percent success rate. In a number of 

inner-cities, the graduation rate of people when they start school 

and finish school is less than 50 percent. We don’t go shut the 

schools down. In most schools in America, it averages about 70 percent. We don’t shut the schools down. 

Yet, when I talk about treatment and measure success on that 

they have been drug-free for 5 years, and you get numbers that are 

in the 40-, 50- and 60-percent range, that program is declared a 

failure. I bet most of the audience out there would think it is a failure. If I said you have got a drug treatment program that 50 percent of the people stayed drug-free for 5 years, they would say, oh, 

that is a failure, shut it down. Why waste taxpayers’ money on 

that? 

Yet, if I said that about schools in your area, shut it down, and 

by the way, have those kids go to no school, just have them wander 

the streets, I wonder how many of the folks out in the audience 

would say, yes, I guess we should do that. Or on Defense Department over-spending, you know, if you go above 30 percent of your 

budget, shut down the operation. We wouldn’t go very far. 

So I am confused by what people mean by and what you mean 

by—I am not confused by you. I am confused by what you would 

view as a successful treatment program. Is success only measured 

in that once the person goes through the treatment program and 

finishes it, they never again encounter an illicit substance, or is 

there some other measure? 

One other point I will make to you and then I want to hear your 

general response. I have argued for years that a program that 

keeps someone in treatment for six months—and I used to know 

73

this stuff cold when I did it every single day; I don’t do it every 

single day anymore. Back 5, 6 years ago, the numbers, if my memory serves me correctly, were if you are in a treatment program for 

6 months—by the way, the average addicted person in America—

and we are talking about roughly 4 million hard-core users. 

If you have got those 4 million hard-core users—and you hear 

numbers that vary—they have to commit somewhere between 90 

and 150, depending on whose number you pick, offenses a year, 

mostly felonies, to keep their habits going. 

The way I have kind of looked at this, in addition to whether or 

not we cure people of their problem, is that if you have someone 

in treatment—and I forget the exact numbers now, but my recollection was that they were committing while in treatment 85 percent 

fewer crimes than they would if they were out of treatment, even 

though they weren’t cured. 

Now, I used to always say to my cop friends, how many cops do 

you need to calculate the ability to reduce the number of crimes 

committed by an addict by 85 percent? And if, in fact, you put that 

addict in jail, you are talking about a $30,000-a-year bill to keep 

them in jail. Isn’t it just smarter, even if it is having them tread 

water, to have all these folks in treatment? 

While they are in treatment, it is about one-fifth the cost of putting them in prison and they are committing only—I will correct 

the record on this, but considerably fewer crimes. So doesn’t it just 

make sense, even if you didn’t want to do anything else, to just put 

them all in treatment and vastly increase the treatment programs, 

even the ones that aren’t working so well, and get everybody into 

treatment who is out there, everybody who puts their hand up and 

says I want to be in treatment? 

I mean, if the numbers are correct, it is well over 50 percent 

fewer crimes they commit while in treatment and it costs considerably less than—I think it is a fifth of what it costs to put them in 

jail. So why doesn’t that just make sense even if we weren’t curing 

them? Why wouldn’t that make sense as public policy? 

Mr. WALTERS. I think expanding treatment does make sense. 

Senator BIDEN. I mean, significantly expanding treatment. 

Mr. WALTERS. I am not even opposed to significantly expanding 

treatment. You know, what level we are talking about I am not 

precisely sure, but—

Senator BIDEN. I am not either. 

Mr. WALTERS. One reservation about what you have said, and I 

think this is consistent with most of the people I have talked to, 

from Dr. Kleber, to Dr. Barthwell, the President’s nominee to be 

the new deputy, demand reduction, to some of the people I introduced at the beginning that are here. 

I think success rates, to get to the first part of your question 

first, ought to be measured, and we tried to do this when we were 

in office, by a scale that looks at the condition of the individual 

when they come into treatment so that we are comparing people 

with similar problems when we look at the results of the treatment 

they are receiving. 

Secondly, I think that partly to sustain this—you know how hard 

this is in Congress and you know how hard it is out in localities 

74

for the contribution—that our goal is always going to have to be 

we would like to get people in recovery and keep them in recovery. 

But we are also a country, I think, that does believe in this case 

not only in second, third and fourth chances, but fifth and sixth 

chances. What we don’t want is a demoralizing of the system where 

it can be characterized as, well, we cycle them through a program 

where the quality is low and the resources aren’t there, when we 

should be putting them in the best program we can have, which is 

not to say unless you have the top of the line you shouldn’t give 

treatment. 

We have to be able to make prudent judgments about this, but 

I think now the criminal justice system, and more the public health 

system, wants to put more people into treatment. It does not want 

to incarcerate drug addicts, and I don’t think the system does as 

much of that as some of the critics say. Now, I have been involved 

in the Office and privy to all the discussions. 

Senator BIDEN. I am not even making the argument, John. I am 

not making the Durbin argument here. I am not making the argument that we are incarcerating people who shouldn’t be incarcerated. That is not what I am saying. I am just making an argument 

about my physical safety and the safety of my wife in the parking 

lot of the Acme tonight, in Wilmington, Delaware, when she finishes teaching school. That is what I am talking about. 

I am talking about when you have somebody, there is one of two 

things. You are either going to be in prison or in treatment, because when they are on the street they are a menace to my wife, 

they are a menace to my daughter, they are a menace to my sons. 

So even though it may be a disease of the brain, it doesn’t matter. 

If they hit my wife in the head to take her purse, whether their 

brain is diseased and/or their morals are non-existent, I don’t give 

a darn. They hit my wife in the head, so I have got a problem, I 

have got a problem. So how do we deal with that? 

One of things that I think we waste a lot of time on here—not 

you and I, but we in the community that debates all this—is we 

waste a lot of time on looking for this silver bullet. We are recycling people through the prison system. We say, well, we have no 

problem with that. We recycle them through. 

If I am not mistaken, the number used to be somewhere in excess of 250,000 people a year walk through a gate with a $10 bus 

ticket coming out of a State prison to get back to where they came 

from after having served their time addicted as they walk out the 

gate, as they walk out the gate. In other words, they have served 

their time, but they had drugs available in prison. They are addicted as they walk through the gate. They get on the bus and they 

are an accident waiting to happen. 

So I just wonder why we don’t broaden the discussion here about 

treatment in terms of the efficacy of even the bad programs relative to what the cost of the alternatives are and relative to how 

it increases my safety. 

If God came down and sat in the middle of the table and said, 

Joe, what would you like, I would say, well, I would like you to 

take that piece of the brain out that allows people to be addicted, 

that gets them hooked. But, second, God, I will tell you I have another one. I have got just a little request for you. Take every single 

75

drug addict in the State of Delaware right now and tomorrow 

morning have them go into treatment, every single one, the hardest 

hard-core. I know by that act alone I have reduced crime in my city 

by a lot. 

Even, God, if you are going to recycle everyone that has to be recycled in 6 months, it is cheaper for me. I don’t have to spend as 

much money in the prison system. I eliminate some of my social 

problems, creating this class distinction that exists now, because 

more blacks are in prison than whites relative to their use, and so 

on. 

I wonder why we don’t ever talk about it that way, why this is 

the only area—and I am going to yield to my friend from Alabama 

now, but the only area where we apply a moral judgment. I tried 

to figure for the longest time why people wouldn’t be willing—if 

God could absolutely come down and guarantee to everyone what 

I just said was absolutely true, we would still have resistance. And 

I think the resistance is sort of our Protestant work ethic kind of 

notion, which is not a bad thing. It is a good thing; it has made 

this country. 

But it is sort of like, you know, why should I take my money out 

of my pocket to help that guy over there who made a conscious decision before his brain was affected by the drug to go ahead and 

use this drug, causing him to do bad things to me and my family? 

I come back and say, well, because he will do fewer bad things. 

But I want to punish him. I can’t blame people. I want to punish 

him, I want to punish him. I say, well, the punishment part isn’t 

working too well. It is costing you a lot more money and it is not 

working too well. Do you know the reason why those long sentences 

work? Guess what? When they are in jail, they can’t hurt anybody. 

That is not a bad thing. So with these long sentences, you are in 

jail. 

So I used to always say you do one of two things with these 4 

million addicts, or one of three things. You go out and shoot them, 

shoot them dead, so they are gone and they can’t do anything bad 

to anybody anymore, including themselves. You lock them up forever, or you figure out how to reduce their dependency. You try to 

cure them or reduce their dependency. 

I don’t know what other options we have. These folks are already 

beyond the pale. There are 4 million of them and they are committing a couple hundred crimes a year. That is a lot of crimes. So to 

me, in a sense, John, the more I deal with this, the simpler it gets 

to me. I don’t know if that is the first sign of real ignorance that 

it is getting simple to me, but I don’t know why we never discuss 

treatment in the context of when you are in treatment, you are not 

committing crimes, or at least as many. Isn’t that all by itself a rationale? 

You can respond if you would like. You don’t have to, to my little 

diatribe here, and I yield to my friend from Alabama, who engages 

in diatribes like me and that is why I like him. 

Mr. WALTERS. If I can just say one thing in that regard, and it 

is not at all to capture everything that you were getting at here, 

but what my goal was, and I think the colleagues I was honored 

to work with when I was in the Office, was to try to bring some 

structure to tying what we did and what the results were to central 

76

principles—I think the central principle here is use; crime is obviously related to this, and the costs—and to tie these back to what 

we are asked to put in the system, how people can make a legitimate judgment about is the system producing real results and 

what are they. 

That is why I said earlier what I did about over-promising. I 

think there is a tendency even in treatment to not be realistic. In 

my experience, a 50-percent success rate for a random treatment 

program is outstanding. Five years drug-free is outstanding. If we 

even had the existing number of programs that were able to perform at that level, I think we would be in a different situation now. 

I would be happy to check that. 

So I don’t have unrealistic demands here, but I do think that 

part of the support for this is to gain the public support and the 

support of national leaders at all levels. And I know private people 

have done this, but I think we still have a lot to do about what is 

really being achieved, what is realistic, and what are the results. 

And if we can make that case, I think everybody wants solutions 

to this. They don’t want to see people continually addicted. They 

know that drugs and crimes are the central destroyer of innocent 

and disadvantaged people’s lives in this country. What they want 

to know is, is it really making a difference? 

And you are right. Maybe it is and they don’t understand that, 

but that is where we have to try to reach a consensus and then 

stand together, I would hope, and make that a matter of common 

public understanding and support. If we can do that, I am not saying we can just revolutionize everything overnight, but we will 

make headway that is most important. 

But we have to tie what we do in supply, what we do in demand, 

what we do in prevention and treatment to standards that people 

say—too many times, as you know, these discussions come down to 

are you really personally committed to this as an objective, and 

everybody’s personal commitment doesn’t necessarily easily transfer to other people. 

We want to be hard-headed and pragmatic about this. This produces results. These are the consequences of these results. You 

ought to have more confidence in the people that are delivering 

these services than we currently do, and this is how we can help 

them and this is what we can expect as an outcome. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, if you do that, that is great. As you will observe, with all the documents I have thrust upon you over the 

years, you have never once heard me use the phrase ‘‘war on 

drugs,’’ not one single time, because it is over-promising when you 

talk about a war on drugs. 

Number two, I would make the observation that I bet none of 

you know anyone who is over the age of 25 who doesn’t have a family member, a neighbor, a friend or a coworker who has a son, 

daughter, husband, wife, nephew, niece that doesn’t have a drug 

problem. I have never known one single one of those persons who 

hasn’t said to whomever they are talking to, their friend, or to me 

how can I get my child, my friend, my neighbor in treatment? 

Whether they are blue-collar or they are white-collar, whether 

they are princes or whether they are princes, they all immediately 

77

say I have got to get my kid to treatment. So I think there is more 

of a consensus out there than you think. 

And the last point I will make, and I promise I won’t say another 

thing on this, is the good news for both of us when we started this 

little undertaking back in the 1990s was when you asked the 

American people what was the single biggest problem they faced, 

they said drugs. So that communicated to every member of the 

Congress, every member of the Senate, and I could have gone out, 

and I did, and asked for more money than you wanted, forced 

money on you you didn’t want and was able to get everybody to 

vote for it and the President would sign it. 

The same with the crime bill. When I wrote the crime bill, that 

was the number one thing on everybody’s mind. Then violent crime 

went down 6 to 8.5 percent per year the last 7 years during, I 

might add, the Clinton administration. You know, you give him 

credit for the other stuff going up and you have got to give him 

credit for the crime going down. You can’t pick and choose. Do you 

know what I mean? It is called the principled rationale for something. So, you know, they are responsible for drugs going up and 

violent crime coming down, okay? 

Now, do you know what the problem here is? This guy and I disagree, but we agree on law enforcement stuff. We have trouble getting them to fund crime on the floor now. These don’t understand 

that it is like cutting grass. They think because we have got crime 

down now, we don’t have to spend as much money. What it really 

means if we have got to spend more money, not less, to get it down. 

It is like cutting grass. I cut my grass in the middle of the summer and it looks great. These guys around this shop that I work 

in say the grass is cut, get rid of the lawn mower; you don’t need 

it anymore. Crime and drugs are like cutting grass; you have got 

to do it every single day. You have got to keep spending money on 

it. But around this place where we work, and among Presidents, 

former and probably future Presidents, that, hey, we have got that 

problem taken care of, let’s move on. And it is the exact opposite. 

So part of our problem we are going to have here is we are going 

to even have trouble getting money, I suspect, for what you agree 

we need more money for, what the President says we need more 

money for, and what most experts say we need more money for. It 

is going to be a battle. By the way, we cut the COPS program. We 

cut the funding for these other programs now because I guess the 

grass looks good now. But I want to tell you a lot of weeds are on 

their way. 

I just think we have got to have a better consensus among those 

of us who stay in this, like the Senator from Alabama and myself 

and you and others, day in and day out about what we mean by 

success, what we mean by an adequate treatment, and what we 

mean when we say that we are committed to the idea of increased 

treatment. 

The thing I am not even going to ask you about now and I am 

going to submit questions to you on is how do we stop people in 

the first place. I haven’t figured that one out. Moral disapprobation 

is a big, big deal, and societal attitudes a big deal, the single biggest reason why I think drug consumption goes down. 

78

By the way, even in the last administration we were down from 

25 million users to 15 million users. That is 10 million down; up 

with teens, down overall. That happened in the last 8 years, I 

might add. So that is down, but how do we get it down further? 

I support DARE, but DARE is not enough. As I matter of fact, I 

dare say we have got to do a heck of a lot more with DARE to 

make it work better. 

So I have questions about what your ideas are. I don’t expect an 

answer, a silver bullet. I expect an opinion or view as to what you 

think those things are to keep these kids from getting into the 

crime and drug stream in the first place. It is pretty tough stuff, 

but I think part of it is, day in, day out, keeping the pressure on 

the entertainment industry, keeping the pressure on ourselves, 

keeping the pressure on parents and educating parents. 

Again, I tried for six years to get date rape drugs moved up a 

class. This committee stopped that, by the way. They wouldn’t go 

for that. The last administration didn’t push it. 

I wrote a report on Ecstasy a little over a year ago saying we 

have got a big problem with Ecstasy. 

Parents were happy their kids were using Ecstasy and said, well, 

at least you are not using this. Ecstasy actually kills the brain 

cells. We have got a problem, but parents don’t understand it. 

Do you know what I tell parents when I go to speak at all these 

schools at these parent-teacher meeting things? I say look for two 

things, extra bottles of water in your kid’s car, pacifiers next to 

their bed, and funny little decals that have like Mercedes and 

things on them. They say, well, that is in my house. No one told 

them. 

You have got a 15-year-old or a 19-year-old kid with a pacifier 

in his room and you know the boy is on Ecstasy. You don’t have 

to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Parents don’t know that. 

All of a sudden everybody is carrying around bottled water. Yes, 

part of it is a trend. You go in the back of your kid’s car and he 

has got four empty water bottles. You ought to start thinking about 

it. 

At any rate, I yield to my friend the rest of the time. 

Senator SESSIONS. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Biden. You 

have indeed throughout this whole drug war for the most part been 

one of the champions of doing something and improving our effort. 

As a Federal prosecutor for many years, a lot of things that you 

passed here I can assure you were very, very helpful. 

I think it is appropriate for us, Mr. Walters, to look much more 

intensely at treatment because we do have a lot of people that are 

addicted. We do have some good treatment programs in prisons 

and some good treatment programs around the country. They are 

very, very expensive, but not a hundred-percent successful. We can 

debate how much, but a lot of people are just not able to stop drug 

use. 

An Assistant United States Attorney called me into the conference room and said I would like you to meet this individual. He 

was being prosecuted for armed robbery. He had been in jail, he 

had gone through treatment, he had gotten religion and had married. He got out, got a job. 

79

This is what she told me; she said I just want you to hear this 

story. He said, I got out, I worked for two weeks, I got my first paycheck. I was going down the street to get some clothes, and he said 

I just kept right on going and I ended up back buying crack, getting addicted all over again, getting arrested for armed robbery, 

probably serving 15 or 20 years in jail. It just brings tears to your 

eyes. I mean, it was really sad. 

I guess having spent an extraordinary amount of my time for 12 

years as United States Attorney dealing with these issues, I am a 

little berserk on them, a little intense about them. We met for one 

year once a week every Thursday afternoon to discuss it. I was active in the Drug Coalition for a Drug–Free Mobile, the Partnership 

for Youth. We built those organizations. It was all part, I think, of 

a cultural climate against drugs. 

My first comment is that we ought not to be too tough on ourselves. I think if we recapture some of the things that worked to 

see these numbers go down, I think we can see them go down 

again. 

Do you agree with that? 

Mr. WALTERS. I agree. 

Senator SESSIONS. You are cautiously optimistic, could I say? 

Mr. WALTERS. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we are going to look at that. General 

McCaffrey and I had cross words, but his numbers later on went 

down. They weren’t going down for a while when he started. But 

I think ultimately we will judge you on whether or not you can reverse some unhealthy trends. 

Let me ask this: Eric Holder, the former Deputy Attorney General, was a Federal judge here in D.C., and as a result they drugtested everybody that was arrested. As I understand it, whether it 

is shoplifting, whether it is petty theft, whether it is armed robbery 

or drug dealing, you get about the same percentage of people testing positive for drug use when they are arrested, no matter what 

the crime is. 

Usually, it is about two-thirds, is that correct? 

Mr. WALTERS. It has varied over time, but, yes, a high rate of 

people are testing positive for drug use. 

Senator SESSIONS. I guess my question would be isn’t that a good 

way to find out those people whose criminality has been accelerated by drug use by testing them upon arrest? Therefore, then the 

judge has certain powers over them, such as I will release you on 

bail, but I want you to be drug-tested every week, or I will give you 

probation, but I want you to continue to report to the probation officer and be drug-tested because I want you to stay free of drugs. 

Is that a good strategy for reducing recidivism and drug use? 

Mr. WALTERS. Absolutely. In most systems, for many more minor 

crimes, the person would not face any incarceration and you could 

use the authority of the criminal justice system to test, to refer 

them to treatment, to check on whether they are looking for a job 

or continuing in their education. I think this is a pretty proven 

method. 

It needs to be managed. It is not cost-free, but there are many 

dedicated people, some of whom are represented in this room, or 

at least they were here when we started, who are making those 

80

programs work. We have got to tell more of that story, and I think 

everybody agrees we ought to find ways to expand that effort. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, drug courts are sort of on that model, 

although you don’t have to have a drug court to do that. 

Mr. WALTERS. That is right. 

Senator SESSIONS. D.C. did that in the district right here in 

Washington, D.C. The Federal court system tests everyone that is 

arrested, and I think that ought to be done nationwide because I 

don’t see how a judge can make a decision about whether to release 

somebody or to impose a sentence if they are blithely unaware of 

whether or not the criminality is driven by drug use, do you? 

Mr. WALTERS. I agree. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is what Eric Holder said. He thought it 

was invaluable to him in analyzing that. So I am a big supporter 

of that. 

You will be able to work with the Department of Justice, will you 

not? 

Mr. WALTERS. I hope so. I mean, I don’t have any reason to believe I can’t. I have worked a little bit before with Attorney General 

Ashcroft when he was in this body. I know a number of the people 

who are there, including the current head of the FBI and some of 

the other folks working for Attorney General Ashcroft. 

Asa Hutchinson asked to see me prior to his confirmation and we 

had a good conversation. I have not engaged in more consultation 

because I thought it would be inappropriate until I was confirmed, 

but I am quite optimistic about the relationship between the Office 

and the Justice Department. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, they have a lot of money they spend on 

research. In my view, it is astounding how many important programs that we spend a lot of money on have not been properly 

peer-reviewed and good data hasn’t been done. 

Do you think we could do a better job of getting quality research 

on drug prevention, drug courts, and other kinds of treatment programs? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, with the caveat that I haven’t reviewed their 

programs. I think across the board, from my past experience, we 

can do a better job both of focusing research in many cases—I am 

not criticizing them, but we also need a better job frequently of 

picking out the successful research and following up or disseminating it because sometimes there is a tendency not to be as aggressive in finding preliminary solutions to problems people really 

have in the field and getting it out to them and following up. 

I think sometimes people can be in a program that has a particular focus and they are doing things in a broad way, and it is 

through no ill will or bad management, but when you look at it 

from the point of view of the drug office, some things look compatible with other programs on community support or education or 

even other areas of law enforcement that will be interesting. 

So part of the idea of having people work together is not just a 

cliche. It is a matter of—you are right—we are spending a lot of 

money on Federal research across the board in these areas and we 

need to be able to capitalize on that investment, I think, more effectively. 

81

Senator SESSIONS. It strikes me that the Federal Government 

does not need to take over State and local law enforcement and 

drug treatment. I mean, it has been done at that level. Ninety-five 

percent, 97 percent of criminal cases on drugs are State and local, 

I am sure. What we do has little overall impact in the Federal 

courts. 

But one of the great roles I think you can do is provide good information to a community that is desperately trying to improve its 

criminal justice system, its treatment programs and its prevention 

programs, and put out the best-quality information. I have talked 

to the Department of Justice about this, the Office of Justice Programs and the research branch, and I am still not sure it is practical enough for the people who need to use it. 

So would you consider it one of your responsibilities to make sure 

that you are analyzing the research that is being done, finding out 

what works and getting that information to the local cities and 

counties and States that are actually doing most of the anti-drug 

work in America? 

Mr. WALTERS. Absolutely. I think we need to expand even the direct connection between the drug office and people in States and 

localities so that we are talking to them and they are talking to us. 

But that also allows us to harvest valuable results from Federal 

agencies and be aware of what we can convey effectively. 

So if confirmed, I would look forward to being even more aggressive than we were when I was there last time in making that kind 

of connection through the Office, because you are right; it is a lot 

of potential and a lot of resources, and sometimes actually a fairly 

good collection of valuable material that we could convey, partly 

looking at ways in which we can do it through clearinghouses, electronic print means. 

Also, there are, as you know, a myriad of organizations that are 

sensitive to the needs of providers in different areas and people 

working in treatment or law enforcement or community programs 

now that have been nurtured and developed partly with Federal 

support, and with a lot of State and local and private support as 

well. 

We need to use those resources because they know what the people in the field want. They are the people in the field and they talk 

to them regularly. We should be more connected to those people 

than we have been in the past. 

Senator SESSIONS. You began working on drug matters with the 

Department of Education in the mid–1980s. You were the principal 

author of the Education Department’s handbook ‘‘Schools Without 

Drugs: A Guide for Effective Education and Prevention Programs 

for Parents and Educators.’’ Over 1 million copies were distributed. 

You designed the Education Department’s recognition program, 

giving national attention to local schools for effective drug programs. All of that, I think, is excellent. 

The funding that began a decade or so ago through drug-free 

school programs, and so forth, are continuing today, are they not? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. But I have a sense that maybe the sense of 

urgency that was there in the schools 15 years ago to really make 

82

sure kids got a negative message about drugs or knew the truth 

about drugs and the consequences may have slipped a bit. 

Do you have any idea as to how you might reinvigorate the education system nationwide and county school boards, over which you 

have no direct control? How can you motivate them, reenergize 

them to create this cultural consensus against drug use? 

Mr. WALTERS. I think, one, we need to sit down in a more systematic way with our colleagues at the Department of Education 

and bring in some of the representatives of principals, teachers, administrators, school board, parents. I think some of those people, 

from my limited contact, feel they have been—in some cases, the 

programs have worked well. In other places, people have felt 

disenfranchised. They are not sure where the resources are in their 

school district. 

Parents frequently mentioned, and have mentioned over the 

years that they feel they are not involved; that the money goes into 

a bureaucracy and either a trivial amount seems to come down to 

the school or they are not sure what happens to it when it comes 

down. So I think to examine what is really happening with those 

resources, and also to better help the organizations nationally that 

are trying to knit together these local efforts so people are still 

going to do a good job, but they don’t feel they are alone, and to 

give them the resources. 

The President has proposed an effort to try to do some additional 

training of parents in drug prevention. He has proposed additional 

support for community coalitions. I think all those things have 

proven to be incredibly valuable and we need to work with them. 

But we also should be able to work effectively with leaders in the 

education community because I don’t believe anybody who works in 

an educational institution today fails to understand the importance 

of protecting kids and the consequences of not protecting kids in future crime and addiction and lost lives. 

Senator SESSIONS. Wouldn’t you agree that perhaps a lot of the 

schools are really not following through on programs today as they 

were when they initially were funded the money and probably need 

to be encouraged to reevaluate where they are? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. I don’t want to— Senator SESSIONS. I am not being critical. It is just the natural 

cycle of life. 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. My personal view is yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. And how you energize them is a challenge for 

you. 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, but I think that is partly the kind of national 

leadership and cultural challenge of trying to say, while this is not 

the only issue the Nation has to face today, this remains an important issue. It remains one where you have to rebuild the consensus, 

where you have to push back on the cultural forces that have tended to trivialize or to undermine the effort, and to have people stand 

together—national leaders, State leaders, local leaders—to help 

parents. 

The most common thing I hear from parents is I want people to 

stop working against me in the culture. I want people to stop sending messages over the entertainment media or not wanting to talk 

about this at a PTA meeting or suggesting to my kids when this 

83

comes up in the context where they are supervising them that this 

isn’t relevant. 

Some of that is bad behavior by other parents sometimes, but I 

think we need to guide people in establishing what everybody 

wants, which is let’s be responsible, let’s be serious, let’s face this. 

This is an ongoing problem. As Senator Biden said, it is like cutting the grass. Every generation has to be educated. So you can’t 

say, well, we have done that and now we have got drug use down. 

My great regret about leaving Government—and I frankly didn’t 

expect to return to Government—was that we didn’t get as far as 

I wish we could have and we didn’t seem to be able to institutionalize as much of it as I would have liked to continue it. So it 

is a rare chance you get to come back and perhaps do a job again 

and learn from your mistakes. 

So I would like now both to drive the drug use down and the consequences of it, but also to look more seriously at sustaining the 

institutions that contribute to this so that the long-term need can 

be dealt with and it doesn’t have to become a crisis and come back 

up to some kind of national crisis level in order for us to get serious 

again. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, I trust that you support a law enforcement role in fighting drugs. But from what I hear, the way you are 

just discussing the overall campaign against drugs, you believe 

that is just one part of the overall effort. Is that correct? You are 

not here to say send me over there and I am going to see how 

many people I can prosecute. You have got a whole panoply of 

ideas for reducing drug abuse in America. 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, Senator. One of the annoying things about 

some of the discussion in public of my record has been as if the 

work I have done or the commitment I have made or the issue I 

have pushed in regard to prevention and treatment didn’t exist. I 

have worked diligently, I hope, on law enforcement and national 

security issues as part of my job as well. 

As I think I know you agree from our conversation prior to this 

hearing, the parts have to work together. We can’t tell young people not to use drugs and have open-air drug markets, look the 

other way in our schools, not prosecute drug dealers, and make 

clear that the law enforces the attitudes we are teaching them and 

we say we care about. 

That is why, despite some of the critics, I don’t believe my views 

are draconian on this. But I do believe that if you think that law 

enforcement doesn’t send an important educational message, you 

are wrong. So we don’t need draconian law enforcement, but we 

need not to, in reaction to being accused too harsh, say it doesn’t 

make any difference at all. 

Senator SESSIONS. I agree one hundred percent, and if you live 

in a neighborhood where people are selling drugs quite openly on 

the street corner and nobody ever arrests them or nothing is ever 

done about it, the community is sending a message to the young 

people in that neighborhood, aren’t they? 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. They have basically, de facto, legalized drugs. 

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, sir. 

84

Senator SESSIONS. So I wish putting people in jail could be avoided, but I think the overall picture of this thing has got to be focused on challenging city police departments and Federal agents 

and others not to allow open sale of drugs, don’t you? 

Mr. WALTERS. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know Bill Bennett was strong about that, 

and I always felt that was critical. It takes a little effort, but you 

can drive it underground. You can really make a difference in the 

sale of drugs with effectively utilizing law enforcement, in my view. 

Mr. WALTERS. I agree. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think you have a balanced and mature 

and experienced view of the drug effort. I hate to see the phrase 

‘‘war against drugs’’ eliminated. Maybe it is time to do so. It has 

been out there since the early 1980s, but I saw it that way as a 

prosecutor and as a leader in my community for prevention programs and education programs. I saw teachers really become energized about it and my children coming home from school extremely 

hostile to drugs and smoking and unhealthy habits. So I know we 

made some progress, and the numbers showed it; the numbers 

went down. 

I believe that you are one of those rare people that as a young 

person got to see it firsthand and be in the pit of all this. You have 

been out for a while and now you are asking to come back in, and 

that maturity and experience is going to stand you in good stead 

and I believe you will do a great job. 

Is there anything you would like to share before we finish up? 

Mr. WALTERS. No, Senator. Thank you for the chance of being 

heard. And if the Senate sees fit to act favorably on the nomination—I am not just mouthing platitudes—I need, for all the reasons 

we have discussed here, to be able to work in a bipartisan way 

with the members of this committee. I think I have done that in 

the past and I hope that we can do that again because there are 

a lot of opportunities and I am very optimistic. 

But I know this job requires enlisting people’s support up here, 

as well as out in the country, to do well. And there was no reason 

to come back in if I didn’t think you could do the job well because 

I have been blessed with a lot of other opportunities. So I came 

back to do the job and I hope to be able to do the best job possible, 

with the help of people like yourself and your colleagues. 

Senator SESSIONS. I certainly intend to support you, and believe 

that you have a unique ability to bring us together in a coherent 

focus against drugs that will result in reduced drug use. The fewer 

that use, the fewer people that are going to be addicted, the fewer 

people that are going to commit crimes as a result of their addiction and their use. So this prevention, all of which encompasses a 

lot of different efforts, is a key thing. 

Senator Biden has asked that I close out the hearing and state 

that the record will remain open for a week for additional questions 

and statements. 

Senator Thurmond and Senator Grassley have asked that we include their statements in the record and we will do so at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]

85

STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA

I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today on John Walters, the President’s nominee for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

Mr. Walters is extremely qualified to serve in this capacity. He has 15 years of 

experience in drug policy, working as Chief of Staff and later as Deputy Director 

for Drug Interdiction at the ONDCP under Bill Bennett. Prior to his service at 

ONDCP, he served in the Department of Education, where he spearheaded drug 

prevention efforts. 

It is essential that we fight the war on drugs on all fronts, including prevention, 

treatment, prosecution and interdiction. Mr. Walters understands that all of these 

aspects are critical to America one day winning this war. Any criticism that he does 

not appreciate the importance of treatment and prevention is misplaced. 

This is a very important time in the war against drugs, not only at home but 

abroad. The recent terrorist attacks have highlighted the role illegal drugs plays in 

funding terrorism. Terrorists, including Osama bin Laden’s organization, use the 

proceedings of drug trafficking to support and expand their efforts to promote death 

and destruction around the world. We must do all we can to disrupt these operations. 

The President needs his choice to be in place at ONDCP at this critical time, and 

Mr. Walters is a proven leader who will do a fine job for the President and for 

America. I look forward to his quick confirmation.

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

IOWA

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a brief statement in support John Walters as the 

President’s nominee to be the nation’s drug czar. 

I have known and worked with John for many years and know him to be a man 

of great integrity and passion. If confirmed, he will serve the country well as drug 

czar. Mr. Chairman, you and I know only too well just how daunting a task he faces, 

now more than ever. Not only do we as a nation have a major drug use problem, 

we are increasingly facing a well-funded legalization lobby. Legalization groups oppose John’s confirmation and they have organized a lobbying effort to block it. I can 

think of few things more damaging to this country and the welfare of its citizens 

than legalization of dangerous drugs, no matter what kind of benign face legalizers 

try to put on their efforts. 

John will oppose those efforts, a fact that has made the legalizers even more determined to stop his nomination. It is a pressure we would do well to resist. 

That effort aside, I would like to comment briefly on why John is more than qualified to lead the nation’s counter drug programs. 

As you and members of this committee know, he has a long and distinguished 

record of engagement on this issue. He began working on counter drug issues more 

than 10 years ago when he was with Bill Bennett at the Department of Education. 

While there he did a lot to promote prevention efforts. He then went with Secretary 

Bennett to the newly created drug office, where first as chief of staff and then Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, he helped frame and implement the nation’s first 

comprehensive counter drug strategy. That strategy saw a major increase in the 

counter drug budget, including a near doubling of the demand reduction budget. 

Although some in their zeal to block his nomination skip over this point, that 

strategy also helped to promote a major reduction in drug use among the nation’s 

young people. After leaving the Drug Czar’s office, he remained engaged on the 

issues. There are few people more familiar with what needs to be done, here or overseas, by ourselves or by our allies. 

We need his experience, his integrity, and his toughness in these trying times. 

We need his contribution whether we are talking about the need to bolster our efforts in neighborhoods in Iowa, or Delaware, or any of our communities ravaged by 

drugs. We need his toughness as we engage our enemies, who use drugs to attack 

our well being from afar or fund their international operations with drug money. 

Whether we are talking the renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act or the renewal of the Drug Free Communities Act, we need someone whose experience and 

commitment covers this wide range of issues. 

John’s background and his acknowledged expertise on the drug issue make him 

an ideal choice to carry out the President’s agenda and our nation’s agenda. We 

need the kind of tough advocate on the drug issue that John will be in the AdminisVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
86

tration. I strongly endorse John and want to thank the Committee for the chance 

to introduce him.

Senator SESSIONS. If there is nothing else, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Biden 

Question 1: In your March article in the Weekly Standard, you stated that thinking of addiction as a disease is an ‘‘ideology.’’ You have also written that ‘‘the mantra that the root causes of drug use are poverty, racism and ‘low self esteem’ ’’ and ‘‘the more general view that therapy by a 

team of counselors, physicians and specialists is the only effective way to reduce 

drug use’’ are ‘‘myths’’ and ‘‘serious obstacles to reducing such drug use.’’ In an article written with former drug czar Bill Bennett, you asserted that: 

at their core these myths deny individual responsibility and assume that drug use 

is not the product of an individual’s decision, and that decisions are somehow made 

in a vacuum where things like fear of getting caught, public disgrace, and punishment are never considerations. 

The top scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse believe that addiction 

is a disease of the brain. Your writings lead me to believe that you do not share 

that view. 

Your core views on this matter are important because the drug czar has the loudest voice on drug policy issues. He sets the tone. Statements like those you have 

made questioning whether or not addiction is in fact a disease turn back the clock 

in this country and could potentially reverse a number of the gains we have made 

in recent years—the increased public support for drug treatment, the growing 

awareness among doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals that they 

need to look for signs of addiction among their patients, etc. 

Do you believe that addiction is a brain disease? 

Answer: I am familiar with, and understand the expanding body of research demonstrating the biological and neurological effects of drug use, including that continued drug use adversely affects brain chemistry and structure. The research also 

demonstrates that, for a significant minority, drug use can lead to the compulsive 

drug craving, seeking, and taking behavior we characterize as addiction. 

I also recognize that the treatment and management of drug addiction are in 

some ways similar to the treatment and management of chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. For instance, adherence to a treatment plan is critically important in addressing chronic conditions. Whether a person becomes a drug 

addict or is afflicted with diabetes, he or she must take personal responsibility for 

obtaining and following through with treatment. Much like a diabetic must monitor 

blood sugar levels in the bloodstream, maintain a healthy diet, and take insulin, 

overcoming drug addiction can require the commitment to taking medication that 

is a part of specific treatment programs, working to change behavior and accepting 

other services necessary to foster recovery. 

I am not a physician, but I believe the consideration of addiction as a disease has 

wide application. I also believe that a full understanding should not obscure the nature of the onset of drug addiction which policy cannot ignore. The repeated, willful 

use of an illegal, psychoactive substance is behavior we must seek to effectively discourage even though drug use, not drug addiction, is the intent of the user. A comprehensive prevention policy should assist youth in recognizing their responsibility 

to avoid drug taking behavior and the threat of addiction that comes with it. 

Do you believe that—as Dr. Leshher at the National Institute on Drug Abuse 

often says drug use after a time causes a change in the brain that is like the flip 

of a switch? That is to say, before the switch flips, drug use is a voluntary behavior 

and after it flips it is not? 

Answer: The mechanisms underlying brain activity and addiction are still imperfectly understood. I find Dr. Leshner’s work interesting and provocative, and he may 

well be right, but in my recent conversations with Dr. Herbert Kleber, of Columbia 

University’s Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, he does not fully concur 

with the ‘‘switch’’ description, preferring instead the view that addiction ‘‘erodes, but 

does not erase’’ individual capacity for voluntary action and responsibility. Since I 

am not a trained research scientist in this field, I am reluctant to make a precise 

judgment on this matter. If confirmed, I would like to discuss this issue directly 

with Dr. Leshner and others. 

87

Do you still believe that the ‘‘view that therapy by a team of counselors, physicians and specialists is the only effective way to reduce drug use ‘‘ is a ‘‘myth ‘‘ and 

a ‘‘serious obstacle to reducing such drug use’’ ? If so, what are other effective ways 

to reduce drug use? Do you have any peer-reviewed, published studies to back up 

your claim? 

Answer: I support drug treatment and I believe my record in government when 

I had the greatest opportunity to support treatment through federal programs and 

policy illustrates my commitment to treatment. The point of the article you quote 

was not to deride drug treatment so much as to argue that there are a range of 

strategies that can be effective in discouraging drug use-the four-legged stool you 

cited in the hearing, in other words. The article goes on to discuss the importance 

of prevention, law enforcement, and supply reduction: 

Drug enforcement and individual responsibility are important because drug use 

can be intensely pleasurable. The desire for drugs must be countered by certain 

moral precepts: drug use is wrong and those who use and traffic in illegal drugs 

deserve to be punished. A responsible community teaches these things by what 

those in positions of authority-parents, religious leaders, teachers, friends, employers, and political officials-say about drugs and how they act toward drug use and 

sale. If those in authority do not address the issue seriously, they teach that drug 

use is not a serious matter. And if they say drug use is intolerable but fail to act 

effectively to stop and punish those who sell and use drugs, their actions convey a 

much more powerful lesson than their words. 

Reducing the supply of drugs is important because drug use-whether by non-addicts or addicts-is fueled by the desire to use and by the ease with which those who 

want drugs can obtain them. A nation that permits wide availability of dangerous 

drugs is sending its citizens, particularly its youngest citizens, an unwitting message: We are indifferent to drug use. The harsh reality is that drug use begins with 

experimentation, with a substantial portion escalating to addiction, which often 

ends in death. A free, democratic society ought to display a special intolerance for 

those things that destroy people’s virtue and eventually, destroy people’s lives.

Question 2: Given the recent tragedy and the need to spend more combating terrorism, there will undoubtedly be difficult budget decisions to be made in the future. 

In terms of the drug budget, the President, the OMB Director and other top government officials are going to be looking to you for guidance about what programs 

can be cut and what programs should be preserved in full. 

What are the top three specific programs that you would fight for? Where would 

you cut if you had to? 

Answer: The current constrained fiscal environment will indeed require dedicated 

efforts within ONDCP and support within Congress to defend the Administration’s 

budget requests for drug control program agencies. New programs and program increments are understandably the most difficult to fight for, and in that regard, if 

confirmed, I hope to be able to call on you and your colleagues for support in securing passage of the President’s initiative to increase drug treatment spending by $1.6 

billion. Other such initiatives include: establishment of a Parent Drug Corps, to mobilize parents and families; increased funding for local anti-drug coalitions; increased funding for the National Institute on Drug Abuse; resources to support a 

strong commitment to drug courts and other criminal justice diversion programs; increased support to law enforcement for methamphetamine lab cleanup; reimbursement for border county prosecutions; and technology support to local law enforcement officers. With regard to your question about cutting programs, at the present, 

I am not aware of any specific cuts that will be forced upon us as a result of budgetary constraints, as opposed to conscious policy decisions. If confirmed, I would 

make any such decisions only after a complete review and consultation. 

What would you say to those who would try to convince you to cut funding for 

treatment? The media campaign? Plan Colombia? Federal law enforcement? 

Answer: Each program element of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy 

must serve in some manner to support the overarching goal of reducing drug use. 

That contribution is also the basis of our budget justifications for these programs. 

If confirmed, I will resist any attempt to cut programs that are making a demonstrated contribution to that goal.

Question 3: In a March 2001 article in the Weekly Standard, you wrote: 

Newsweek makes much of the promise of new wonder drugs for treatment, but 

what new anti-drug drug is likely to work substantially better than the drugs we 

have to block tobacco craving (‘‘the patch’’ and ‘‘the gum ’’) and the medication we 

have to make alcohol consumption a sickening experience for alcoholics? These are 

useful tools, but there are still many smokers and alcoholics. If anything, the trend 

88

of anti-drinking and anti-smoking efforts today is to criticize certain aspects of use 

and to attack availability. 

That is far from a ringing endorsement or adequate understanding of anti-addiction medications. 

Because I believe that addiction is a brain disease and must be treated as such, 

I have been a strong supporter of pharmacotherapies, believing that they are effective and that we should be investing more to develop new anti-addiction medications. I have worked through the years to increase access to these medications. For 

example, last year I worked with Senator Hatch, Levin and Moynihan to pass legislation to allow qualified doctors to prescribe certain anti addiction medications from 

their offices rather than requiring patients to go to specialized clinics. 

One of General McCaffrey’s most important accomplishments, in my opinion, was 

not only working to increase access to methadone, the oldest and most widely used 

pharmacotherapy, but also breaking down some of the old misconceptions about 

medication. Having the drug czar praise methadone did wonders to move this form 

of treatment out of the shadows and into the mainstream. 

As drug czar, would you fight for increased use of pharmacotherapies to treat addiction? Would you push for drug courts or prison-based drug treatment programs 

to use these medications in treatment? 

Answer: I support research and development into appropriate pharmacotherapies. 

Nor is this support new; the President’s 1991 National Drug Control Strategy, 

which I helped write, stated that ‘‘Advances in the neural and biomedical sciences 

can enhance and hasten the development of effective prevention and treatment 

strategies for drug use. Biomedical research into brain mechanisms involved in drug 

use continues to hold great promise for development of new addiction medications 

and treatments.’’ What was true in 1991 is still true. Indeed, please note that in 

the Weekly Standard article you cite, I described emerging pharmacotherapies as 

‘‘useful tools.’’ Some pharmacotherapy backers go beyond that assessment, as do 

supporters of various elements of an effective drug control program. In my view, 

they don’t fully appreciate the very real challenge they face in inducing addicts to 

use such medications, and it is in this, not any inherent limitation of 

pharmacotherapies, that lay my reservations.

Question 4: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the signing of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I worked for years to make 

that bill a reality, and its sweeping provisions have played a major role in the drops 

in crime we have seen over the past several years. 

Title I of the Crime Act of 1994 was the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act—the legislation that created the Department of Justice’s Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services. Seven years later, COPS has awarded over 

$8 billion to fund over 115,000 officers—73,600 of them on the beat today. Grants 

have gone out to big cities and small towns, from Dover, Delaware to Carlsbad, California, to more than 12,400 law enforcement agencies in total. 

Seven years ago, we made a common-sense decision: let’s put more police on the 

street to reduce crime in our neighborhoods. Let’s create a program that moves our 

police departments away from the reactive, wait-for-the-crime-then-deal-with-it approach of old and towards a new, proactive plan that promotes community partnerships, decentralized command, and innovative strategies. 

The plan worked. New officers on our streets have made America a safer country. 

The FBI recently reported that violent crime has dropped for eight straight years. 

And in its most recent survey, the Department of Justice reported that the rate of 

violent crime victimization in the U.S. has dropped a full 46 percent since 1994, the 

year the COPS program began. 

You have repeatedly disparaged the COPS program, writing that ‘‘it is almost inconceivable that the program has made a measurable contribution to reducing 

crime.’’ You have also called the 1994 crime bill which authorized the COPS program ‘‘irrelevant.’’ As drug czar, you would play an important role in federal law enforcement matters. 

Do you still believe that additional cops on the beat won’t do anything to reduce 

crime? 

Answer: No, I do not. 

If you have changed your mind on this matter, what caused that change? Walk 

me through how your philosophy has evolved. 

Answer: The article you quoted above challenged President Clinton’s claim that 

the ‘‘100,000 police,’’ among other programs, had ‘‘led to drops in violent crime and 

murder and rape and robbery,’’ and it challenged it for the simple reason that the 

COPS program had hired a tiny fraction of its current complement by 1995, when 

89

the relevant UCR data was collected. You and I may have differences about the 

COPS program, but they are not principally about its effectiveness.

Question 5: You have repeatedly pointed to Rep. J.C. Watts’ Community Renewal 

Act as an innovative way to allow faith-based providers to treat addicts. That Act 

makes the following findings: 

(1) establishing formal educational qualification for counselors and other personnel in drug treatment programs may undermine the effectiveness of such programs; and 

(2) such formal educational requirements for counselors and other personnel may 

hinder or, prevent the provision of needed drug treatment services. 

I do not think that this was just an instance where you had not read the fine 

print of the legislation, because it is consistent with other things you have written. 

You have decried what you call ‘‘the McGovernite ideology that has dominated 

American liberalism for the past 25 years’’—an ideology that views drug abuse and 

other social problems as so complicated that traditional institutions such as churches and voluntary associations cannot possibly address them. Only policy specialists 

trained in the delivery of social services-therapeutic-state elites-are up to the task. 

Do you believe that training a health care provider to treat a brain disease may 

actually ‘‘undermine the effectiveness of such programs’’ or ‘‘hinder or prevent the 

provision of needed drug treatment services’’? 

Answer: I do not. 

Would you support allowing people without medical backgrounds to treat any 

other illness? 

Answer: As I stated in regard to an earlier question, I recognize that the treatment and management of drug addiction are in some ways similar to the treatment 

and management of chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. I have 

the utmost respect for the medical professionals working to treat addiction. I do not 

intend to minimize their talent or expertise. Most of those professionals that I have 

worked with, however, also recognize that there are some dedicated individuals with 

other types of backgrounds who are providing important help to the addicted.

Question 6: You have asserted that ‘‘hard-core users are mostly beyond the reach 

of drug treatment professionals.’’ But according to Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, a journal published by the American Psychological Association, this is not the 

case: 

given the chronic, relapsing course of drug dependence, multiple treatment episodes may be better understood as parts of a cyclical process of recovery than as 

categorical failures. . . .These findings suggest that clients. . .with extensive histories of prior treatment may be more dysfunctional in many domains, but this 

should not lead to an erroneous conclusion that treatment is not effective for them. 

Rather, clients may accrue incremental improvement with this additional treatment 

episode, and, among individuals with similar drug addiction careers, those with 

prior treatment may be more likely to be ready for change than those without prior 

treatment. 

You have also said that the Clinton Administration’s focus on hardcore drug users 

was an ‘‘ineffectual policy—the latest manifestation of the liberals’ commitment to 

a ‘therapeutic state’ in which government serves as the personal agent of personal 

rehabilitation.’’

I have long supported a strategy of treating hardcore addicts because I believe 

that is where you get the most ‘‘bang for your buck.’’ Hardcore addicts consume the 

majority of drugs in this country and are responsible for a great deal of crime. In 

fact, drug addicts commit somewhere between 89 and 191 crimes per year to sustain 

their habit. 

Do you still believe that treatment of hardcore addicts is ineffectual? 

Answer: No, I support it. I believe it enormously challenging, however. That is 

why I think it should be one of our most serious policy objectives, but that we 

should be careful not to over promise what the current state of the art can produce 

in results. 

What proof do you have to back up your assertion that treating hardcore addicts 

does not work? 

Answer: I did not write that drug treatment ‘‘does not work.’’ I believe it does 

work. I even believe that the treatment of hardcore addicts works. I believe it is 

difficult in the most difficult cases as the definition quoted above makes clear, getting addicted individuals to desist from drug use is a painstaking, long-term, and 

repetitive effort. 

What do you propose as an alternative that would deal with this problem in a 

more effective manner? 

90

Answer: I do not believe that there is a substitute for moving hard-core drug users 

into treatment, just as there is no substitute for strong prevention messages, aggressive interdiction programs, and effective law enforcement. My views on the subject 

are perhaps best summed up in the introduction to the 1990 National Drug Control 

Strategy, which I helped write, and which stated, in part, that: 

For reasons both political and institutional, much public discussion has been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile debate over ‘‘supply’’ versus ‘‘demand’’ solutions. 

But to repeat what we have been saying for almost a year, the reality of the drug 

problem cannot be met through an exclusive ‘‘law enforcement’’ strategy on the one 

hand, or a ‘‘prevention and treatment’’ strategy on the other. Most Americans recognize by now that we need both approaches. An effective criminal justice policy needs 

a good treatment policy; a successful treatment system is hampered by the easy 

availability of drugs and will ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention 

program; and good prevention programs are harder to carry out absent vigorous efforts directed at international and domestic drug traffickers who are largely responsible for making drugs so ubiquitous in the first place.

Question 7: In February, I joined with Senator Hatch, Leahy, Thurmond, DeWine 

and Feinstein to introduce The Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment 

Act (S. 304). The bill provides about $900 million a year for prevention and treatment programs including drug courts, prison based treatment, treatment in rural 

and economically disadvantaged areas, reentry courts, and treatment for women 

with children. The bill has the support of a large number of treatment and prevention groups, as well as law enforcement organizations including the National Crime 

Prevention Council, the Fraternal Office of Police, and the National Sheriff’s Association. 

Do you support the bill that Senator Hatch, Leahy and 1 have introduced to invest additional resources in drug prevention and treatment activities? 

Answer: I am an ardent supporter of effective drug treatment. During my first 

tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw tremendous growth of the drug treatment budget, including the creation of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Program that remains a 

critical component of our treatment infrastructure. Furthermore, I highlighted drug 

treatment as a fundamental component when I helped draft the first National Drug 

Control Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with experts in the field such as 

Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb Kleber. I 

look forward to reviewing the report President Bush directed Secretary Thompson 

to deliver concerning the areas of specific need for additional treatment services in 

America to assess our progress and understand what remains to be accomplished. 

While not prejudging the results of that review, areas where improvement may be 

warranted include making available the proper treatment modality to the individual 

in need, making available appropriate service linkages, and making available an 

adequate after care component. I am familiar with the bill, but before taking a formal position on a piece of important legislation, I believe I should review these matters with the full range of interested and knowledgeable parties. I intend to do this 

promptly, if I am confirmed.

Question 8: Because Ecstasy is a partial stimulant, it energizes the user, allowing 

him or her to dance for hours at a time. As a result, the drug has become popular 

at all-night dance parties known as ‘‘raves.’’

Raves are usually sponsored by a promoter who organizes the venue, publicizes 

the event and hires security. The promoter then charges an admission fee of between $10 and $50. Though promoters indicate that they tell their security to crack 

down on drug use at the clubs, undercover investigations-including some conducted 

by the DEA-have revealed that, in fact, some promoters tell their security guards 

to look the other way. 

Because many raves are billed as alcohol-free events, parents often assume that 

they are safe places for their teenage sons and daughters to go to dance and be with 

their friends. Unfortunately, these events are often quite unsafe. 

At some raves, promoters will shut off the water faucets in the clubs, thereby forcing patrons thirsty from dancing and Ecstasy-induced dehydration to purchase bottles of water sold for $5 or $10 each. Shutting off the water faucets is a fire hazard 

and a health hazard, not to mention unethical and irresponsible. At some raves, 

club goers have to pay a fee before being allowed to go into an air conditioned ‘‘cool 

down room.’’

The U.S. Attorney in New Orleans used the so-called ‘‘crack house statute’’ to go 

after a major rave promoter in his city. The defendants cut a deal with prosecutors, 

agreeing to five years probation, paying a $100,000 fine and ensuring that future 

raves are free of Ecstasy paraphernalia—including pacifiers and glow sticks. 

91

These rave promoters are making money off of the drug trade at the expense of 

our kids. Have you thought at all about how you intend to work to crack down on 

Ecstasy or raves where it-and a number of other so-called ‘‘club drugs’’—are sold? 

Answer: I am deeply concerned not only by the proliferation of Ecstasy use but 

also by the inroads pro-legalization groups are making under the guise of Ecstasy 

‘‘harm reduction.’’ Such groups use the dishonest and self-serving argument that 

kids are going to use drugs anyway, and they might as well do so ‘‘safely.’’ And they 

are getting their message across-a recent article in the New York Times was actually titled: ‘‘For Partygoers Who Can’t Say No, Experts Try to Reduce the Risks.’’

I believe that Ecstasy use, and marijuana use, while less dramatic in their immediate consequences than the use of drugs like cocaine or heroin, represent the principal drug problem facing our children, and for that reason must be one of our principal areas of focus. With regard specifically to Ecstasy and ‘‘raves,’’ the use of special statutes such as 21 USC Sec. 856 sounds like one sensible way to address this 

problem. I would have to devote further study to the matter and, if confirmed, would 

want to consult with the Attorney General before making a final policy judgment.

Question 9: The Director of ONDCP has a remarkable power over the federal 

budget-if he chooses to use it. This is known as the budget certification power. 

Bylaw, every federal department or agency involved in the National Drug Control 

Program Strategy must provide the director with the department’s proposed drug 

control budget request. 

If the Director believes that the budget request is insufficient to fund the department’s role in controlling drugs, then he must refuse to certify the budget. The department must then submit a revised budget that incorporates the funding levels 

suggested by the Director. 

When he was Director, General McCaffrey successfully used his budget certification power to force the Pentagon to add an additional 73 million dollars to its fiscal 1999 budget in order to help combat drug trafficking in the western hemisphere. 

What are your thoughts on the budget certification process? 

Answer: ONDCP’s governing statute provides, as you state, a very useful tool for 

maintaining an overall level of quality control and coherence over agencies’ drugrelated budget requests. When I last served at ONDCP we used this authority to 

increase and shape budgets for both supply and demand reduction programs. If confirmed, I would use this important tool again, when necessary, to carry out the responsibilities of the director. 

As Director, how aggressively would you wield your budget certification power? 

Answer: I recognize that the certification tool depends on a range of factors, including the fiscal environment, and the adequacy of other agencies’ budget requests. 

If confirmed, I would take a close look at all agency budget requests, and work hard 

to ensure their adequacy-in this the certification power is crucial in my experience 

and I would use it.

Question 10: The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program provides full parity 

for mental health and drug and alcohol treatment services in the insurance coverage 

that it offers federal employees. 

As drug czar, would you advocate for the Administration supporting passage of 

legislation providing full parity for drug treatment services covered by private 

health insurance? 

Answer: I believe that it is important for people with private insurance policies 

to have adequate coverage for themselves and their families concerning substance 

abuse treatment. I believe the parity issue is an important one. It has grown in 

prominence since the time I last served in government and, if confirmed, it would 

be my intention to consider the issues related to it seriously in wide consultation 

with knowledgeable individuals inside and outside government.

Question 11: Since the mid 1960’s, doctors have been using methadone to treat 

opiate addiction. Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment. 

As drug czar, would you work with other government agencies to implement regulations and programs ensuring the appropriate use of this effective drug treatment? 

Answer: Yes, as I did during my first my previous service at ONDCP. 

How would you work to promote the development of additional anti-addiction 

medications? 

Answer: The President has already committed to increasing the budget of the National Institute on Drug Addiction, it would be my priority, if confirmed, to securing 

that expansion.

Question 12: Because of the stigma associated with substance abuse, many people 

who need substance abuse treatment are reluctant to seek it. 

92

I’m not sure you are going to help this problem. After all, you have said ‘‘The 

health people say ‘no stigma.’ I’m for stigma.’’

As drug czar, how specifically would you work to reduce the stigma associated 

with addiction and encourage people who need treatment to seek it? 

Answer: It takes courage and strength of character to make the decision to enter 

a drug treatment program. If confirmed, I would like to explore ways of giving 

greater prominence to the stories of individuals who have been treated and are in 

recovery. I think the best way to overcome the stigma that may discourage some 

individuals from seeking treatment is to broaden the public respect for those who 

confront and work to overcome addiction and those who support them. 

With regard to your question about encouraging people to seek treatment, I 

should note that during my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw the largest increase 

in the growth of the drug treatment budget of any administration—before or after—

including the creation of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Program and increases 

for treatment-related research that remain a critical components of our treatment 

infrastructure. Furthermore, I highlighted drug treatment as a fundamental component when I helped draft and implement the first National Drug Control Strategy. 

More recently, I have spoken with experts in the field such as Mark Parrino, Dr. 

Robert DuPont, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb Kleber. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the report President Bush directed Secretary Thompson to deliver 

concerning the ‘‘treatment gap’’ in America to assess our progress and understand 

what remains to be accomplished. 

Do you think that your past statements about addiction as a moral failing increase the stigma? 

Answer: I believe we can successfully defend the overwhelming consensus that it 

is wrong and harmful to use drugs and the overwhelming consensus that if you have 

a drug problem you should seek treatment and get into recovery. I do not believe 

that opposition to drug use leads to a lack of respect for drug treatment or those 

who have faced a problem of addiction and are seeking to overcome it.

Question 13: It is, of course, important for the government to discourage the use 

of drugs, underage drinking, and other harmful illegal behavior. Sometimes this 

means criticizing and stigmatizing those activities. But in doing this, we need to be 

careful not to denigrate and alienate those who have suffered from the disease of 

addiction, particularly if they have sought treatment or are leading sober and productive lives. Unfortunately, Americans in recovery too often encounter prejudice 

and discrimination as they work to obtain or retain their jobs, homes, insurance and 

other necessities of life. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and 

other federal, state and local laws prohibit this kind of discrimination against people 

in recovery who are otherwise qualified. 

As drug czar, would you work to reduce stigma and help the Department of Justice enforce the laws prohibiting discrimination against people in recovery from alcohol and drug addiction? If so, how does that square with your previous statements 

indicating that you are ‘‘for stigma’’? 

Answer: I agree completely with the distinction you have drawn between the necessity of attaching stigma to drug use and the imperative that this stigma not spill 

over to adversely affect people who have made a commitment to turn their lives 

around through treatment. The federal government can and should play a powerful 

role in discouraging certain illicit behaviors and activities. This is the point I was 

emphasizing when I said that I am ‘‘for stigma.’’ It would be both counter-productive 

and wrong to stigmatize people who are working to escape from addiction. If confirmed I would of course work to uphold our laws regarding discrimination against 

people seeking treatment.

Question 14: Addiction treatment programs and other agencies that serve people 

with alcohol and drug problems sometimes suffer from stigma or discrimination. For 

example, sometimes treatment centers are victims of the ‘‘Not in My Backyard’’ syndrome, meaning neighbors oppose attempts to establish treatment programs even 

when the area is zoned for such a purpose. And some insurance companies and 

health management organizations resist approving adequate payments, levels of 

care, or length of stay for treatment of addiction. 

As drug czar, would you use the ‘‘bully pulpit’’ to ensure that treatment programs 

and other agencies that assist people with alcohol and drug problems are protected 

from these types of discrimination? 

Answer: Yes. The citing of treatment and other public health facilities has too 

often led to unwarranted and unnecessary controversy. I believe that decisions 

about where to locate such facilities work best when there has been an effort made 

to educate people in the affected communities about the effectiveness and methods 

of modern treatment, and I would, if confirmed, use the persuasive powers of the 

93

office to help educate Americans in this regard. I believe that it is important for 

people with private insurance policies and in health maintenance organizations to 

have adequate coverage for themselves and their families concerning substance 

abuse treatment. I am pleased that insurers who participate in the pool from which 

federal employees select coverage have parity for substance abuse treatment. While 

insurers are not required to provide coverage for substance abuse treatment, if they 

choose to offer that coverage it must be at the same levels as other conditions requiring medical attention. I believe the parity issue is an important one. It has 

grown in prominence since the time I last served in government and, if confirmed, 

it would be my intention to consider the issues related to it seriously in wide consultation with knowledgeable individuals inside and outside government.

Question 15: As drug czar, would you anticipate having a role helping the President to implement his faith based initiatives, especially in light of the recent departure of John Dilulio—someone I expect that you know well, having co-authored a 

book with him—who had served as the Director of the White House Office on FaithBased and Community Initiatives? 

Answer: Through my experience as president of the Philanthropy Roundtable I 

have learned first-hand how effective and transformational faith-based programs 

can be. To the extent that these programs can help people overcome addiction to 

alcohol and drugs, I believe they are worthy of our study and, where constitutional 

and appropriate, consideration for some possible support. 

Before giving money to faith-based treatment programs would you want to make 

sure that these programs have been proven effective in peer reviewed published scientific studies? 

Answer: I believe that federal programs must have objective measures of accountability. The best measure of accountability for drug and alcohol treatment programs, 

whether they are faith based or not, is their success at freeing their participants 

from addiction. I have worked in the past, and if confirmed will work in the future, 

to build in standards of accountability that help individuals get into, and stay in, 

treatment that works. 

Would you insist that treatment professionals—such as the scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration—have a leading role in the formulation of faith-based treatment programs? 

Answer: If we are going to create opportunities for effective faith-based programs 

that help people get into and stay in treatment, we need to have effective standards 

to evaluate those programs. We must have objective standards of success and measurement that are empirically based and evaluated. In establishing those standards, 

I would, if confirmed, draw upon the expertise of many sources, both inside and outside government, and would include scientists and other staff from NIDA and 

SAMHSA.

Question 16: I am sure you have heard people express concern about the number 

of people who have been sent to prison under mandatory minimum sentencing laws 

for drug-related offenses, citing statistics about the disproportionate number of minorities. 

What are your views on mandatory minimum sentences? 

Answer: My understanding of the legislative history is that Congress adopted the 

current twotiered mandatory minimum sentencing structure as part of a larger effort both to incapacitate and punish mid- and senior-level drug dealers. While I believe that these sentences have been in many ways effective, I also recognize that 

there has been some disagreement about their fairness. If I am confirmed as 

ONDCP director, I would initiate a review of mandatory minimum sentences as they 

relate to illegal drugs, working in close consultation with the Attorney General. 

President Bush has expressed his openness to such a review, as has Attorney General Ashcroft. It would be my intention to conduct this review in consultation with 

interested parties in the executive branch, in Congress, the courts, and in the public. 

Do you believe that mandatory minimum sentences have led to a sentencing disparity for minorities? 

Answer: While I am not of the view that the U.S. Government, Federal, State, or 

local, is locking up innocent people for drug crimes in significant numbers, I do recognize that the mandatory minimum sentencing structure has fostered among some 

a perception of racial injustice within the criminal system. Clearly, the government 

must create and administer laws in a fair and equitable fashion, but it is equally 

important that the laws be seen as fair by the citizens. 

I believe it is critical that we examine the equity and fairness of the criminal justice system and have already stated my intention to do so in this regard, if conVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
94

firmed. In such an examination I also believe we should consider those who are the 

victims of criminal acts. In the Weekly Standard article cited in question 3 above, 

I wrote: ‘‘In 1998, of the 7,276 murders in the United States that involved a single 

offender and a single victim, 5,133 of the victims were male and 3,309 were black. 

According to the FBI, 3,565 of the offenders in these murder cases were black, and 

3,067 of the murders involved both a black victim and a black offender. In 1998, 

black males between the ages of 14 and 17 were almost six times more likely than 

white males to be victims of murder or non-negligent manslaughter; black males between 18 and 24 were over eight times more likely to be victims; and for those 25 

and over, black males were murder victims at a rate 7.6 times that of white males.’’

As I sought to explain during the hearing, I believe we should work to reduce crime, 

drug use, and addiction as the best way to help reduce the number of individuals 

who enter the criminal justice system and the number who enter prison. I have 

spent a significant portion of my time while working at the Philanthropy Roundtable helping foundations and donors better support not only drug prevention and 

treatment programs, but the range of assistance to help disadvantaged communities 

improve schools, job training, housing, health care, and other elements necessary to 

stabilize neighborhoods and break the cycles of crime and addiction.

Question 17: A recent report from The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University showed that of each substance-abuse related 

dollar that states spend, 96 cents go to dealing with the consequences of substance 

abuse (criminal justice, health care costs, etc.) and only 4 cents go to preventing and 

treating it. 

I believe that we need a drug czar who will push the states to spend more on 

treatment and prevention, thereby saving money on incarceration, health care and 

other related costs. 

Given all that you have written in the past questioning the effectiveness of treatment and prevention programs, what makes you think that you are the right man 

for the job? 

Answer: I have long recognized that the best approach to our nation’s drug problem is a balanced approach. I agree with you that states should increase their 

spending in this area, and if I am concerned I will strongly encourage them to do 

so. I have written many times-indeed I have been criticized for writing-that state 

and local authorities should take more responsibility for treatment and prevention 

programs. This is not to say the federal government should do less, rather it is to 

say that government at all levels should join together to do more.

Question 18: Some 83 percent of Americans support federal funding for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Specifically, 83 percent favor continuing 

current funding or increasing funding for the campaign. The public clearly favors 

using $185 million each year—equivalent to 1 % of the federal drug budget—to 

guarantee that anti-drug ads reach kids and parents through the mass media. 

Can I count on you to support the media campaign? (Please respond Yes or No) 

Answer: Yes. 

Can I count on you to make sure that the campaign will continue to be administered by ONDCP and not shipped off to another agency? (Please respond Yes or No) 

Answer: Yes, I have no plans to change the current structure. I believe that the 

director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy has a critical role in assuring 

that the media campaign is not only effective, but also thoroughly evaluated.

Question 19: The media campaign’s budget is $185 million per year, which works 

out to $8 per teen in America. This is a lot of money, but in the world of advertising 

it pales in comparison to the General Motors of the world, who spend $800 million 

each year to sell their cars and trucks. 

In your opinion, given the influence media can and does have on youth each and 

every day in this country, should we be spending more on the media campaign or 

less? 

Answer: I strongly support the media campaign. I believe it can make a valuable 

contribution, and I believe it has already done so. I would be inclined to look at 

ways to increase its funding. But in fairness I do not think it is appropriate for me 

to commit to specific funding levels until I have had the opportunity, if confirmed, 

to consult with knowledgeable people inside and outside government about the campaign’s effectiveness and strategy.

Question 20: You have suggested that parents—not the federal government—

should be taking the lead in preventing drug use among kids. While I agree that 

parents are the leading factor in drug prevention, research indicates that parents 

believe that it is everyone else’s kids who are doing drugs, not their own. This includes good parents, good people, who just don’t believe it is their kid. 

95

Can’t we use the media campaign to persuade, enlighten, shake up and motivate 

parents to take action? 

Answer: Yes, I strongly believe that parents are a critical node in preventing drug 

use among their children, and that the media campaign can play an effective and 

productive role when directed at them. I believe it is doing this already. 

Do you think there is a more efficient way to reach parents on a daily basis with 

these types of messages than via the media and the media campaign? 

Answer: While I believe the media campaign is effective for this purpose, I also 

believe that we can reach parents through additional channels, like the Community 

Coalition, as well as through other programs that have direct ties to parents groups. 

Programs that can get the word about prevention out to parents at the local levelthrough service organizations, religious congregations, and workplaces-are also very 

promising.

Question 21: You have questioned the effectiveness of the media campaign. Well, 

if I only looked at the ‘‘official measurement’’ I would too—because the study of the 

campaign did not get underway until 18 months into the campaign. That means 

that the ‘‘official measurement’’ was not even underway when the campaign was 

making its dramatic changes—changes which are measured by other research instruments including the Monitoring the Future study and the annual tracking study 

conducted by the Partnership for a Drug Free America. 

For example, in February the American Journal of Public Health published a 

study, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which found marijuana use 

declined by more than 25 percent among sensation-seeking (high risk) kids who 

were exposed to heavy doses of anti-drug advertising. 

What are your thoughts on the research regarding the impact of the media campaign to date? 

Answer: I support the media campaign. I believe it is making a difference. If confirmed I would like to review the way we measure its effectiveness, both to revise 

the evaluative tools we now use and to ensure public support for the efforts we are 

making. 

Have you considered independent research on the effectiveness of the media campaign in your questioning of the effectiveness of the campaign? 

Answer: I support the media campaign. I have received general information about 

the media campaign and its effectiveness. I do not believe this information is in any 

way sufficient to allow a director of ONDCP to make an informed decision about 

the media campaign, or how to strengthen it for the future. If confirmed, I intend 

to conduct a thorough examination of the campaign and possible future improvements.

Question 22: What is your view of drug dependence? Should it be viewed primarily 

as a public health problem? 

If not, why not? 

Answer: There are components of drug dependence that are undeniably best 

viewed and treated as public health problems, just as there are other aspects that 

are more effectively addressed as economic, law enforcement, medical, and social 

problems. As I have said before, a balanced approach is the most effective.

Question 23: What are your views on the efficacy of methadone maintenance? Do 

you agree or disagree that some individuals may need to be treated with methadone 

for life? 

Answer: I support methadone maintenance as a legitimate treatment. I do not 

know whether some individuals need to be treated with methadone for life, and 

would defer on this point to the advice of qualified experts.

Question 24: You have stated that you are supportive of treatment provided that 

it is ‘‘good’’ treatment. 

How do you define ‘‘good’’ treatment? 

Answer: I believe that all drug treatment programs, including faith-based ones, 

should be evaluated on the basis of how effectively they help the addicted stop using 

illegal drugs (and alcohol, if they are dependent on alcohol as well) and stay free 

from such use. 

What are the outcomes that you believe should be used to determine whether a 

treatment program is effective? 

Answer: Individuals in need of drug treatment vary tremendously, and one of the 

limitations of the present system has been in matching individuals with appropriate 

services. Precisely because of the heterogeneity of the population in need of drug 

treatment, it is difficult to make across-the board statements about what constitutes 

‘‘good’’ treatment and any measure must reflect the range of severity and related 

conditions clients present. All studies of treatment effectiveness also should be 

grounded in the obvious measure of how many users desist from drug use and for 

96

how long, but a sampling of other measures could include criteria such as participation in the workforce, cost effectiveness, appropriateness in matching the client with 

needed services, reduced criminal recidivism, and health indicators.

Question 25: Treatment experts have stated that faith-based drug treatment programs should be held to the same effectiveness standards as secular programs. 

Do you agree with this view? Should they be evaluated differently than secular 

programs? 

Answer: I believe that all drug treatment programs, including faith-based ones, 

should be evaluated on the basis of how effectively they help the addicted stop using 

illegal drugs (and alcohol, if they are dependent on alcohol as well) and stay free 

from such use.

Question 26: What is your viewpoint concerning court mandated treatment in lieu 

of prison? 

Answer: I support such diversion programs. 

If you support them, what has happened to change your mind about these programs? 

Answer: I have supported diversion programs in the past. My reservations in this 

area was focused on the need to be realistic about what costs and resources were 

needed for effective diversion programs, including sufficient staff for close supervision, the availability of multimodality treatment services and related support assistance such as mental health care, and recognition that very few first- or secondtime, nonviolent offenders who may benefit from treatment face actual prison sentences in many jurisdictions. My concern regarding this last point did not have to 

do with the desirability of mandated treatment in lieu of prison, rather my point 

was the potential group of first- or second-time, nonviolent offenders who may benefit from treatment was likely to be smaller than some believed in the early discussions of this approach.

Question 27: There is an increasing recognition that drug abuse occurs in rural areas. What role, in your opinion, should ONDCP play in helping rural areas address 

this important problem in terms of law enforcement? 

Answer: While I have not been able to engage in detailed discussions with the involved parties prior to my confirmation, it is my impression that some of the 

HIDTAs are working to provide needed resources and coordination for drug-related 

law enforcement in rural areas. This was true to some extent along the Southwest 

Border when I was last in government and it seems to be the case in many more 

areas now that the program has grown. I also think that the other programs of state 

and local assistance provide by the federal government have been helpful and I 

would look to them and the HIDTA programs, in consultation with state and local 

leaders, to serve as a foundation for what needs to be done in the future. 

What about in terms of public health issues (i.e., AIDS, Hepatitis C) and treatment? 

Answer: If confirmed, my intention would be to review public health and treatment assistance related to drugs was a whole and include particular attention to 

rural areas. Such a review should involve current program personnel, knowledgeable state and local individuals, and consultation with the Congress. In addition, the 

assessment of treatment needs by Secretary Thompson as directed by the president 

should offer an important component to such a review.

Question 28: What is your view of the role of science in policy making? In what 

areas would you use science to guide your decisions? 

Answer: Throughout my professional career I have been involved with public policy issues and sought to find and develop solutions to our common national problems 

on the basis of what works-which I believe is the fundamental empirical standard 

of science. I believe scientific and empirical analysis can-and should-be applied to 

all aspects of drug control policy from prevention and treatment to law enforcement, 

national security, and research programs. 

Who are the scientists or doctors on whom you rely most closely? 

Answer: In regard to treatment matters I have consulted with: Dr. Andrea 

Barthwell, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Herb Kleber, Mark Parrino, Dr. Laurie Robinson, 

and Dr. Ian McDonald.

Question 29: In 1995, the Supreme Court, in a case known as United States v. 

Lopez, struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly in 1990—by voice vote in the Senate, and by a vote of 313 to 1 in the 

House—and which was signed into law by President Bush. Shortly after the decision, in an op-ed in the Washington Times, you hailed the invalidation of this bipartisan legislation as a victory against ‘‘the intrusion of the federal government into 

an area of traditional local authority’’—namely, ‘‘the safety and functioning of our 

97

schools.’’ As you know, both drug abuse and drug-related violence have a severe impact upon ‘‘the safety and functioning of our schools.’’ In fact, the Gun-Free School 

Zones Act, had it not been struck down by the Supreme Court, would have provided 

law enforcement with an additional tool in preventing the violence of the drug trade 

from gaining a foothold in our nation’s schools. 

Given that you feel that the exercise of federal authority to keep guns out of 

schools is an ‘‘intrusion’’ into ‘‘an area of traditional local authority,’’ do you feel the 

same way about efforts to keep our schools free of drugs and drug violence? 

Answer: No and I believe my past work on the drug problem, both in and out of 

government, reflect my views on this issue. As I also discussed with Senator. Kohl 

during the hearing, I have changed my opinion on the Lopez decision. I believe federal assistance can be important in these cases—important symbolically as a means 

of setting priorities and important substantively in providing resources and assistance. 

Would you leave these problems to be handled by state and local governments? 

Answer: No, although state and local authorities will surely bear the brunt of the 

responsibilities for addressing problems of drugs and violence in our schools and 

neighborhoods.

Question 30: I have long supported efforts—both at the National Institute on Drug 

Abuse and in the private sector—to develop medications to treat addiction. I am 

sure that you are aware that there are only a handful of medications that are currently approved for this purpose. I am frustrated that more pharmaceutical companies are not trying to develop additional medications, but I can understand why 

they are reticent to invest in this. First, there is the stigma involved with developing a drug to help addicts. But second—and perhaps more importantly—we do 

nothing to make this process easier for them. 

The Drug Abuse Advisory Committee—which is the body of experts of the Food 

and Drug Administration who have historically been consulted during the process 

to approve products to treat drug abuse—has been disbanded. There is now nobody 

who knows or cares about addiction involved in the approval process. 

Will you pledge to do everything you can to smooth the process for the approval 

of anti-addiction medications, including lobbying to reinstate the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee? 

Answer: I was not aware of the history of the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee. 

If confirmed, I will make a review of the approval process for anti-addiction medications a priority because I too think such drugs can make important contributions 

to our ability to help more of the addicted. I would like to have an opportunity to 

review this matter before making a commitment to a specific course of action.

Question 31: When you served in the last Bush Administration, Director Bennett 

put together the ‘‘Andean Initiative,’’ which provided both economic and military assistance to the nations of the Andes. 

Last Year, Congress and the Clinton Administration worked together to provide 

U.S. support to ‘‘Plan Colombia.’’ This year, the Bush Administration’s budget 

broadens that approach to provide increased assistance to the other nations of the 

of the region as well. 

So in a sense, we’re back where we were a decade ago with a significant assistance program to the region, although I think we are in a lot better position today 

in terms of the commitment of the local governments to this effort. 

You have indicated to my staff that you are dubious about Plan Columbia. What 

exactly are your doubts? How would you address them? 

Answer: I am concerned that public understanding and support for an initiative 

the size of Plan Colombia and involving the risks it does is very limited. If confirmed, I would like to review this initiative with those implementing the programs, 

executive and legislative branch leaders, and some of those in the foreign governments that are a part of this effort. 

What are your views on the current direction of U.S. support for the Andean region as a whole? 

Answer: I believe that our drug control efforts should extend to our foreign and 

national security policy in appropriate ways. That does not mean that our interests 

in drug control should be considered more important than all other interests, merely 

that it should be one of our interests and its priority should be guided by the varying circumstances we face. If confirmed, I would seek full briefings on all aspects 

of our current policies and programs in the Andean region, but prior to such having 

such information, I cannot be sure of the specific strengthens and weaknesses of the 

current direction. 

Will you work to make sure that there is continued support within the Administration for Plan Colombia? If so, how? 

98

Answer: I know that many in Congress and in the current and the past administrations worked to develop Plan Colombia as it exists today. If confirmed, I will undertake to learn what they believe we need to keep in mind as we assess the programs and their future. Prior to such consultations and the completion of a review, 

I would not make decisions on how I would specifically proceed following such a review. 

What do you see as Plan Colombia’s weaknesses and how would you address 

them? 

Answer: Stipulating that there are specifics related to this question that I will 

only be able to address if confirmed, I believe the chief weakness is in regard to 

public knowledge of the basic components of this effort, its objectives, its dangers 

and costs and why they are prudent, and, in addition, a foundation of basic public 

support. If confirmed, I would see it as my job to ensure that the most responsible 

measures were in place and that they were made as clear as possible to the public 

at large and supported by the broadest possible consensus.

Question 32: Some analysts argue that we should provide direct counter-insurgency assistance to the Colombian military—not merely as part of the drug war but 

as a means of assisting a democratic ally. I don’t think there is any enthusiasm for 

such an effort in the Congress or in the U.S. military. 

Do you have a view on whether the United States should provide assistance for 

counterinsurgency in Colombia? 

Answer: I believe that should be decided and justified on its own. I do not have 

a considered view on that matter.

Question 33: In recent years, U.S. law enforcement have been wary of sharing intelligence information with their Mexican counterparts. Gaining the trust of U.S. 

law enforcement will be a slow process, but the Fox administration seems to be off 

to a good start. 

Last April, Mexican National Security Advisor Adolfo Aguilar Zinser met with Attorney General Ashcroft to discuss the United States being able to conduct security 

checks on their Mexican counterparts. Aguilar Zinser has suggested that there 

should be cooperative security clearances so that ‘‘if they fool us, they fool all of us.’’

What are your thoughts regarding sharing of intelligence with Mexican police? 

Answer: We all want the best possible working relationship with Mexico and 

President Fox on matters of drug control. In announcing my nomination, President 

Bush stated that his administration will continue to work with nations to eradicate 

drugs at their source and enforce our borders to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. 

He added that this makes working in close cooperation with Mexico a priority. The 

key to stopping flow is the disruption of major drug trafficking organizations and 

in order to accomplish this objective we need improved law enforcement information 

sharing with Mexico. It is clear that to work together in all important respects, we 

need to share sensitive information and to do so responsibly we will have to make 

successful steps that build confidence and solve the problems that inevitably arise 

in such a process, whether it involves two countries or two agencies. I do not know 

the specifics of the Mexican National Security Advisor’s proposal, but I will seek to 

become better informed about it and any related proposals and plans if confirmed. 

I would hesitate to make pronouncements at this juncture that might affect the tactical activities of U.S. law enforcement. 

What kind of a role do you think the U.S. should play in conducting background 

checks for vetted law enforcement units? 

Answer: I am not an expert on the specifics of background checks although I know 

such checks are crucial to national security and law enforcement management in 

this country and that we help allies conduct them and train their personnel to do 

so. I support such measures that can help build trust among law enforcement agencies of both countries and protect judges and other foreign government personnel 

crucial to building and protecting democratic institutions and rule of law.

Question 34: President Fox has recently extradited several Mexican nationals 

wanted in the United States on drug trafficking charges-including Kitti Paez who 

is thought to be a member of the 10-person ‘‘Board of Directors’’ for the Tijuanabased Arrellano-Felix organization. Historically, Mexico has not often extradited its 

own citizens-none before 1995 and only 11 before the beginning of the Fox Administration. 

In January, the Mexican Supreme Court handed down a precedent-setting decision allowing the extradition of Mexican nationals. 

What—specifically—would you do to maintain this new level of cooperation with 

the Mexican government? 

Answer: If confirmed, I would like to support the new level of cooperation by keeping our two countries engaged on the broadest scale. In addition to fostering law 

99

enforcement and interdiction efforts, I would work to continue cooperation in reducing the demand for drugs in both countries. In this regard the fourth U.S.Mexico 

Demand Reduction Conference will be held in Mexico City in mid-November. I will 

seriously consider making this my first foreign trip. In addition to participating in 

the conference itself, the trip will give me an important opportunity to engage senior 

GOM drug policy officials. I believe this will provide a very useful context to enhance the mutual effectiveness of our work against major drug trafficking organizations.

Question 35: As you know, since the mid-1980s we have had a process in place 

by which the President annually ‘‘certifies’’ the counter-narcotics performance of 

other nations. I had a part in drafting this statute. It hasn’t been perfect, but it 

has succeeded in getting the attention of foreign governments and the State Department. 

Last spring, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved a bill sponsored by Senator Dodd to modify the process—on a temporary basis of three years. 

Under this bill, the President would ‘‘decertify’’ those not living up to their commitments; the process of giving a formal grade of ‘‘certification’’ would end. 

What are your current views on the certification process and on the modification 

set forth in the Dodd bill? 

Answer: I have testified in support of the certification process in the past because 

I found it to be an important means of maintaining accountability in our foreign 

drug control efforts. I believe the statutory language which mandates that the executive branch certify annually that a country is taking ‘‘adequate steps’’ to combat 

drug trafficking is reasonable and reflects and important standard for maintaining 

support for the costs and risks of many of our programs in this area. I also think 

it is prudent for the certification process to include the current waiver so that in 

the event that the ‘‘adequate steps’’ requirement is not met, the secretary of state, 

as delegated by the President, may issue a national interest waiver holding sanctions in abeyance while still being candid about the limitations of a country’s efforts. 

I also recognize that the certification process is intended to be a tool to help us 

achieve the best results from our international programs and policies. In this regard, I support the President’s effort to work with Congress, including Senator Dodd 

and yourself, to make adjustments to the certification process to foster greater cooperation between Mexico and the United States on drug control efforts. If confirmed, I would like to have the opportunity to review the current situation and discuss with you, and other leaders in the Congress, and the key officials in the Administration the range of options in this area before stating a final conclusion.

Question 36: As you probably know, the provision of U.S. intelligence for air interdiction to the governments of Peru and Colombia has been suspended since the fatal 

accident last spring in which a plane carrying U.S. missionaries was erroneously 

shot down after being suspected of carrying narcotics. The joint U.S.-Peruvian investigation of this accident revealed a tragedy of errors, including serious communication problems—both in terms of language (the key Peruvian on the tracking plane 

did not speak English) and in communications equipment. 

The Administration is still reviewing a separate report prepared by former U.S. 

Ambassador Morris Busby which assessed whether the program should be resumed. 

Do you have any views on whether this program should be resumed? 

Answer: I do not have settled views prior to discussing this issue with the knowledgeable executive and congressional individuals and reviewing the report of Ambassador Busby, if confirmed.

Question 37: There has long been a debate in drug policy about the efficacy of 

source country programs and interdiction programs. The argument, by the economists at least, is that it is not cost efficient to devote significant resources to these 

programs, given the low prices of the products at that stage of the drug trade. 

There are reasons to conduct these programs other than economic efficiency—they 

do raise the cost of doing business and they also support foreign governments which 

are under siege. But the economists may not be completely wrong—there may be 

a point of diminishing returns in these types of programs. 

We devote a lot of money to the drug budget, but we don’t have a lot of excess 

federal dollars to spend. 

What do you think is the appropriate amount of resources that we should spend—

in terms of percentage—on interdiction and source country programs? Have your 

views changed as you have looked at these programs? 

Answer: My views on appropriate levels of spending for interdiction and sourcecountry programs have changed over time, but they have changed in regard to the 

results produced by particular programs and their value in relation to the other programs they are in direct competition with for funding. We need programs here—as 

100

in all areas of drug control policy that work in reducing the use of illegal drugs. 

I favor rigorous evaluation of supply reduction programs and have worked to improve such measures in the past. If confirmed, I would review these programs with 

these criteria in mind.

Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Bingaman 

f Question: In September 2000, General Barry McCaffrey released a new organizational plan for the Southwest Border (SWB) HIDTA, redefining the current structure and consolidating authority for the SWB H1DTA in an executive committee 

based in El Paso, Texas. Currently, the SWB HIDTA functions as five partnerships—New Mexico, Arizona, California, West Texas, and East Texas—with administrative oversight based in San Diego. I am concerned that ONDCP’s September 

2000 plan would result in a considerable loss of autonomy and representation for 

my state of New Mexico. 

Under this plan, the Executive Committee ‘‘shall be comprised of an equal number 

of state/local and federal law enforcement members with a minimum of 16 and a 

maximum of 20 members with voting authority.’’ No mention is made of state distribution on the Executive Committee. For a small state such as mine, I find this 

troublesome. 

Moreover, the five current Regional Executive Committees ‘‘shall be reconstituted 

as State Advisory Boards. . .representing the Southwest border designated HIDTA 

counties within the state of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.’’ No mention is made of what purpose or authority these Boards would have relative to the 

newly comprised Executive Committee. 

Mr. Walters, how will you address these concerns that I have raised? What are 

your intentions with regard to the organization of the Southwest Border HIDTA? 

What steps will you take to ensure that the State of New Mexico continues to have 

a considerable voice in decisions affecting New Mexico HIDTA counties? 

Answer: I believe the most essential element of the HIDTA program is the collaborative management structure it can provide to Federal, State, and local authorities. 

This was a hallmark of the program when we launched it when I last served at 

ONDCP and we worked diligently to nurture that feature. The goal of the program 

is to create a genuine team effort and I recognize that this cannot be accomplished 

with uneven or token involvement by some participants. My past experience has 

been that the sheer size and the number of jurisdictions involved makes the Southwest Border HIDTA both unique and crucial to our drug control objectives. 

I understand the concerns you express and I would propose to address them by 

first meeting with the authorities in New Mexico and the others involved in the 

management of the Southwest Border HIDTA, if confirmed. My preference will always be to resolve such issues promptly and directly with the concerned parties.

Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Cantwell 

f Question 1: At your confirmation hearing you expressed your support for the autonomy of successful regional and local programs. If confirmed, will you remain committed to structure that gives the local board of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Areas (HIDTA) discretion over the use of those funds? 

Answer: Although I have not had an opportunity to meet with the key members 

of the HIDTA community, if confirmed, my inclination would be to keep the active 

state and local management participation as reflected in the program.

Question 2: In my home state of Washington, we have seen an enormous explosion 

in the production and use of methamphetamine throughout the state. While we are 

fortunate to have the Northwest HIDTA to aid our local law enforcement communities in the fight against meth, the Northwest HIDTA currently includes only nine 

counties in Washington, and does not include the heavily affected counties in the 

eastern and southwest part of the state. The board of Northwest HIDTA is committed to expanding the HIDTA to include counties that meet specified criteria but 

is reluctant to increase the number of counties if they do not receive a comparable 

level of increased funding from ONDCP. 

101

As Director of ONDCP would you support an increase of funding for Northwest 

HIDTA that allows for the inclusion of counties with a demonstrated methamphetamine problem without a corresponding cut in the existing programs? 

Answer: I think an important strength of the HIDTA program is its ability to 

adapt to needs in the states and regions. If confirmed, I would like to discuss the 

issues you raise with the Northwest HIDTA board and others directly involved in 

the program. I would be inclined to help under the circumstances you describe, if 

the resources are available.

Question 3: Northwest ROTA is unique because it is one of only two HIDTAs nationwide that incorporates a prevention and treatment component that is closely 

tied to the criminal justice mission of the HIDTA. The funding for the treatment 

and prevention components is limited to $1 million, pursuant to the FY 2000 Treasury Postal Appropriations report and ONDCP policy, and the monies are used to 

fund drug courts and to provide community prevention funding in conjunction with 

the local police departments. Assuming that the board of Northwest HIDTA continues to determine that these funds are best used for prevention and treatment 

purposes, would you maintain the current ONDCP policy of allowing $1 million to 

be used for these purposes? 

Answer: If confirmed, I would like to have an opportunity to review the work of 

the Northwest HIDTA with the board, and the community affected by its work. It 

has been my experience that programs designed to respect local authority and 

management are best preserved by including local and regional authorities in decisions regarding their work. My inclination would be to maintain current practice, 

however.

Question 4: During your nomination hearing, a study by The National Center for 

Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia was referenced. That study found that 

eighth graders living in rural America are 104 percent likelier to use amphetamines, 

including methamphetamine, 83 percent more likely to smoke crack cocaine, and 34 

percent more likely to smoke marijuana, than eighth graders living in urban areas. 

As Director of ONDCP, what specific efforts would you undertake to address the 

growing problem of drug use, particularly juvenile drug use, in rural communities? 

Answer: I think we can best meet the needs of rural areas by ensuring that our 

programs for prevention, treatment, and law enforcement are designed and managed with an awareness of those needs. From community coalitions, to school-based 

prevention programs, to meeting the treatment needs of rural communities, to providing law enforcement help that is adapted to rural circumstances, all of these programs provide some resources to rural America. If confirmed, I would like to work 

with appropriate Federal, State, and local authorities to make the assistance better 

match the need.

Question 5: During your hearing you voiced support for the use of drug courts. 

In my state we have also begun to use comparable mental health courts. Do you 

also support the use of mental health courts as a means of dealing more appropriately with the vast number of mentally ill prisoners who are not currently receiving treatment? 

Answer: I am not familiar with mental health courts, but given what I know about 

the role of mental health problems among those individuals entering the criminal 

justice system and the way drug courts can help such individuals with drug addiction problems, I can see the promise in this approach. If confirmed, I would like to 

meet with some of those working in this effort and perhaps have them discuss their 

work with more of the ONDCP and federal program staff in other agencies.

Question 6: In the past, you have strongly asserted the view that drug use and 

crime are largely a result of diminished traditional values in society. 

a. Do you continue to believe that diminished traditional values are a root cause 

of the drug problem? 

Answer: I believe the arguments against illegal drug use that must be the foundation of our prevention and treatment efforts can be supported by traditional views 

of right and wrong, of acceptable and harmful, but I also believe those arguments 

can stand on their own. I do not believe that drug control policy should be used as 

a vehicle to enforce traditional opinions and I know that many, many Americans 

holding diverse and untraditional views are opposed to drug use. 

b. What specifically do you suggest that parents do to protect their children from 

drugs? 

Answer: Be a good example. Be a good teacher and tell children that drug use is 

wrong and harmful, and why. Help children find constructive and healthy activities 

in which they can grow and learn. Ensure that children and young people are supervised by responsible adults, even when they sometimes resist such supervision. 

Make the effort to learn about the nature of drug problems in your child’s school 

102

and the other parts of the community from which your child could face this threat. 

Help support community anti-drug efforts.

Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Durbin 

f Question 1: When he nominated you to become Director of the ONDCP, President 

Bush stated that ‘‘the most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America 

is to reduce the demand for drugs in America.’’ In the past, you have taken the opposite view-that the key to solving the drug crisis lies in targeting drug suppliers. 

I believe you wrote: ‘‘[T]he only way of reaching the vast majority of heavy drug 

users is to drive up the price of drugs. Addicts can only beg, borrow and steal so 

much.’’ Since you have pledged to support the President’s approach, please describe 

the evolution in your thinking. 

Answer: The article to which you refer, ‘‘Destroyed by Drugs,’’ was written in response to a report indicating a mounting number of drug-related overdoses during 

1995. The full quotation reads as follows: ‘‘For most addicts, the only hope of recovery is detox?. followed by repeated stays in a treatment facility. Some, sucked into 

the criminal justice system, can be coerced into treatment. But the only way of 

reaching the vast majority of heavy drug users is to drive up the price of drugs. 

Addicts can only beg, borrow and steal so much. Making drugs expensive forces addicts to spend their limited disposable income on a smaller quantity of drugs.’’ I believe that to be an accurate statement. The article scored the ‘‘Clinton Administration’s imbalanced drug policy’’ because of a reduction in the nation’s interdiction 

structure, not because of an increase in treatment spending. 

I have long supported a balanced strategy involving drug treatment, prevention 

efforts, as well as enforcement and interdiction. My views on the subject are perhaps best summed up in the introduction to the 1990 National Drug Control Strategy, which I helped write, and which stated, in part, that: 

For reasons both political and institutional, much public discussion has been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile debate over ‘‘supply’’ versus ‘‘demand’’ solutions. 

But to repeat what we have been saying for almost a year, the reality of the drug 

problem cannot be met through an exclusive ‘‘law enforcement’’ strategy on the one 

hand, or a ‘‘prevention and treatment’’ strategy on the other. Most Americans recognize by now that we need both approaches. An effective criminal justice policy needs 

a good treatment policy; a successful treatment system is hampered by the easy 

availability of drugs and will ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention 

program; and good prevention programs are harder to carry out absent vigorous efforts directed at international and domestic drug traffickers who are largely responsible for making drugs so ubiquitous in the first place.

Question 2: In your written statement to the Committee, you spoke of ‘‘the history 

of strong bipartisan commitment to our shared national goal of reducing drug use’’ and the need to ‘‘transcend traditional political and party boundaries.’’ I could not 

agree more with these sentiments. I am troubled, however, by your record of frequent partisan attacks against the last presidential administration. Please describe 

the steps you have taken over the last eight years to transcend traditional political 

boundaries and support the Clinton Administration’s anti-drug programs. How do 

you reconcile these efforts with the substance and tone of your public commentary 

during this time period? 

Answer: I have long believed that drug policy is an issue that knows no party affiliation 

and which, in fact, is harmed by any attempt to align it with a particular party 

or interest. 

I believe that there are serious students of drug policy in both houses and on both 

sides of the aisle, including Senators Biden, Feinstein, Grassley, Dewine, and Kyl, 

and Representatives Gilman, Portman, Rangel, and Levin, to name just a few. 

These are people who tend to agree on many matters including, with evident differences in emphasis, the need to pursue a strategy that addresses all aspects of 

this multi dimensional problem. With regard to the Clinton Administration, I should 

note that, particularly during his first term of office, I was joined in some of my 

criticisms by Members on both sides of the aisle.

Question 3: I take you at your word that, if confirmed, you would support drug 

treatment efforts. At your hearing, you repeatedly lauded the President’s commitment of $1.6 billion to close the ‘‘treatment gap.’’ But the job of ‘‘Drug Czar’’ goes 

well beyond doling out federal funds. As you know, the Director of ONDCP must 

employ diplomatic skill and moral persuasion to coordinate the anti-drug efforts of 

103

numerous federal and state agencies and not-for-profit institutions. I am concerned 

that some of your statements in the past have alienated leaders in the drug prevention and treatment community. For example, you have derided the ‘‘notoriously 

under-performing drug-treatment system’’ and described the ‘‘therapy-only lobby’’ as ‘‘more dogmatic than ever.’’ It does not come as a surprise to me that many proponents of drug treatment programs have written the Committee to oppose your 

nomination. Can you be an effective ‘‘Drug Czar’’ without the confidence of the drug 

treatment community? If confirmed, what steps would you take to heal the rift with 

those who promote drug treatment? 

Answer: I am grateful for the many treatment and prevention groups that supported me and even sent representatives to be at my confirmation hearing. They include Dick Bonnette, (Partnership for a Drug-Free America), General Arthur Dean 

and Sue Thau (Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America), Melody Heaps (Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities), John Avery (NAADAC), Jennifer Collier 

(Legal Action Center), Linda Wolf Jones (Therapeutic Communities of America), 

Mark Parrino (American Methadone Treatment Association), Judge Karen FreemanWilliams (National Association of Drug Court Professionals), Betty Sembler and 

Calvina Fay (Drug-Free America Foundation), Judy Cushing, (Oregon Family Partnership), and Henry Lozano, of Californians for Drug-free Youth. In addition, to the 

extent that there has been criticism of my record from actual treatment providers 

and associations, I would seek to address that by correcting the record, and which 

has been one of strong support for drug treatment, fighting for increases in the 

treatment budget, and supporting improvements both in how we evaluate the effectiveness of our treatment programs and how we target needed expansions in treatment capacity.

Question 4: As we discussed at your hearing, I believe that one of the greatest 

challenges confronting law enforcement today is restoring trust and confidence in 

minority communities. Whether intentional or not, the nation’s prosecution of the 

so-called War on Drugs has disproportionably targeted racial and ethnic minorities. 

Consider the following statistics from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Department of Justice: African Americans represent 

12% of the U.S. population, only 11% of current drug users, but 35% of those arrested for drug violations, 53% of those convicted in state courts for drug felonies, 

and 58% of those serving time for drug offenses in state prisons. Please explain in 

greater detail why you believe it is a ‘‘great urban myth’’ that ‘‘the criminal justice 

system is unjustly punishing black men’’? Why do you think that people of color are 

disproportionably represented among arrestees, convicts, and prisoners for drug 

crimes, when whites use illegal narcotics at roughly the same rates? Do you believe 

that the practice of racial profiling is an urban myth? 

Answer: I agree entirely with your statement about the importance of restoring 

trust and confidence in minority communities. Clearly, the government must create 

and administer laws in a fair and equitable fashion, but it is equally important that 

the laws be seen as fair by our citizens. I have stated my intention to conduct a 

review, working in close consultation with the Attorney General, of the current sentencing structure as relates to illegal drugs. In such an examination I also believe 

we should consider those who are the victims of criminal acts. In the same Weekly 

Standard article you cite above, I also wrote: ‘‘In 1998, of the 7,276 murders in the 

United States that involved a single offender and a single victim, 5,133 of the victims were male and 3,309 were black. According to the FBI, 3,565 of the offenders 

in these murder cases were black, and 3,067 of the murders involved both a black 

victim and a black offender. In 1998, black males between the ages of 14 and 17 

were almost six times more likely than white males to be victims of murder or nonnegligent manslaughter; black males between 18 and 24 were over eight times more 

likely to be victims; and for those 25 and over, black males were murder victims 

at a rate 7.6 times that of white males.’’ As I sought to explain during the hearing, I believe we should work to reduce 

crime, drug use, and addiction as the best way to help reduce the number of individuals who enter the criminal justice system and the number who enter prison. I have 

spent a significant portion of my time while working at the Philanthropy Roundtable helping foundations and donors better support not only for drug prevention 

and treatment programs, but the range of assistance to help disadvantaged communities improve schools, job training, housing, healthcare, and other elements necessary to stabilize neighborhoods and break the cycles of crime and addiction. 

With regard to your question about urban myths, with all due regard for the data 

and claims that have been advanced on various sides of this issue, I am not of the 

view that the U.S. Government, Federal, State, or local, is locking up innocent people for drug crimes in significant numbers. I believe that our system is weighted 

toward avoiding wrongful convictions, and I hope that continues to be the case. I 

104

think most Americans believe in second and third chances, and most are profoundly 

sad at the waste of human potential when a person of any race is sent to prison 

for wrongdoing. I also believe that appropriate prison sentences can serve the greater societal purpose of punishment and incapacitation. I believe we must continually 

strive to balance these aims and insure that our laws and policies are just.

Question 5: At your hearing, you expressed a willingness to reconsider the stark 

disparity between criminal punishments for the possession of crack and powder cocaine, a disparity which adversely and disproportionably affects racial minorities. 

Under federal law, those convicted of possessing only five grams of crack receive a 

mandatory five-year minimum sentence of imprisonment, while it takes 100 times 

as much powder cocaine to yield the same punishment. How will you go about reexamining this issue? Will you make a formal recommendation to the Congress? Will 

you make a commitment that, if confirmed, you will return to the Committee and 

explain your new conclusions? 

Answer: As I testified before the Committee, and as you are aware, the Congress 

created the current sentencing structure in response to the urban crack cocaine epidemic that was blamed for stimulating inner-city violence and crime. The differential reflected the greater addictive potential of crack when compared to powder cocaine, the greater violence associated with the trafficking of crack, and the importance of targeting mid- and higher-level traffickers as opposed to smaller-scale dealers. 

I do recognize that the sentencing structure has fostered among some a perception 

of racial injustice within the criminal system. Clearly, the government must create 

and administer laws in a fair and equitable fashion, but it is equally important that 

the laws be seen as fair by the citizens. 

If confirmed, I would certainly work with the Department of Justice to review the 

current drug-related sentencing structure to ensure that it is fair and just. Before 

that review and broader consultations with knowledgeable and affected parties is 

complete, it would be premature to indicate either the nature of any recommendation and who in the Bush Administration would be charged with delivering it.

Question 6: I am pleased you are now open to reducing the crack cocaine/powder 

cocaine sentencing disparity, especially because you have said in the past that it 

was ‘‘irresponsible’’ for the nonpartisan federal Sentencing Commission to make 

such a recommendation. You have denied undergoing what is known as a ‘‘confirmation conversion.’’ What, then, accounts for your change in position? Why did you 

think it was not only wrong headed but irresponsible for the Commission in the 

mid-1990s to make its recommendation? Why are you open to that recommendation 

now? 

Answer: My comments above should be understood in light of my belief that it 

should be Congress’ prerogative to determine whether or not proposed changes implicating mandatory minimum sentences should made by the Commission. Simply 

as a matter of good government, I am concerned at the potential for disruption that 

can occur when the Sentencing Commission passes a guidelines amendment that 

conflicts with a statutory mandatory minimum, since Sentencing Commission 

amendments take effect automatically after six months, unless blocked by Act of 

Congress. Indeed, the quotation you referenced continues that ‘‘the Commission 

should be barred from proposing changes in criminal penalties where Congress has 

established mandatory minimum sentences, except in an advisory format that would 

require affirmative congressional action before taking effect.’’

Question 7: You had the opportunity during the last Bush administration to work 

in ONDCP with Judge Reggie Walton, a well-respected jurist who was recently confirmed to the federal district court in the District of Columbia. As you know, Judge 

Walton was arrested several times as a teenager, and he has used his experiences 

to speak extensively about the need for rehabilitating juvenile offenders. You are on 

record in support of stringent mandatory minimum prison sentences, which have 

subjected youthful offenders, many of them only marginally involved in nonviolent 

drug transactions, to years and years of incarceration. You also have written that 

the principal aim of punishment should be to ‘‘exact a price for transgressing the 

rights of others.’’ How do you reconcile these positions with the life experiences and 

views expressed by Judge Walton? 

Answer: I had the privilege of working with Judge Walton, a fine public servant 

and a man who I am pleased to see has recently been confirmed for a federal district 

court judgeship. I visited him several weeks ago, before his confirmation, and spent 

time observing the juvenile-drug court that was a part of his calendar. His work 

there was impressive and based on strict supervision and prompt rewards for carrying out the directives of the court and prompt sanctions for failing to do so. Judge 

Walton was considered by many to be a tough judge and one who is on record as 

105

supporting tougher penalties for drug dealers and violent criminals alike. It goes 

without saying that justice must be tempered with mercy, which is why youthful 

offenders get the benefit of special sentencing and (where indicated) prison arrangements. I also believe that serious crime fighting approaches, which have had punishment and incapacitation as their principal aims, have contributed greatly to the 

sizeable reductions in violent crime we have seen over the past decade.

Question 8: You are on record as opposing needle exchange programs, even on an 

experimental level, to combat the spread of HIV. You are also a strong proponent 

of federalism and limits on congressional power. As Director of ONDCP, would you 

act to restrict state and local authority to experiment with needle exchange programs? Would you use your office as a ‘‘bully pulpit’’ to campaign against such programs? Would you interfere with needle exchanges in the District of Columbia? Why 

or why not? 

Answer: The transmission of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C through intravenous drug 

use is certainly a serious problem, and is of course one of the dangerous and deadly 

consequences of IV drug use. Needle exchange programs have been and are likely 

to remain controversial, yet we can all agree that effective treatment and support 

that protect the IV drug user not only from disease but also from all the other consequences of drug use, is the place to put our effort. Certainly various locales and 

programs will continue with needle exchange programs, and I plan to carefully monitor and evaluate their effectiveness. I would prefer to focus Federal resources on 

outreach and treatment, because they best address the full range of problems facing 

IV drug users and those around them.

Question 9: In 1996, you advocated for greater American involvement in the efforts of the Peruvian military to shoot down airplanes suspected of drug trafficking—the same efforts that resulted in the tragic death of an American missionary and her daughter this April. You wrote: ‘‘This is an opportunity to save 

American lives by helping the Peruvians press their attack on traffickers.’’ What lessons should we draw from the recent incident? Do you still believe that America 

should provide logistical support to Peru’s program? 

Answer: Clearly, the situation on the ground in Peru (and Colombia, and Latin 

America in general) has changed considerably since I was in office, and if confirmed, 

I would plan to consult extensively with interested parties in the executive branch, 

the Congress, and outside of government to develop plans and budgets for the future 

of our international drug control program. My intention would be to conduct a thorough review of these programs. Prior to the conclusion of such a review, I do not 

have settled views on the shape and direction of our future policy with regard to 

Peru. With regard to the questions of what lessons to draw, I am not privy to any 

of the internal intelligence or deliberations of the Department of State team investigating the accident, and I await along with everyone else the findings of Ambassador Busby’s inquiry in the causes of the incident. Based on what has been in the 

press, it appears that the flaw in the Peru operation was less in the agreed-upon 

procedures than in the failure to follow those procedures. I would conclude from the 

tragic events in Peru that continued, strong oversight of our foreign programs is 

vital to the continued success of those programs and to the political support that 

makes them possible.

Question 10: Many people, including Former Attorney General Janet Reno, have 

advocated the creation of specialized drug courts for addicts. What are your views 

on drug courts? As head of the ONDCP, would you sponsor or support efforts to experiment with drug courts, at the federal or local level? 

Answer: I support making a strong commitment to funding Drug Court programs, 

with a focus on the State and local level. I am not aware of Drug Court programs 

that operate at the Federal level, but I intend to look into this matter if confirmed.

Question 11: Last term, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment 

prohibits law enforcement from using thermal imaging devices to search for heat 

emissions from marijuana lamps, absent individualized suspicion. Do you agree with 

that decision, as a constitutional or a policy matter? How do you believe we as a 

nation should balance advances in law enforcement technology with the civil liberties of citizens? 

Answer: I am generally familiar with the Kyllo case, but would want to consult 

with relevant officials both inside ONDCP and at the Department of Justice before 

offering an opinion on this matter. I am not of the view that many investigative 

techniques of Federal law enforcement agencies inherently conflict with the civil liberties of citizens, but when an investigative technique does implicate a privacy interest, as is in the case with telephone wiretaps, the Congress has always been 

quick to establish a principled basis, guided by the Fourth Amendment and the way 

106

Supreme Court decisions have construed it, for ensuring that the use of the technique is strictly limited to appropriate instances.

Question 12: Many people, including prominent conservatives like Congressman 

Henry Hyde, have taken the position that our asset forfeiture laws expand federal 

power at the expense of civil liberties. For instance, the standard of proof in civil 

forfeiture cases is considerably less stringent than the ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt’’ threshold, and the government often seizes property without bringing criminal 

charges against the owner. Do you think our forfeiture laws need reform? What recommendations for reform, if any, do you support? 

Answer: Asset forfeiture laws are an indispensable tool in the effort to go after 

drug traffickers. One problem with regard to asset forfeiture laws has been the 

amount of misinformation suggesting that the Federal government seizes yachts as 

a result of finding a small amount of marijuana onboard. As you know, Federal 

agencies are not supposed to seize private property unless it is an instrumentality 

or proceeds of an illegal act, a standard that strikes me as reasonable. You are correct to note Congressman Hyde has expressed concerns about civil forfeiture. In the 

context of those concerns, then Chairman Hyde proposed, and the Congress passed, 

legislation raising the standard of proof required to effect an asset forfeiture, from 

one of ‘‘probable cause’’ to ‘‘preponderance of the evidence,’’ and placing the burden 

of proof on the government, not the defendant. I support those changes.

Question 13: Recently, federal and local authorities have detected a disturbing rise 

in the non medicinal use of the prescription drug Oxycontin. According to data from 

the Department of Health and Human Services, abuse of Oxycontin rose over 80% 

between 1999 and 2000 alone. How do you propose combating the abuse of 

Oxycontin and other legal narcotics? What lessons should we draw from the rise of 

Oxycontin as an illicit substance? 

Answer: The growing abuse of Oxycontin is a disturbing trend and one that demands special attention. If confirmed, I plan to work with interested parties within 

the Department of Justice, the Food and Drug Administration, and the pharmaceutical industry, to seek to craft a solution that balances the legitimate need of patients to receive palliative care and the need to restrict the diversion of an important medication that, used inappropriately, is both dangerous and addictive.

Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Feingold 

f Question 1: You have been someone who has advocated strong criminal enforcement and supply interdiction efforts and downplayed the essential role of treatment 

programs. Yet, the President, the DEA Administrator Mr. Hutchinson, and Senate 

leaders are heading in a different direction. In fact, in President Bush’s remarks announcing your nomination on May 10th, he essentially said that addressing demand 

should be our paramount concern. President Bush said: 

My administration will continue to work with nations to eradicate drugs at their 

source, and enforce our borders to stop the flow of drugs into America. . . .However, the most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America 

is to reduce the demand for drugs in America. Therefore, this administration will 

focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of the problem. President Bush continued by pledging $1.6 billion over the next five years for 

drug treatment and by asking Secretary Tommy Thompson to conduct a state-bystate inventory of treatment needs and report back to the President on how to close 

the treatment gap in the country most effectively. 

(a) Given your longstanding commitment to supply interdiction and law enforcement over treatment and prevention, how would you, if confirmed as Director, reconcile your views with the President’s pledge to give priority attention to demand 

reduction? Would you seek to persuade him to adopt your ideas or would you simply 

carry out the President’s plan? 

Answer: I am and I have long been an ardent supporter of effective drug treatment. During my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw tremendous growth of the drug 

treatment budget, including the creation of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Program that remains a critical component of our treatment infrastructure. In addition, 

I highlighted drug—treatment as a fundamental component when I helped draft the 

first National Drug Control Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with experts in 

the field such as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. 

Herb Kleber. I look forward to reviewing the report President Bush directed Secretary Thompson to deliver concerning the areas of specific need for additional treatment services in America to assess our progress and understand what remains to 

107

be accomplished. While not prejudging the results of that review, areas where improvement may be warranted include making available the proper treatment modality to the individual in need, making available appropriate service linkages, and 

making available an adequate aftercare component. 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, if confirmed, I will seek to 

highlight the importance of a balanced strategy for reducing our nation’s dependence on illegal drugs. My views on the subject are perhaps best summed up in the 

introduction to the 1990 National Drug Control Strategy, which I helped write, and 

which stated, in part, that: 

For reasons both political and institutional, much public discussion has been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile debate over ‘‘supply’’ versus ‘‘demand’’ solutions. 

But to repeat what we have been saying for almost a year, the reality of the drug 

problem cannot be met through an exclusive ‘‘law enforcement’’ strategy on the one 

hand, or a ‘‘prevention and treatment’’ strategy on the other. Most Americans recognize by now that we need both approaches. An effective criminal justice policy needs 

a good treatment policy; a successful treatment system is hampered by the easy 

availability of drugs and will ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention 

program; and good prevention programs are harder to carry out absent vigorous efforts directed at international and domestic drug traffickers who are largely responsible for making drugs so ubiquitous in the first place. 

(b) Can you assure this Committee that, if confirmed, you would fully endorse the 

President’s pledge to increase attention to demand reduction? 

Answer: Yes, I will.

Question 2: I believe it is time for a review of our federal mandatory minimum 

sentencing laws, which, in some cases, have resulted in unjust punishment of nonviolent drug offenders. There are currently over 450,000 non-violent drug offenders 

serving time in a federal, state or local prison, accounting for almost one-fourth of 

all inmates. Almost 80% of drug arrests in 1998 were for possession-not sale or 

manufacture, but possession-of a controlled substance. In 1997, the average federal 

sentence for a drug offense was 78 months, over twice the average sentence for manslaughter (30 months) and almost four times the average sentence for auto theft (20 

months). Possession of crack cocaine warrants five years in a federal prison with 

no possibility of parole. How can you criticize those who look at these numbers and 

pause and say that ‘there is something wrong here, we need a review of these mandatory minimum sentencing policies’? How do you justify such inequity in our criminal justice system? 

Answer: While I am not of the view that the U.S. Government, Federal, State, or 

local, is locking up innocent people for drug crimes in significant numbers, I do recognize that the mandatory minimum sentencing structure has fostered among some 

a perception of racial injustice within the criminal system. Clearly, the government 

must create and administer laws in a fair and equitable fashion, but it is equally 

important that the laws be seen as fair by the citizens. 

My understanding of the legislative history is that Congress adopted the current 

twotiered mandatory minimum sentencing structure as part of a larger effort both 

to incapacitate and punish mid- and senior-level drug dealers. While I believe that 

these sentences have been in many ways effective, I also recognize that there has 

been some disagreement about their fairness. If I am confirmed as ONDCP director, 

I would initiate a review of mandatory minimum sentences as they relate to illegal 

drugs, working in close consultation with the Attorney General. President Bush has 

expressed his openness to such a review, as has Attorney General Ashcroft. It would 

be my intention to conduct this review in consultation with interested parties in the 

executive branch, in Congress, the courts, and in the public.

Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Grassley 

f Question 1: One of my continuing concerns is to ensure that rural communities 

receive more attention when it comes to resources for combating drug use and trafficking. Rural communities share many of the same drug use problems as big cities 

and the suburbs but they don’t seem to receive much policy attention or resources. 

I would welcome your views on how we can have more effective programs for dealing with drug problems in rural communities. 

Answer: The best way to help rural areas derive appropriate assistance for the 

drug problems they face is to ensure they remain eligible for support within federal 

programs and that efforts are made to develop and disseminate approaches that are 

tailored to needs of rural areas. I believe the hIIDTA program is an example of asVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
108

sistance now provided in a range of settings. Some of the community coalition programs also seem to have adapted both support and strategies for urban and rural 

settings. I would like to review this issue more systematically with the knowledgeable and interested parties and build on the work that has been most successful.

Question 2: The drug Ecstasy has made frequent headlines the last few years. We 

are now starting to see Raves in Iowa and efforts to market this drug to our young 

people. As Drug Czar, how do you think that we can more effectively deal with this 

type of club drug? 

Answer: Since my nomination I have spoken to many people who are particularly 

alarmed the trends in the use of Ecstasy and some of the other club drugs. While 

I would not make any final decisions prior to being able to consult more widely, my 

initial view is that we need to do a better job informing young people and the broader public of the dangers many already know are associated with these drugs-we 

need better prevention efforts. We also need to work with local, state, and federal 

officials to reverse the trend of normalizing and accommodating such drug use as 

a regular part of social gatherings in some areas. - Finally; I would like to examine 

what we can do to reduce the trade in Ecstasy and related drugs.

Question 3: I am increasingly concerned that the Department of Defense is not 

pulling its weight on drug issues. One of the most important components of that 

commitment is the support provided by the National Guard. Do you support the National Guard’s domestic demand reduction and interdiction counterdrug programs? 

Do you think that DOD has an active role to play in our national counter drug efforts? 

Answer: When I last served in the drug policy office, we made a particular-and 

successful-effort to expand the role of the Department of Defense, including the National Guard, in national drug control policy. DOD brings unique skills and resources to the effort and I believe we cannot do as good a job in our demand reduction and supply reduction goals with them. At this time of new and evolving demands on our military in connection with the terrorism, I believe we will need to 

work closely with DOD to help responsibly manage resources in the face of multiple 

threats.

Question 4: I know that you share congressional concern on the current legalization movement in this country. Would you comment on the effort to legalized drugs 

under various guises? 

Answer: I have been a steadfast opponent of drug legalization for many years, 

both while in government and out. I have written and spoken on this issue many 

times. I believe-as do the vast majority of Americans-that legalizing drug use would 

be a disaster for our nation and particularly for our young people. This debate has 

shifted in recent years to involve a variety of issues and I believe there is no substitute for addressing those issues directly and the underlying goal of legalization. 

One of the prices of the free society we all love is that we must be willing to conduct 

free and open debate on important issues in whatever form those issues arise. But 

here too, I think that when the debate is joined and national leaders and others 

give voice to the realities of what legalization would mean-in short, when we push 

back-the legalization movement will recede.

Question 5: Methamphetamine is a major drug problem, particularly in Western 

and rural States. While there has been talk of a strategy to combat this, I do not 

think a lot has actually been done. What are your thoughts on how we need to address meth production and use? 

Answer: I share your concern about the growth of methaphetamine use and its 

trafficking. It would be premature for me to make a judgment on the national efforts against this threat, prior to full discussions with key people working on the 

supply and demand side of this problem. Nonetheless, I would make such a review 

a top priority because I share your impression that we need to do much more 

against this threat.

Question 6: I support the need to reauthorized the Andean Trade Preference Act 

to help the Andean Countries deal with the economic problems caused by drug production. Can you comment on your views on ATPA? 

Answer: I have long believed that expanding opportunities for legitimate trade 

with the United States is an important tool in working with the Andean nations 

to attack the drug problem, as well as the many other interests we have in the region. I believe our goal has always been to promote economic development along 

with democracy, stability, and rule of law. The ATPA was helpful in this effort in 

the past and should be in the future.

Question 7: What is your position on the Tethered Aerostat Radar System 

(TARS)? 

109

Answer: I have not had direct experience with this program since I left government over eight years ago. For this reason I cannot give an informed position on 

the system at the present, but I will look into it and discuss it with you if confirmed.

Responses of John P. Walters to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy 

f Question 1: In 1997, you criticized General Barry McCaffrey for sending ‘‘the 

wrong message’’ when he expressed concern about the high percentage of African 

Americans being imprisoned for drug offenses. In addition to General McCaffrey, 

many other persons have felt that the criminal justice system is unjustly punishing 

young black men. Yet as recently as last March, you called this view one of ‘‘the 

great urban myths of our time.’’ The 2000 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse shows that African-Americans and whites use illegal drugs at the same rate. Nevertheless, according to a recent report by RAND, while drug-related admissions to U.S. prisons by whites increased seven-fold between 1983 and 1998, admissions by AfricanAmericans increased twenty-six-fold. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1997 black 

men accounted for half of all state drug prisoners, even though they comprised only 

4% of the U.S. population. White men comprised 30% of the population, but only 

16% of state drug prisoners. 

Given these flagrant disparities, how can you be so confident that there is no racial bias in the criminal justice system? Shouldn’t the Director of ONDCP have an 

open mind about the possibility of racial injustice in the criminal justice system? 

Answer: Racial injustice is intolerable and has no place in our criminal justice system. I recognize that the statistics you cite create an appearance of unfairness, and 

as I said in my testimony, I believe it is critical that we examine the equity and 

fairness of our criminal justice system. I have stated my intention to conduct a review, working in close consultation with the Attorney General, of the current sentencing structure as relates to illegal drugs. It is my intention to conduct this review 

in consultation with people in government and law enforcement, as well as with interested parties and experts from outside government. 

In such an examination I also believe we should consider those who are the victims of criminal acts. In the same Weekly Standard article you cite above, I also 

wrote: ‘‘In 1998, of the 7,276 murders in the United States that involved a single 

offender and a single victim, 5,133 of the victims were male and 3,309 were black. 

According to the FBI, 3,565 of the offenders in these murder cases were black, and 

3,067 of the murders involved both a black victim and a black offender. In 1998, 

black males between the ages of 14 and 17 were almost six times more likely than 

white males to be victims of murder or non-negligent manslaughter; black males between 18 and 24 were over eight times more likely to be victims; and for those 25 

and over, black males were murder victims at a rate 7.6 times that of white males.’’

As I sought to explain during the hearing, I believe we should work to reduce 

crime, drug use, and addiction as the best way to help reduce the number of individuals who enter the criminal justice system and the number who enter prison. I have 

spent a significant portion of my time while working at the Philanthropy Roundtable helping foundations and donors better support not only for drug prevention 

and treatment programs, but the range of assistance to help disadvantaged communities improve schools, job training, housing, healthcare, and other elements necessary to stabilize neighborhoods and break the cycles of crime and addiction. 

With all due regard for the data and claims that have been advanced on various 

sides of this issue, I am not of the view that the U.S. Government, Federal, State, 

or local, is locking up innocent people for drug crimes in significant numbers. I believe that our system is weighted toward avoiding wrongful convictions, and I hope 

that continues to be the case. I think most Americans believe in second and third 

chances, and most are profoundly sad at the waste of human potential when a person of any race is sent to prison for wrongdoing. I also believe that appropriate prison sentences can serve the greater societal purpose of punishment and incapacitation. I believe we must continually strive to balance these aims and insure that our 

laws and policies are just.

Question 2: There are more than two million people imprisoned in the United 

States. We have 5% of the world population, but 25% of the world’s prison population. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world—five times 

higher than that of the next highest Western nation. Nevertheless, you recently 

wrote in-the Weekly Standard that the war on drugs is losing out to ‘‘the war on 

punishment and prisons.’’

110

Many experts across the political spectrum are concerned about this problem. For 

example, your one-time co-author and former Bush Administration official John 

DiIulio has written that ‘‘two million prisoners are enough.’’ He believes that we 

should ‘‘aim for zero prison growth, repeal mandatory-minimum drug laws, release 

drug-only offenders, and mandate drug treatment both behind bars and in the community.’’ Do you agree or disagree with those recommendations? 

Answer: All Americans lament the wasted potential represented by so many of 

their fellow citizens serving time in prison. But at the same time we are obligated 

to maintain a lawful society and to protect the innocent. So as long as people are 

committing real crimes, it will continue to be necessary to incarcerate those who 

break our laws and represent a threat to society. When considering the genuinely 

troubling number of people serving time, it is worth remembering that drug crimes 

are only part of the story. As I wrote in the same Weekly Standard article you cite, 

‘‘According to the most current data, in 1997 only 8.8 percent of the 1,046,705 individuals in state prisons were there for drug possession. Drug trafficking offenses accounted for 11.3 percent of those imprisoned; property offenses 22 percent; and violent crimes 47.2 percent. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, violent crimes vastly outpaced drug offenses as the cause of the prison population’s rapid growth. The situation at the federal level is even more lopsided. In fiscal year 1999, just 2.2 percent 

of federal drug convictions were for simple possession.’’ I agree that it is important 

to keep reviewing the way that law and punishment are working in our society, but 

I believe it is not helpful to simply promise a certain level of punishment or imprisonment detached from the level of actual crime.

Question 3: More than 40,000 people a year become infected with HIV, the virus 

that causes AIDS. Half of all new infections in the United States occur among drug 

users. In addition, approximately 4 million Americans have been infected with the 

hepatitis C virus, and drug use is responsible for at least 60% of those infections. 

Numerous authorities, including:

• the National Academy of Sciences, 

• the Surgeon General, 

• the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

• the American Medical Association, 

• the Academy of Pediatrics, and 

• the American Public Health Association

have concluded that needle-exchange programs reduce the transmission of HIV 

and hepatitis C without encouraging the illegal use of drugs. 

In a 1996 article, you endorsed the view that needle-exchange programs facilitate 

drug use and ‘‘undercut[] the credibility of society’s message that using drugs is illegal and morally wrong.’’ You wrote that ‘‘emotionalism and junk science’’ surrounding the needle-exchange debate has ‘‘obscured the central fact that there is absolutely no hard evidence’’ that these programs actually work in reducing HIV 

transmission. 

If you are confirmed, will you now support efforts by state and local communities 

to reduce I–RV and hepatitis C infection through needle-exchange programs? Will 

you support federal funding of such programs? 

Answer: The transmission of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C through intravenous drug 

use is certainly a serious problem, and is of course one of the dangerous and deadly 

consequences of IV drug use. Needle exchange programs have been and are likely 

to remain controversial, yet we can all agree that effective treatment and support 

that protects IV drug users not only from disease but also from all the other consequences of drug use is the place to put maximum emphasis. Certainly, various 

locales and programs will continue with needle exchange programs, and I plan to 

carefully monitor and evaluate their effectiveness. I would prefer to focus Federal 

resources on effective outreach and treatment because they offer the best means of 

addressing the full range of problems facing IV drug users and those around them.

Question 4: In 1994, you criticized Attorney General Janet Reno for proposing reductions in mandatory-minimum sentences for certain drug offenses. Many of the 

people serving mandatory minimum sentences are drug-addicts. Some were convicted of drug possession offenses, while many others were convicted of low-level 

drug sales or non-violent property crimes committed in order to pay for their addictions. Are you still opposed to efforts to reform federal mandatory-minimum laws? 

Answer: I have stated my intention to conduct a review, working in close consultation with the Attorney General, of the current sentencing structure as relates to illegal drugs. It is my intention to conduct this review in consultation with people in 

government and law enforcement, as well as with interested parties and experts 

from outside government.

111

Question 5: In 1996, you co-authored a book titled Body Count. In this book, you 

predicted that the United States was about to suffer a ‘‘new breed’’ of remorseless 

‘‘juvenile superpredators.’’ Even though juvenile crime rates had already begun to 

decline at that time, you wrote: ‘‘Over the next decade or so, the number of young 

men in the population will increase substantially. And a large fraction of boys are 

likely to be raised in circumstances that put them at risk of becoming street predators. 

In short, America is a ticking crime bomb. . . .A new generation of street criminals is upon us—the youngest, biggest, and baddest generation any society has ever 

known.’’

Your ‘‘juvenile superpredator’’ prediction was widely publicized. But the rate of 

violent juvenile crime did not increase during the 1990’s. In fact, arrest rates for 

young people for homicide, robbery, and rape fell dramatically—by more than 70% 

after 1993. 

One of your co-authors, John DiIulio, has since expressed regret about his role 

in advancing the ‘‘juvenile superpredator’’ prediction. Do you regret your role? 

Answer: We are all pleased that juvenile crime rates have fallen. Of course, there 

is considerable disagreement about why they have gone down, but it seems beyond 

dispute that some of the factors included strengthening punishment of violent 

crimes by juveniles, increased law enforcement presence (supported by additional 

federal resources), and additional programs that divert young people from the paths 

that lead to violent crime and ruined lives, which I discussed in great detail in the 

book I coauthored with John DiIulio and William Bennett. We consider Body Count 

a book about prevention first and foremost, and to the extent that it may have provided people with tools to prevent crime, that was our foremost hope.

Question 6: A 1999 report by the National Center for Juvenile Justice concluded 

that all of the increase in homicides by juveniles between the mid-1980’s and mid1990’s was firearm-related. Similarly, the U.S. Surgeon General recently concluded 

that both the decade-long upsurge in homicides and the downward trend from 1993 

to 1999 related to the use of firearms: ‘‘It is now clear that the violence epidemic 

was caused largely by an upsurge in the use of firearms by young people. . . .Today’s youth violence is less lethal, largely because of a decline in the use 

of firearms.’’ Do you agree or disagree with these conclusions? 

Answer: I do not have detailed knowledge of the trends and rates of juvenile crime 

tied specifically to firearms, although I do believe that the drop in juvenile crime 

has many causes, as I detailed above. Certainly, keeping guns out of the hands of 

people who shouldn’t have them should be a key law enforcement priority.

Question 7: In a 2001 report on drug policy, the National Academy of Sciences 

found that ‘‘neither the data systems nor the research infrastructure needed to assess the effectiveness of drug control enforcement policies’’ exists. It concluded that 

it is ‘‘time for the federal government to remedy this serious deficiency. It is unconscionable for this country to carry out a public policy of this magnitude and cost 

without any way of knowing whether and to what extent it is having the desired 

effect.’’ Has this report changed your views regarding the effectiveness of federal enforcement and sentencing policies? As Director of ONDCP, what steps will you take 

in response to the National Academy’s report? 

Answer: I have always believed that we need more precise and timely data to 

more effectively craft drug policy, both with regard to controlling demand and controlling supply. It is my intention, if confirmed, to take particular care in reviewing 

the Academy’s report, which I have read, and to draw upon their expertise and that 

of other experts to create better means of data collection to facilitate more effective 

policy.

Question 8: RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center recently analyzed the federal 

government’s increased sanctions and penalties ‘‘applied specifically to drug felons 

in a manner consistent with a view of drug use as a moral problem rather than an 

illness.’’ The report concluded: 

These sanctions disproportionately and cumulatively affect minority communities. 

While the effects of these polices are difficult to measure directly, it is not difficult 

to make the case that these sanctions serve to damage, rather than enhance, social 

cohesion in minority communities. Patterns of drug conviction and community 

health disparities appear to be mutually reinforcing. Without adequate resources to 

facilitate recovery namely, education, job opportunities, access to insurance, health 

care, housing, and the right to vote—the prospect of recidivism becomes more likely 

for minority drug abusers and increases the burden on their communities. We can 

thus expect the factors that fostered drug use in the first place to persist. 

112

What is your response to this analysis? Do you believe the federal government 

should continue to restrict released drug offenders’ access to health benefits, housing benefits, access to higher education, and the right to vote? 

Answer: One thing that my work as the president of the Philanthropy Roundtable 

has shown me is that law enforcement alone cannot come anywhere close to providing everything that we need to provide to those communities that have been 

hardest hit by drug abuse and drug trafficking. I do not have a settled opinion regarding the specific restrictions you cite for convicted drug offenders, but if confirmed I would like to look at these questions in the broad context of an overall review, in consultation with interested parties and with experts inside and outside 

government.

Question 9: In your response to the Committee’s questionnaire, you stated that 

during your time at ONDCP during the first Bush administration, you were ‘‘a principal author of a new drug strategy and federal spending plan that targeted more 

resources for treatment than any administration before or after.’’ Isn’t it in fact true 

that the Clinton Administration targeted substantially more resources for drug 

treatment than the first Bush Administration did? If you dispute this, please provide data in support of your position. 

Answer: My apologies for the confusion in regard to this issue. I have attached 

a table that provides detailed spending information and is what I relied on for the 

budget references in my written testimony before the Committee. I certainly recognize that during the eight years of the Clinton Administration funding levels devoted to drug treatment were higher than during the four years of the Bush Administration in which I served. The point I was making, however, was that the rate at 

which treatment spending increased for this important priority was significantly 

higher drug the Bush Administration than in the Clinton Administration. As the 

table indicates, overall treatment funding increased 74 percent or $1,041.4 million 

from FY 1989 to FY 1993 ($1,408.9 million to $2,450.3 million) in 1996 constant dollars. This compares with an increase over eight years for the Clinton Administration 

of 17 percent or $407.6 million from FY 1993 to FY 2001 ($2,450.3 million to 

$2,857.9 million) in 1996 constant dollars. It also compares to an increase over eight 

years for the Reagan Administration of 83 percent or $640.7 million from FY 1981 

to FY 1989 ($768.2 million to $1,408.9 million) in 1996 constant dollars.

Question 10: Please correct the percentage funding increases listed on pages 13 

and 14 of your questionnaire response. 

Answer: Again my apologies for the confusion. Rather than the unadjusted fiveyear budget period referred to in my questionnaire, I would prefer to use the adjusted fouryear period in the attached table as reflected in my written testimony before the Committee. Thus: 

a) overall treatment funding increased 74 percent or $1,041.4 million from FY 

1989 to FY 1993 ($1,408.9 million to $2,450.3 million) in 1996 constant dollars; 

b) treatment funding excluding research increased 74 percent or $932.8 million 

($1,255 million to $2,187.8 million); and treatment research funding increased or 71 

percent or $109.6 million ($153.9 million to $262.5 million).

Question 11: In describing your accomplishments at ONDCP during the first Bush 

Administration, in both your statement and questionnaire response, you cite National Household Survey of Drug Abuse data for the period between 1985 and 1992. 

What is your basis for selecting this period? Isn’t it true that more than two-thirds 

of the decline in illegal teen drug use between 1985 and 1992 occurred by 1988—

before you began work at ONDCP? Weren’t you responsible for setting federal drug 

policy for the year 1993? 

Answer: In my statement, I wrote that ‘‘I firmly believe that the balanced policies 

and programs we established in that first Strategy, as well as the supporting budgets the Congress provided, helped make the efforts of millions of Americans more 

effective and contributed to real results.’’ I would never claim personal credit for 

what was obviously a national effort to reduce drug use. The Household Survey was 

conducted every three years. There’s a Survey for 1985 and one for 1988.1 chose the 

year 1985 because it is the closest date to when I began working on drug policy, 

at the Department of Education. I chose 1992 because that survey was inclusive of 

the last full year that I worked on drug policy for the federal government. While 

I am certainly proud of contributions I made to the government’s drug policy in 

1993, there were substantial changes made at ONDCP and in national drug control 

policy that year at the beginning of the Clinton Administration for which I was not 

responsible.

113


81443.001
f114

Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Leahy 

CRACK-POWDER COCAINE AND MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES

Question 1: Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conferences of all 12 U.S. 

circuits have called for the repeal of Federal mandatory minimum sentences. The 

RAND Corporation found in a recent study of mandatory minimum drug sentences 

that ‘‘mandatory minimums are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at 

reducing cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.’’ I have 

found that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are reconsidering their 

prior support of mandatory minimum drug sentences. And Asa Hutchinson, the 

President’s selection to head the DEA, has been supportive of revisiting our current 

use of mandatory minimums. (A) Do you believe that mandatory minimum sentences are effective and appropriate? (B) Are there any current mandatory minimum 

drug penalties that you would support eliminating? (C) Are there any current mandatory minimum drug penalties that you would support reducing? 

Answer 1A: If confirmed, I am committed to conducting a review, working in close 

consultation with the Attorney General, of the current sentencing structure as relates to illegal drugs. President Bush has expressed his openness to such a review, 

as has Attorney General Ashcroft. It would be my intention to conduct this review 

in consultation with interested parties in the executive branch, in Congress, the 

courts, and in the public. 

Answer 1B: As you certainly know, this has been an important and controversial 

issue and I would intend to address it by, first, allowing interested parties to 

present their views and concerns, and second, by seeking to build a consensus for 

an appropriate response. This approach requires openness to all points of view and 

a decision only after the conclusion of the review described above. 

Answer 1C: Any proposal to reduce the penalty associated with a mandatory minimum sentence would have to await the conclusion of the review described above. 

Broadly, with regard to mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine, which 

were discussed before the Committee, I recognize that the sentencing structure has 

fostered among some a perception of racial injustice within the criminal system. 

Clearly, the government must create and administer laws in a just and equitable 

fashion. It is equally important that the public perceive that the government is 

doing so. If some believe that a law discriminates against a certain population it 

hinders the ability of the government to enforce that law for the benefit of all society.

Question 2: In an article you published in the Weekly Standard in March 2001, 

you wrote that the idea that we are imprisoning too many people for merely possessing illegal drugs was ‘‘among the great urban myths of our time.’’ According to 

a 1999 Justice Department report, over 100,000 people were in State or Federal 

prison in 1997 merely for possession of an illegal drug. (A) Do you believe the incarceration of over 100,000 people represents an ‘‘urban myth?’’ (B) Do you believe that 

it is an effective use of existing prison space? (C) Do you have any reservations 

about the use of mandatory minimum sentences against drug offenders? 

Answer 2A: No. 

Answer 2B: It is difficult to make generalizations about prisoners in 50 state prison systems absent complete information. As I noted in the Weekly Standard article 

you referenced, ‘‘we do not know for sure how many of those sentenced for a drug 

possession conviction were actually traffickers who were allowed to plead guilty to 

a lesser charge, or repeat offenders whose record put them in prison for their most 

recent offense, or both ....’’ Recent data from the Federal system, from the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, is suggestive: fewer than half of those convicted for a possession offense were first time offenders 67.4 percent of Federal drug possession defendants had prior arrest records, and 54 percent had prior convictions. In addition, 

28 percent of possession defendants faced additional charges, and virtually all (98.5 

percent) convictions resulted from pleas, suggesting bargaining down more serious 

charges. In addition, prison sentences for possession amounted to just 1.0 percent 

of Federal prison sentences. Nonetheless, if confirmed, I would intend to review this 

area as well and consult widely with knowledgeable and interested parties to determine how we can improve effectiveness and efficiency. 

Answer 2C: My understanding of the legislative history is that Congress adopted 

the current two-tiered mandatory minimum sentencing structure as part of a larger 

effort both to incapacitate and punish mid- and senior-level drug dealers. If I am 

115

confirmed as ONDCP Director, I would certainly intend to review the regime of 

mandatory minimum sentences as detailed in response to question one above.

Question 3: Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to State and Federal prisons 

increased almost 16-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 

167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998. During this time, white drug 

admissions increased more than 7-fold, Hispanic drug admissions increased 18-fold, 

and black drug admissions increased more than 26-fold. (A) Do you believe these 

increases are proportionate to increases in drug crimes among people of each demographic group? (B) What are your thoughts regarding the remarkable disproportion 

of black Americans entering prison for drug offenses? (C) Do you think the general 

increase in incarceration, leaving aside questions of race, is problematic? 

Answer 3A: I believe that the current state of our data collection is insufficient 

to support conclusions about the relative rates of increase in incarceration because 

I believe a complete view of incarceration rates should include information on offenses, original charges and final pleas, and criminal histories (since they too affect 

sentencing). 

Answer 3B: I believe it is critical that we examine the equity and fairness of the 

criminal justice system and have already stated my intention to do so in this regard, 

if confirmed. In such an examination I also believe we should consider those who 

are the victims of criminal acts. In the Weekly Standard article cited in question 

2 above, I wrote: ‘‘In 1998, of the 7,276 murders in the United States that involved 

a single offender and a single victim, 5,133 of the victims were male and 3,309 were 

black. According to the FBI, 3,565 of the offenders in these murder cases were black, 

and 3,067 of the murders involved both a black victim and a black offender. In 1998, 

black males between the ages of 14 and 17 were almost six times more likely than 

white males to be victims of murder or non-negligent manslaughter; black males between 18 and 24 were over eight times more likely to be victims; and for those 25 

and over, black males were murder victims at a rate 7.6 times that of white males.’’

As I sought to explain during the hearing, I believe we should work to reduce crime, 

drug use, and addiction as the best way to help reduce the number of individuals 

who enter the criminal justice system and the number who enter prison. I have 

spent a significant portion of my time while working at the Philanthropy Roundtable helping foundations and donors better support not only for drug prevention 

and treatment programs, but the range of assistance to help disadvantaged communities improve schools, job training, housing, healthcare, and other elements necessary to stabilize neighborhoods and break the cycles of crime and addiction. 

Answer 3C: I think most Americans believe in second and third chances, and most 

are profoundly sad at the waste of human potential when a person of any race is 

sent to prison for wrongdoing. I also believe that appropriate prison sentences can 

serve the greater societal purpose of punishment and incapacitation. I believe we 

must continually strive to balance these aims and insure that our laws and policies 

are just. 

ADDICTION AND TREATMENT

Question 4: (A) You wrote in an article in the Weekly Standard earlier this year 

that the idea that ‘‘addiction is a disease’’ is an ‘‘ideology.’’ What do you mean by 

that? 

Answer 4A: I am familiar with, and understand the expanding body of research 

demonstrating the biological and neurological effects of drug use, including that continued drug use adversely affects brain chemistry and structure. The research also 

demonstrates that, for a significant minority, drug use can lead to the compulsive 

drug craving, seeking, and taking behavior we characterize as addiction. 

I also recognize that the treatment and management of drug addiction are in 

some ways similar to the treatment and management of chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. For instance, adherence to a treatment plan is critically important in addressing chronic conditions. Whether a person becomes a drug 

addict or is afflicted with diabetes, he or she must take personal responsibility for 

obtaining and following through with treatment. Much like a diabetic must monitor 

blood sugar levels in the bloodstream, maintain a healthy diet, and take insulin, 

overcoming drug addiction can require the commitment to taking medication that 

is a part of specific treatment programs, working to change behavior and accepting 

other services necessary to foster recovery. 

I am not a physician, but I believe the consideration of addition as a disease has 

wide application. I also believe that a full understanding should not obscure the nature of the onset of drug addiction which policy cannot ignore. The repeated, willful 

use of an illegal, psychoactive substance is behavior we should seek to effectively 

discourage even though drug use, not drug addiction, is the intent. A comprehensive 

116

prevention policy should assist youth in recognizing their responsibility to avoid 

drug taking behavior and the threat of addiction that comes with it.

Question 4B: The American Medical Association classified alcoholism and substance abuse as a disease in 1957. Do you believe that the AMA came to that conclusion based on ideological rather than medical foundations? 

Answer 4B: No.

Question 4C: Alan Leshner, the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has 

said he believes drug addiction is a ‘‘complex disease.’’ Do you believe that Dr. 

Leshner is motivated by ideology rather than medicine? Do you believe that Dr. 

Leshner should retain his position? 

Answer 4C: I do not believe that Dr. Leshner is motivated by ideology. I would 

defer to Secretary Thompson regarding personnel questions related to those under 

his authority.

Question 4D: Finally, do you believe that drug dependence should be viewed as 

a public health problem? 

Answer 4D: The problem of drug dependence has many dimensions, among them 

a significant public health component.

Question 5: In a 1996 article you praised Freddie Garcia, a Texas man who ran 

the faith-based Victory Fellowship center. You praised Garcia for ‘‘challeng[ing] the 

medical model of addiction head-on.’’ You also approvingly quoted the following Garcia statement: ‘‘We believe that sin is the reason why people take drugs. We believe 

that drug addiction is a spiritual problem, and that Jesus Christ is the solution.’’

Now, I do not disagree that people must take responsibility for their actions, or that 

religion in general, or Christianity in particular, provides valuable assistance for 

many people looking to overcome addiction. (A) But do you believe that drug use 

is simply the result of ‘‘sin?’’ (B) Do you believe that environmental or any other 

factors play a role? (C) What does it mean to you to say that Jesus Christ is the 

solution to drug addiction? Do you believe that this is a generally applicable solution? 

Answer 5A: No. 

Answer 5B: Yes. 

Answer 5C: I believe that when Pastor Garcia said that, he was referring to the 

power of religious faith to provide valuable assistance in accomplishing the transformation represented by leaving behind a life of drug addition. While I have seen 

other treatment programs founded on religious faith that have helped individuals 

suffering from drug and alcohol dependence, I have also seen many, many more 

treatment providers who operate on secular principles while still obtaining positive 

client outcomes. I believe we need all these efforts and more and I do not believe 

religious programs should be viewed as a substitute or opponent of non-religious 

programs.

Question 6A: You referred in a 1998 article to the nation’s ‘‘notoriously under-performing drug-treatment system.’’ What are the strengths and weaknesses of drug 

treatment in America? 

Answer 6A: First of all, I am an ardent supporter of effective drug treatment. During my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw tremendous growth of the drug treatment 

budget, including the creation of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Program that remains a critical component of our treatment infrastructure. Furthermore, I highlighted drug treatment as a fundamental component when I drafted the first National Drug Control Strategy. More recently, I have spoken with experts in the field 

such as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb 

Kleber. I look forward to reviewing the report President Bush directed Secretary 

Thompson to deliver concerning the areas of specific need for additional treatment 

services in America to assess our progress and understand what remains to be accomplished. While not prejudging the results of that review, areas where improvement may be warranted include making available the proper treatment modality to 

the individual in need, making available appropriate service linkages, and making 

available an adequate aftercare component.

Question 6B: Senator Hatch and I have introduced S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act. This bipartisan bill would aid treatment efforts nationally. Are you familiar with S. 304? Do you support the bill? 

Answer 6B: I am familiar with the bill, but before taking a formal position on a 

piece of important legislation, I believe I should review these matters with the full 

range of interested and knowledgeable parties. I intend to do this promptly, if I am 

confirmed.

Question 7: You have said that you are supportive of treatment provided that it 

is ‘‘good’’ treatment. 

117

(A) How do you define ‘‘good’’ treatment? 

(B) What standard(s) do you believe should be used to determine whether a treatment program is effective? 

(C) In your opinion, what is the proper role of science in the development of effective treatments? 

Answer 7A: Individuals in need of drug treatment vary tremendously, and one of 

the limitations of the present system has been in matching individuals with appropriate services. Precisely because of the heterogeneity of the population in need of 

drug treatment, it is difficult to make across-the-board statements about what constitutes ‘‘good’’ treatment and any measure must reflect the range of severity and 

related conditions clients present. All studies of treatment effectiveness also should 

be grounded in the obvious measure of how many users desist from drug use and 

for how long, but a sampling of other measures could include criteria such as participation in the workforce, cost effectiveness, appropriateness in matching the client 

with needed services, reduced criminal recidivism, and health indicators. 

Answer 7B: I have tried to address this question in the answer above to 7 A. 

Answer 7C: The role of science in developing effective modalities and techniques 

of drug treatment is a large one. The role of science includes, but is by no means 

limited to, accurately assessing the character of individuals’ addictions, creating diagnostic standards for grouping like problems, establishing treatment protocols, 

measuring the relative effectiveness of resultant treatment programs and modalities, and developing promising pharmacotherapies.

Question 8: Experts in the treatment field have argued that faith-based drug 

treatment programs should be held to the same effectiveness standards as secular 

programs. Do you agree with this view, or do you believe that these programs 

should be evaluated differently than secular programs? 

Answer 8: I believe all drug treatment programs should be evaluated first and 

foremost for their ability to get their clientele to stop using illegal drugs and to 

begin the process of recovery.

Question 9: You wrote in 1996 that ‘‘Washington must get serious about promoting rehabilitation that works, such as religion-based programs.’’ (A) Do you believe that religion-based programs are the most effective treatment programs? (B) 

What is the scientific evidence—or the effectiveness of religion-based treatment programs? 

Answer 9A: No. I do believe that we should encourage all effective treatment regimes that assist those afflicted to overcome their addiction. We should not close the 

door to an otherwise effective drug treatment program merely because it has a basis 

in faith or spirituality. I am not, however, suggesting that Federal funds should support proselytizing in the name of drug treatment and I do not intend by saying that 

religion based programs can do some good to denigrate secular-based programs. 

Answer 9B: The relevant evidence for faith-based drug treatment programs, while 

often quite impressive, has tended to be anecdotal or on a fairly scale small. As 

noted above, I believe all treatment programs should be evaluated on the basis of 

their ability to get their clientele to stop using illegal drugs and to begin the process 

of recovery. We need to find the efficient and inexpensive ways to better track treatment results in these terms for all forms of treatment.

Question 10: Over 600,000 individuals leave State and Federal prisons every year. 

Many of those people were drug users before they were imprisoned. In prison, many 

of them had little access to drug treatment but ready access to drugs. As a result, 

they are poised to return to a life of crime when they are released, if for no reason 

besides a desire to support their drug habit.

Question A: Would you support providing additional grant money to States and 

local communities for the purpose of providing drug testing and treatment in prisons and jails? 

Answer 10A: Yes.

Question B: What else might we do to assist communities in dealing with the 

problem of convicts being released from prison with their drug problems intact? 

Answer 10B: Additional programs that bear further consideration in my view are 

those that seek to assist reintegration in society of former prison inmates with a 

history of substance abuse. I would like to look at this area with greater care and 

consultation, but I believe there is evidence that such reintegration programs in conjunction with treatment in prisons, substantially improves outcomes.

Question 11: You have written that ‘‘the culture of victimhood lies at the core of 

the therapeutic worldview.’’

Question A: What do you mean by this statement? 

118

Answer 11A: This passage was not especially clear in conveying my point, which 

was that there has been a tendency by some to describe the drug addicted as ‘‘victims’’ in a manner that minimizes the crucial role individuals play in their own recovery, including sticking with what can be an arduous treatment and aftercare regimen. Too often the hard work that individuals put into their recovery is ignored, 

and the process of drug treatment is described in a manner that suggests the participant’s role is merely passive.

Question B: Do you believe that drug treatment professionals are motivated by 

‘‘the culture of victimhood?′′

Answer 11B: The drug treatment specialists I have had the privilege of working 

with over the years have all been motivated by a sincere desire to help people. 

DEMAND VS. SUPPLY REDUCTION/INTERDICTION/LATIN AMERICA

Question 12: President Bush has said: ‘‘The most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America. Therefore, 

this administration will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of this 

problem.’’

Question A: Do you agree with the President’s statement? 

Answer 12A: Yes.

Question B: If so, why have you consistently argued that our fundamental Federal 

priority should be attacking the supply of drugs? 

Answer 12B: I have not made that argument. As I stated in my testimony before 

the Committee, if confirmed, I will seek to highlight the importance of a balanced 

strategy for reducing our nation’s dependence on illegal drugs. My views on the subject are perhaps best summed up in the introduction to the 1990 National Drug 

Control Strategy, which I helped write, and which stated, in part, that:

For reasons both political and institutional, much public discussion has 

been bedeviled by a persistent but sterile debate over ‘‘supply’’ versus ‘‘demand’’ solutions. But to repeat what we have been saying for almost a year, 

the reality of the drug problem cannot be met through an exclusive ‘‘law 

enforcement’’ strategy on the one hand, or a ‘‘prevention and treatment’’

strategy on the other. Most Americans recognize by now that we need both 

approaches. An effective criminal justice policy needs a good treatment policy; a successful treatment system is hampered by the easy availability of 

drugs and will ultimately be overwhelmed without a good prevention program; and good prevention programs are harder to carry out absent vigorous efforts directed at international and domestic drug traffickers who are 

largely responsible for making drugs so ubiquitous in the first place.

Question 13: A recent National Academy of Sciences report recommended that the 

ONDCP work with law enforcement research agencies to develop a sustained program of research on how drug production, transport and distribution respond to 

interdiction and enforcement activities. What is your response to that recommendation? 

Answer 13: I agree, and if confirmed would seek to work the ONDCP staff, outside 

authorities, and other interested and knowledgeable individuals to develop such 

measures. In my view, the only justification for any program contained under the 

National Drug Control Budget is whether it ultimately contributes to reducing drug 

use.

Question 14: You’ve argued that the market for drugs is highly price-sensitive and 

that increases in the price of drugs in the ‘‘vulnerable inner city’’ reduce drug use, 

since addicts are unable to afford more drugs. This theory makes some sense to me 

as applied to casual drug users. It seems to me, however, that those who are addicted to drugs will generally find other means—often illegal means-to obtain drugs. 

To what extent do you believe that increasing the price of drugs by limiting supply 

will decrease drug use among addicts? 

Answer 14: While the evidence is not always as clear as one might like, there is 

precedent for observing that drug use—particularly among those most heavily addicted-is affected by changes in price. For instance, in 1990, an intense law enforcement crackdown on the Medellin Cartel by the Colombian government, combined 

with renewed U.S. interdiction efforts, paralleled a 43 percent increase in the price 

of cocaine (the first such increase in five years) and a 27 percent reduction in cocaine—related emergency room admissions (the first such reduction in twelve 

years). Similarly, in Detroit in 1988, disruption of the Chambers brothers’ organization, which controlled many of Detroit’s crack houses, resulted in a near—tripling 

of the street level price of cocaine in that city. Concurrently, there was also a reducVerDate Feb 1 2002 13:39 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\81443.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
119

tion in indicia of cocaine use, such as emergency room incidents involving cocaine 

use.

Question 15: You said in 1996 that ‘‘we need to do more in Latin America’’ in ‘‘[f]ighting drugs at the source.’’ You praised the anti-drug efforts of former Peruvian 

President Alberto Fujimon and our policy of assisting the Peruvian government in 

its efforts to shoot down planes believed to be carrying drugs. As you know, President Fujimori has since had to flee Peru in scandal, and a Peruvian plane receiving 

CIA assistance shot down an innocent plane earlier this year, killing an American 

missionary and her daughter. The report on that tragedy is unbelievable-seemingly 

everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong, even though the pilots of the 

Peruvian plane had undergone training two weeks earlier.

Question 15A: Has the Peru experience, or the civil war that is intensifying in Colombia, caused you to rethink our anti-drug strategy in Latin America? 

Answer 15A: Clearly, the situation on the ground in Peru, Colombia, and Latin 

America has changed considerably since I was in office, and if confirmed, I would 

plan to consult extensively with interested parties in the executive branch, the Congress, and outside of government to develop plans and budgets for the future of our 

international drug control program. My intention would be to conduct a thorough 

review of these programs.

Question B: Do you believe the Bush Administration should engage in any new 

anti-drug efforts in Latin America, and if so, what do you recommend, at what cost, 

and what results would you expect as far as the amount of cocaine and heroin entering the United States? 

Answer 15B: Prior to the type of review described above, I do not have settled 

views on the shape and direction of our future policy.

Question 16: You recently have been extremely critical of Mexico, calling it a ‘‘narco state,’’ and stating that it has become ‘‘thoroughly corrupted’’ by drugs, and 

is a ‘‘safe haven’’ for the drug industry. You have even suggested that the US should 

impose sanctions on countries that do not reduce their drug production by 50 percent over five years, and you were extraordinarily critical of the Clinton Administration’s decision not to employ the certification process against Mexico. This hard-line 

attitude seems to be in direct contradiction to President Bush’s policies. President 

Bush, for example, has expressed support for a three-year suspension of the certification process for Mexico. President Vicente Fox, in his recent address to a joint session of Congress, supported President Bush’s proposal.

Question A: Do you agree with President Bush’s position? 

Answer 16A: Yes, I support the President’s effort to work with Congress to make 

adjustments to the certification process to foster greater cooperation between Mexico 

and the United States on drug control efforts.

Question B: If so, how do you square that with your harsh criticism of the Clinton 

Administration’s policy? 

Answer 16B: I believe all Americans are all extremely encouraged by the prospects of the new Administration of President Vicente Fox. With regard to my earlier 

comments, they should be viewed in the context of statutory language which mandates that the executive branch certify annually that a country is taking ‘‘adequate 

steps’’ to combat drug trafficking. In the event that this is not the case, the secretary of state, as delegated by the President, may issue a national interest waiver 

holding sanctions in abeyance while still being candid about the limitations of a 

country’s efforts. In the comments noted above, the criticisms were prompted by my 

desire to see more such candor in assessing the performance not only of Mexico but 

our other allies in this fight.

Question C: In light of your strong criticism of Mexico, how can you implement 

President Bush’s policy of treating Mexico with respect and as an equal partner? 

Answer 16C: During my previous public service, a substantial portion of my responsibilities involved working with many foreign governments in the negotiation 

and implementation of international drug control efforts. This work also involved 

the preparation and resulting actions from two drug summits. I believe that my 

record of working with other governments, including the Government of Mexico, on 

contentious and sensitive diplomatic matters, is an indication of my ability to work 

effectively in this important arena.

Question 17: You have strongly supported the military’s role in US drug interdiction efforts. Do you believe the Bush Administration should increase the role played 

by the military? In what ways? In light of our current military commitments, do 

you think an increased role for the military is realistic? 

Answer 17: Pending a review of current programs, and the opportunity to consult 

with colleagues both inside and outside of government, I do not have settled views 

120

on this question. The Department of Defense has a major role to play in any interdiction structure—a role that is codified in law.

Question 18: Asa Hutchinson, the head of the DEA, recently said that ‘‘you cannot 

win the battle against drugs just through enforcement.’’

Question 18A: Do you agree with Mr. Hutchinson? 

Answer 18A: As we discussed at several points during my hearing, I believe in 

a balanced approach to drug control policy. I believe that we all agree that, while 

drug law enforcement is a crucial component of a successful drug control program, 

it cannot be the only component.

Question 18B: What are some of the other steps you believe that the Administration and Congress need to take to reduce drug abuse and its consequences? 

Answer 18B: In addition to the funding enhancements already discussed with respect to treatment, programs/adjustments I support include, but are not limited to, 

establishment of a Parent Drug Corps, to mobilize parents and families; increased 

funding for local antidrug coalitions; increased funding for the National Institute of 

Drug Abuse; resources to support a strong commitment to drug courts and other 

criminal justice diversion programs; increased support to law enforcement for methamphetamine lab cleanup; reimbursement for border county prosecutions; and technology support to local law enforcement officers. 

MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Question 19: As you know, a number of States, including conservative States such 

as Arizona, have adopted initiatives in recent years legalizing the use of marijuana 

for medical purposes. The Supreme Court recently affirmed the Federal government’s power under the Controlled Substances Act to prosecute those who distribute 

(or manufacture) marijuana, including those who distribute marijuana to ill people 

in States that have approved initiatives. I oppose legalizing marijuana, and I have 

not taken a position on the initiatives that these States have passed. But I am concerned about the tension between State and Federal authority in those States.

Question 19A: Given the many drug cases that Federal agents and prosecutors 

can bring, do you think the Federal government should make it a priority to prosecute people distributing marijuana to ill people in States with medical marijuana 

initiatives? 

Answer 19A: I support enforcing the law, but as the question notes, this is to some 

degree academic, since there are inherent and severe limitations in the ability of 

the Federal government to pursue small, retail-level drug cases that are normally 

the province of local law enforcement. The Los Angeles Police Department, for instance, is three times the size of the Drug Enforcement Administration, which must 

cover the entire country with that force.

Question 19B: As head of ONDCP, would you or your staff take an active role in 

opposing proposals in other States to legalize marijuana for medicinal use? Would 

you advocate spending Federal funds for that purpose? 

Answer 19B: I, like you, oppose the legalization of marijuana. I expect, if confirmed, that I will asked about the various state referenda that have been supported 

by George Soros and others who are spending a great deal of their own money to 

advance an agenda of legalizing drugs. At this time, I do not have specific plans 

to expend Federal funds to oppose such initiatives.

Question 20: In a 1996 article in the Weekly Standard, you advocated that the 

DEA use the ‘‘public interest’’ provision of the Controlled Substances Act to take 

away the ‘‘registration’’ license doctors need to prescribe or store controlled substances from physicians who prescribed marijuana in States that had passed medical marijuana initiatives. Do you still believe that would be the best policy? As head 

of the ONDCP, would you recommend that Asa Hutchinson employ this tactic? 

Answer 20: The Weekly Standard article to which you refer focused on the promarijuana ballot initiative effort in California, where a doctor’s written prescription 

is not necessary. DEA is authorized by Congress to revoke the registration privileges of physicians for various reasons, but I would first want to consult with relevant officials including those in the Department of Justice. I do not have a settled 

view of what might be the best policy at the present, but would consult widely before recommending change.

Question 21: In 1996, you testified before this Committee on the issue of medical 

marijuana. In that testimony, you referred to supporters of medical marijuana initiatives as ‘‘potheads.’’

Question 21A: Do you believe that the majority of voters in California or Arizona 

are ‘‘potheads?’’

121

Answer 21A: No.

Question 21B: Do you believe that elderly pain sufferers who supported these initiatives are ‘‘potheads?’’

Answer 21B: No. 

MISCELLANEOUS

Question 22: There is increasing recognition that drug abuse is a major problem 

in rural areas. For example, my State of Vermont is struggling with a serious heroin 

problem. What role, if any, would ONDCP play in addressing the particular problems of rural areas? 

Answer 22: It is certainly crucial that the Federal government focus greater attention on the underreported problem of rural drug use. Focusing attention on that 

area could include the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, appropriate use of the ONDCP media campaign, the support of community coalitions, 

and assistance in the form of guides and other prevention resources.

Question 23: You have been very critical of drug prevention efforts through public 

service campaigns and educational outreach, saying at one point that they were ‘‘too 

little, too late.’’ In fact, you have criticized Democrats and Republicans alike—including Newt Gingrich—for supporting the Partnership for a Drug-Free America 

campaign during the 1990s. You wrote at one point that ‘‘no serious person can believe that even the best ad campaign is an appropriate centerpiece for the effort to 

reverse current trends.’’ Yet you were a strong supporter of First Lady Nancy Reagan’s ‘‘Just Say No’’ program.

Question 23A: Do you believe there should be a Federal role in public service campaigns to discourage drug use among the nation’s children? 

Answer 23A: Yes, and I was involved in creating one at the U.S. Department of 

Education when I served there during the Reagan Administration.

Question 23B: Do you support the Partnership for a Drug-Free America campaign? 

Answer 23B: Yes.

Question 23C: Would you support increased funding for that program? 

Answer 23C: It would be premature for me to make commitments before consulting relevant program staff, Members of Congress, and other interested parties.

Question 23D: If not, would you support that funding be maintained at current 

levels? 

Answer 23D: Again it would be premature for me to make commitments before 

consulting relevant program staff, Members of Congress, and other interested parties.

Question 23E: Do you believe this campaign should continue to be managed by 

the ONDCP, or transferred elsewhere? 

Answer 23.E: My intention at this time is to continue to manage the program 

within ONDCP, mindful however of the need to address the management deficiencies that have been raised about the program’s execution.

Question 24: You have previously rejected the notion that federal funding is necessary to prevent drug use, stating that ‘‘federal funding is neither necessary nor 

sufficient’’ for teaching kids that drug use is wrong. You have also called for the 

replacement of existing individual grant programs with block grants to states, which 

would allow States to spend all their federal funding for pure law enforcement purposes, and none on prevention or treatment.

Question 24A: What exactly is the proper role of federal funding? 

Answer 24A: As I testified before the Committee, I no longer take the position 

that the best way to support these programs is to convert them into block grants. 

I believe that funding should be based on one criterion: the extent to which it contributes to the overarching goal of reducing drug use in the United States. I also 

believe that levels of support and the shape of such funding should be done after 

consultation with the knowledgeable and involved parties in government and in our 

communities where most of the resources are put to work.

Question 24B: Shouldn’t the federal government impose some standards to insure 

that its money is used wisely, to address all aspects of the drug control problem? 

Answer 24B: Yes.

Question 25: In 1996, you proposed that the U.S. Sentencing Commission be 

‘‘barred from proposing changes in criminal penalties where Congress has established mandatory minimum sentences, except in an advisory format that would require affirmative congressional action before taking effect.’’

122

Question 25A: Is that still your view? 

Answer 25A: I believe it should be Congress’ prerogative to determine whether or 

not proposed changes implicating mandatory minimum sentences should made by 

the Commission. Simply as a matter of good government, I am concerned at the potential for disruption that can occur when the Sentencing Commission passes a 

guidelines amendment that conflicts with a statutory mandatory minimum, since 

Sentencing Commission amendments take effect automatically after six months, unless blocked by Act of -Congress.

Question 25B: To be clear, do you believe the Sentencing Commission should be 

prohibited from adjusting sentencing guidelines for offenses that trigger mandatory 

minimums? 

Answer 25B: Again, simply as a matter of good government, I am concerned at 

the potential for disruption that can occur when the Sentencing Commission passes 

a guidelines amendment that conflicts with a statutory mandatory minimum, since 

Sentencing Commission amendments take effect automatically after six months, unless blocked by Act of Congress.

Question 25C: Do you believe that Congress should eliminate the Sentencing Commission altogether? 

Answer 25C: 

Responses of John Walters to questions submitted by Senator Wellstone 

No.

f Question 1: As Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, how would 

you work to reduce the stigma associated with drug and alcohol addiction and encourage Americans with the disease of addiction to enter treatment and begin their 

recovery? 

Answer 1: It takes courage and strength of character to make the decision to enter 

a drug treatment program. If confirmed, I would like to explore ways of giving 

greater prominence to the stories of individuals who have been treated and are in 

recovery. I think the best way to overcome the stigma that may discourage some 

individuals from seeking treatment is to broaden the public respect for those who 

confront and work to overcome addiction and those who support them. 

I believe in drug treatment as a central part of our national drug control efforts. 

During my first tenure at ONDCP, I oversaw the largest increase in the growth of 

the drug treatment budget of any administrationbefore or after-including the creation of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Program and increases for treatment-related research that remain a critical components of our treatment infrastructure. 

Furthermore, I highlighted drug treatment as a fundamental component when I 

helped draft and implement the first National Drug Control Strategy. More recently, 

I have spoken with experts in the field such as Mark Parrino, Dr. Robert DuPont, 

Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Dr. Herb Kleber. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the report President Bush directed Secretary Thompson to deliver concerning 

the ‘‘treatment gap’’ in America to assess our progress and understand what remains to be accomplished.

Question 2: Do you believe that drug and alcohol addiction is a disease, and, if 

so, how will you shape your policies to reflect this belief? 

Answer 2: I am familiar with, and understand the expanding body of research 

demonstrating the biological and neurological effects of drug use, including the fact 

that continued drug use adversely affects brain chemistry and structure. The research also demonstrates that, for a significant minority, drug use can lead to the 

compulsive drug craving, seeking, and taking behavior we characterize as addiction. 

The treatment and management of drug addiction are in some ways similar to the 

treatment and management of chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. For instance, adherence to a treatment plan is critically important in addressing chronic conditions. Whether a person becomes a drug addict or is afflicted with 

diabetes, he or she must take personal responsibility for obtaining and following 

through with treatment. Much like a diabetic must monitor blood sugar levels in 

the bloodstream, maintain a healthy diet, and take insulin, overcoming drug addiction can require the commitment to taking medication that is a part of specific 

treatment programs, working to change behavior and accepting other services necessary to foster recovery. 

I am not a physician, but I believe the consideration of addiction as a disease has 

wide application. I also believe that a full understanding should not obscure the nature of the onset of drug addiction which policy cannot ignore. No one begins to use 

123

illegal drugs with addiction as a goal. However, the repeated, willful use of an illegal, psychoactive substance often leads to addiction, and so we should seek to discourage effectively any drug use. A comprehensive prevention policy should assist 

youth in recognizing their responsibility to avoid drug taking behavior and the 

threat of addiction that comes with it.

Question 3: In your position as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, would you advocate for the Administration passage of legislation providing full 

parity for drug and alcohol treatment services covered by private health insurance? 

Would you advocate for the Administration to establish parity for drug and alcohol 

treatment in other federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. If not, why 

not? 

Answer 3: I believe that it is important for people with private insurance policies 

to have adequate coverage for themselves and their families concerning substance 

abuse treatment. I am pleased that insurers who participate in the pool from which 

federal employees select coverage have parity for substance abuse treatment. While 

insurers are not required to provide coverage for substance abuse treatment, if they 

choose to offer that coverage it must be at the same levels as other conditions requiring medical attention. With regard to federally funded programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, President Bush has pledged to increase the drug treatment 

budget by some $1.6 billion over the next five years, a step that will bring drug 

treatment resources closer to hand for many of the populations served by those programs. 

I believe the parity issue is an important one. It has grown in prominence since 

the time I last served in government and, if confirmed, it would be my intention 

to consider the issues related to it seriously in wide consultation with knowledgeable 

individuals inside and outside government.

Question 4: Do you feel the U.S. provides adequate resources in the private and 

public health care systems to provide treatment for addiction? If no, what actions 

will you take to ensure that adequate resources are obtained? Do you believe that 

the ratio of dollars spent on supply side vs. demand side efforts to eliminate drug 

addiction in the United States is appropriate? 

Answer 4: With regard to the first part of this question, the answer is ‘‘no.’’ With 

regard to your question on what actions I will take, I should note that President 

Bush has directed Secretary Thompson to lead a state-by-state review of treatment 

needs and capacity to make sure that effective resources are available where the 

demand is. With regard to the question about the division of resources, I believe in 

a balanced approach to major areas of drug control policy: prevention, treatment, 

law enforcement, and national security, and the research programs related to these 

areas. This is why areas of demand reduction were the focus of much of our proposed increases in funding when I was last in government. I also believe that a full 

discussion of balanced spending for drug control needs to include non-federal spending, in state and local governments and the private sector. My experience is that 

the toughest obstacle to gaining additional funds for drug control programs is not 

competition between demand and supply efforts, but competition between particular 

domestic drug control programs and other domestic spending priorities. My approach to this problem would be to prepare the best case possible for the resources 

we need and present it to the President, the Congress, and the American people.

Question 5: Do you feel there should be stronger safeguarding policies on the licensure and certification requirements for the personnel and the facilities that deliver addiction services? 

Answer 5: Answer: I am not conversant with the current issues related to licensure and certification requirements but intend to review these matters, if confirmed 

by the Senate, with the help of Andrea Barthwell, MD, a specialist in addiction 

medicine who has been nominated to—serve as Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, and with appropriate knowledgeable and interested individuals and groups.

Question 6: President Bush announced he would provide additional funding for 

addiction treatment. Is this commitment from the President still valid? What do you 

believe are the best and most effective ways to spend that additional funding? 

Answer 6: Yes, the President intends to increase our nation’s treatment capacity 

with a five-year commitment of $1.6 billion in additional resources. We anticipate 

dedicating some of that additional funding to areas such as targeted programs for 

teens and adolescents, as well as other areas where needs are identified in the review being completed by Secretary Thompson. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with colleagues in the Executive Branch as well as those in Congress and 

in relevant groups outside of government as we refine those areas.

f124

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

BETTY FORD CENTER AT EISENHOWER

RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA

October 9, 2001

TO: Senate Judiciary Committee Members

RE: John Walters Nomination Hearing

The Betty Ford center is pleased the Senate Judiciary Committee rescheduled the 

hearing to consider John Walters as Director of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy. We know how difficult it must be to focus on, the nomination process in light 

of the demands placed on Congress by the tragedies of September 11, 2001. 

Mrs. Ford and I are convinced that. Mr. Walters may not have the confidence in 

the treatment and prevention strategies that we believe are necessary for the creation and implementation of a balanced and thoughtful approach to U.S. drug policy. Now, more than ever, with increased public criticism of U.S. Drug policies that 

rely heavily on interdiction and criminal justice solutions to the drug problem, we 

need a director with an unshakable, conviction in strategies to reduce the demand 

for drugs in this country. According to a 2000 poll conducted by Peter D. Hart, three 

in five adults said that drug abuse is ‘‘more of a public health problem better handled by prevention arid treatment programs’’ than by the criminal justice system. 

We believe that U.S. drug policy that reduces this demand, coupled with limited 

strategic initiatives on the supply side, are more likely to reduce the devastating 

economic and social consequences of untreated addition. 

2Many of our concerns about Mr. Walters first arose from a 1996 paper he wrote 

for the Heritage Foundation, where Walters denounced [including addiction treatment in U.S. drug policy] as ‘‘the latest manifestation of the liberals’ commitment 

to a ‘therapeutic state’ in which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.’’ In addition, despite Mrs. Ford’s offer to longtime friend Dick Cheney to 

serve as an advisor on key drug policy positions in the Bush Administration, Mr. 

Walters’ launched what some are calling a highly visible campaign this summer to 

court leaders of the drug treatment and prevention community to convince them of 

his ‘‘balanced’’ approach to the nation’s drug problem, without placing a single call 

to Mrs. Ford, me or any of our allies in the nonprofit treatment field. 

While we applaud the announcement of the Administration’s Intent to balance 

Mr. Walters’ supply side experience with Dr. Andrea Barthwell’s expertise in treatment, Mrs. Ford and I urge each member of the Committee to use the hearing to 

ensure your confidence in Mr. Walters’ understanding of addictive disease, addiction 

treatment and individuals and families affected by the disease. 

Sincerely,

JOHN T. SCHWARZLOSE

f President/CEO

COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG COALITIONS OF AMERICA

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

July 30, 2001

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch 

United States Senate 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Hatch:

On behalf of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) and our more 

than 5,000 coalition members, I would like to express how extremely pleased we are 

that John P. Walters has been nominated to lead the Bush administration’s antidrug efforts as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). 

Throughout Mr. Walters’ decades of public service, he has demonstrated a high degree of dedication and passion when it comes to eliminating our country’s number 

one public health problem—substance abuse. 

125

The President’s proposal concerning drug policy makes us confident that he and 

Mr. Walters share our vision of a balanced approach to reducing drug abuse that 

greatly increases emphasis on education, prevention, research and treatment. We 

are pleased to see the proposal includes double funding for local anti-drug coalitions 

over five years, providing up to $3.50 million over that period, including an $11 million increase in FY 2002, to support the Drug-Free Communities Program; adding 

$1.5billion over 5 years to close the treatment gap; substantially increasing the 

funding for research in prevention and treatment, and providing $25 million cover 

five years to create a Parent Drug Corps to mobilize parents and families. We are 

convinced that Mr. Walters will implement these programs in an outstanding manner using his vision and professional abilities. 

CADCA looks forward to working along side the President and Mr. Walters to 

build safe, healthy and drug-free communities throughout America. Therefore, we 

respectfully urge you to support Mr. Walters’ nomination by holding a confirmation 

hearing and vote as soon as possible. 

Sincerely,

ARTHUR T. DEAN

Major General, U.S. Army, Retired 

f Chairman and CEO

DRUG FREE AMERICA FOUNDATION, INC. 

ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA

September 4, 2001

Hon. Patrick Leahy 

433 Russell Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Leahy:

I am writing to encourage you to move forward without delay in holding the hearing to confirm John Walters as the new director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Our nation is drowning in drugs and we are rapidly falling to permissive 

drug policies. We desperately need the direction that would be afforded by filling 

this position. To delay any further in holding this hearing is a terrible disservice 

to the country. 

John Walters is a capable man who will serve his country well in this position. 

Our organization has worked with him for several years. We have found him to be 

knowledgeable and fair. he understands the need for a comprehensive, yet firm approach to the drug problem. 

National leadership on this problem has been lacking for far too long. Mr. Walters 

is an excellent choice for the position and fully capable of providing this leadership. 

It is now up to you to do the right thing for your country and move forward with 

the hearing and confirm him so that he can begin with this very serious problem 

that plagues our country. 

Regards,

CALVINA L. FAY

f Executive Director

DRUG-FREE KIDS: AMERICA’S CHALLENGE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

September 24, 2001

The Hon. Patrick J. Leahy 

433 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Leahy:

It is now seven days past the fateful terrorism attack on America. On the day 

of the actual attack I was standing outside 216 Hart awaiting the beginning of the 

126

confirmation hearing for John Waiters, nominee for ONDCP Director. More specifically, I was standing outside 216 Hart having a heated conversation with members 

of the pro-drug legalization Lindesmith Center which is funded by currency trader 

George Soros. These young people have been so misguided (I am reluctant to us the 

term ‘‘brainwashed.’’it is sad beyond belief. For more on Soros’ pro-drug activities, 

see Reader’s Digest, ‘‘High On A Lie’’ Exhibit I. 

Frankly, Senator Leahy, while I certainly understand the current delay, I am chagrined that Mr. Waiters’ nomination has been languishing since last May when the 

only real opposition we have found are those who would legalize pot and other 

Schedule I drugs. Of course they don’t want John Waiters to be approved. He understands the drug issue and he understands why we must not legalize marijuana or 

the other Schedule I drugs. I’ve known John for 15 years. He believes in a balanced 

approach with strong interdiction, clear ‘‘no use’’ messages and prevention programs, drug-free treatment, and law enforcement. There is no simple approach. I 

direct your attention to the October/November issue, (p. 69) of Cannabis Culture, 

Canada’s premier pro-drug publication which reports that ‘‘NORML (national Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) will be an integral part of the effort 

to challenge the nominations of John Walters and Asa Hutchinson for the office of 

drug czar and DEA head.’’ Comment was made by Nick Thimmech, NORML spokesperson. Cannabis Culture is the Canadian version of High Times Magazine. A COPY 

OF THE MAGAZINE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO SENATORS LEAHY AND HATCH. 

(Cost is $4.95 prohibiting copies to each member) Please ask to see it. 

We’re very concerned that our voices are not being heard, that we’ve lost-not the 

drug war-because parents and grandparents are with us. We’re fearful we’ve lost the 

attention of some members of Congress because so many mothers are working that 

we cannot effectively visit and educate them to the fact that the legalizers have reportedly spent $20 MILLION in a campaign to change America from being a society 

that has disdain for drugs to legalizing them. We now have to depend on the good 

sense of our elected officials to do the right thing without constant reminders. We 

also know that the legalizers have been lobbying Congress and that some members 

seem to be listening to people like Eric Sterling, now with Soros’ Lindesmith Center, 

who said during the Gulf War the our military should be ‘‘home toking (smoking 

pot) in the US instead of cooking in the desert in Saudi Arabia.’’

Friends in the intelligence field have told us for years that terrorism is being 

funded by drug trafficking. Very recently on MSNBC an expert said, ‘‘Drugs are now 

a primary means of funding the overall narco terrorism movement and its subcomponents worldwide—that is no longer a debatable or even debated proposition.’’

I have been involved in the drug fight for prevention and in opposition to legalization since 1977 when I witnessed a rock concert at the Capital Center. My own boys 

were 5 and 9 years old at the time. Why was I there? By a twist of fate a young 

boy in our neighborhood had recently been picked up for possession and distribution 

of marijuana. A thoughtful teacher who knew my husband from his volunteer baseball coaching called to tell us about it. We called the boy to talk to him and offered 

to help him in any way we could. He called a few weeks later to say he ‘‘needed 

help.’’ When I asked what it was, he said he had tickets to a ‘‘Rock Concert and 

no driver.’’ Having been home for several years raising my children and volunteering at their schools, Scouts, and as a board member of the Girls & Boys Club 

I knew nothing about ‘‘rock.’’ So, thinking I might turn him around, I agreed to 

drive. I was shocked to see 17,000 kids getting ‘‘stoned’’ before my eyes. I demanded 

and received his money back. (Later, Abe Pollin became a member of my board.) 

The very next morning I called the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and 

asked that they ‘‘dean up the Capital Center.’’ I was told, that was not their jurisdiction but that I ‘‘had a much larger problem on my hands.’’ When I asked ‘‘What?’’

He informed me that my own congressman was trying to legalize pot which would 

make it far more available to all kids. I asked, ‘‘Who’s my congressman?’’ He told 

me. It was Montgomery County Republican, Newton Steers. I called him and stated 

my case. He refused to withdraw the bill. I called two more times. He refused again 

and I made him a promise. I promised that my congressman was not going to pass 

a bill that would endanger all children and that I was going to dedicate the next 

six months of my life to finding him a new job. With the help of two other mothers 

we set out to inform the public-especially senior citizens. They were shocked and 

promised not to vote for him. 

However, a few days before the election, a local paper predicted Congressman 

Steers would win by a landslide. We started a telephone chain asking mothers to 

‘‘paint a sign and come to Steers’ campaign headquarters.’’ Nineteen (19) mothers 

showed up with signs saying, ‘‘A drug pusher cheers for every vote cast for Steers.’’

The media also showed up and the evening news reported, ‘‘This could change 

127

things for Mr. Steers.’’ It did. We spent less than $30.00. He lost by a landslide and 

went back to selling insurance. 

Congressman Steers wrote an article for the Montgomery Journal saying he ‘‘was wrong about marijuana.’’ He called me to congratulate me on ‘‘making democracy 

work.’’ There are reams of other similar stories including dosing drug paraphernalia 

shops in Maryland and, with the help of folks like Carol Burnett, Alma Rangel, JoAnne Kemp, Carolyn Mattingly, Rosemary Trible, Kathleen Smith, Priclla Mack, Jo 

Zschau, Norma Lagomarsino, Debbie Dingell, Marilyn Quayle, Jean Lujan, Rosemary Boulter, Caroline McMillan, Gail Tauzin, Kim Seindall, Marcia Coats, Dolores 

Beilenson, Suzie Dicks, Marian Lewis, Joyce Chandler, Rhoda Glickman, Cece 

Zorinski, Christine DeLay, Doris Matsui, Laura Bateman, Catherine Stevens, 

Luwana Shumway Nancy Reagan and others, we closed them in all 50 states. 

We received the President’s (station for Private Sector Initiatives ‘‘for outstanding 

service to the community and finding innovative private solutions to public problems.’’ The only thing different today is that most of us are grandmothers and feel 

even more strongly about the issue. Well win but we need this Drug Czar and we 

need you and every member of Congress on our side. 

*****It was this battle against drug paraphernalia that brought us up against the 

narco network that includes the likes of Keith Stroup, Founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. (We have designated Stroup as the 

Father of the Adolescent Marijuana Epidemic in America and significantly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of teens who believed him when he wrote 

in High Times Magazine, ‘‘. . .there is no particular evidence that even those few 

young people who smoke a great deal of marijuana necessarily hurt themselves or 

reduce heir level of performance, academic or otherwise,’’ or, ‘‘research very convincingly suggests that those who do smoke marijuana and drive shortly thereafter are 

in no way incapacitated to the degree as those are who drink alcohol and drive.’’

(Exhibit II) NORML was investigated by two former congressmen, Robin Beans and 

Billie Lee Evans, and reported to be ‘‘to a certain extent connected even to traffickers.’’ (See letter enclosed dated September 7, 1979.Exhibit III) We also met Eric 

Sterling, former Hill staffer, whose colleagues at the Drug Policy Foundation developed the ‘‘Safe-Crack Smoking Pipe’’ described in the enclosed article (Exhibit IV), 

Kevin Zeese, long-time legalization advocate, Marsha Rosenbaum who received 

funding from the National Institutes on Drug Abuse and used it to produce a prodrug brochure called, ‘‘Just Say What?’’ and yes, even George Soros. I met ‘‘George’’

soon after he gave $5.2 million to the Drug Policy Foundation (the safe-crack pipe 

boys). I was naive enough to think ‘‘George’’ didn’t know who he was giving his $5.2 

million to so I decided to help him understand. I confronted him at Georgetown University where he was speaking to 300 or so top American businessmen. I told him. 

the group he was funding had colleagues who testified before Congress that they 

wanted a ‘‘completely open market (for marijuana) with no age controls and no 

street controls’’ and regularly wrote letters to the editor in youth-oriented magazines 

telling kids there ‘‘was no evidence marijuana would hurt them academically or otherwise.’’ (See letter from High Times. Exhibit II) George left by the side door and 

the rest of the folks waiting to ask questions sat down. Given his track record of 

destabilizing national economies (Britain & East Asia), would this be the time to 

question George Soros’ monetary activities and goals? 

Remember, those from the narco network are not considering children or the future of this nation. They are only interested in their own freedom to do drugs. We 

are asking for a unanimous vote confirming Mr. Walters. We have waited too long. 

Respectfully, 

JOYCE NALEPKA

President, Drug-Free Kids: America’s Challenge 

HISTORY: 

Following are some important historical facts that may be of interest. Senators 

Kennedy, Hatch, and Thurmond will remember, I’m sure, December 4, 1979 when 

the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to table a vote on the Federal Criminal Code 

Revision that erroneously, in my opinion, included a text to legalize pot. At our request, former Senator Charles Mathias had returned from a trip to lead the way 

for us. Some of the comments around that table would be shocking today. Senator 

Mathias asked for and was granted permission to table the issue and hold hearings 

about whether marijuana was harmful or not (Health Consequences of Marijuana 

Use, Committee on the Judiciary, January 16 and 17, 1980, Serial No. 96–54) 

(IN FACT, SENATOR LEAHY, I JUST PULLED OUT THE HEARING RECORD 

AND NOTE THAT YOU, TOO, WERE A MEMBER OF THAT SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. YOU WERE LIKELY PRESENT FOR THE DECEMBER 4, 

128

1979 MEETING AND HEARD SENATOR KENNEDY’S COMMENT THAT ‘‘WE 

HAVE MORE PROOF OF THE TOXICITY IN MOTHER’S MILK THAN IN THE 

CASUAL USE OF MARIJUANA.’’ I’m sure he knows differently today and we’ve all 

learned a lot since then. 

A MUCH YOUNGER SENATOR THURMOND COMMENTED TO SENATOR 

KENNEDY, AFTER READING OUR MATERIALS ‘‘SAY, TEDDY, IT SAYS HERE 

MARIJUANA CAN HARM YOUR TESTICLES.’’ This was followed by raucous 

laughter. We know today Senator Thurmond was more right than Senator Kennedy. 

The reproductive damage caused by marijuana is well documented. It is interesting 

to note that seven members of that Judiciary Committee are still in the Senate. 

(Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Byrd, Baucus, Thurmond and Hatch) 

Senator Mathias chaired two days of hearings. Carol Burnett’s husband and his 

son testified along with doctors and experts from across the nation. The marijuana 

that Senator Thurmond was reading about was probably only 2% THC content The 

marijuana that is available to our kids today is 25 to 30% THC content. In fact, 

the University of Maryland research shows more kids going into emergency rooms 

for marijuana problems than for—heroin. 

Later, Senators Mathias and Biden held two days of hearings for us in Baltimore 

on the drug paraphernalia issue. The paraphernalia manufacturers were summoned. They showed up with haircuts and three-piece suits, some with the price 

tags still dangling from under their arms. They told the Senators, ‘‘There’s no point 

in closing us down, you can make a bong from an apple, a toilet paper roller and 

aluminum foil or ‘‘THE BEST COCAINE SPOON IN TOWN IS FREE. IT COMES 

WITH EVERY CUP OF COFFEE AT MCDONALD’S.’’ He pressed the spoon against 

his nose to show how well it fit I didn’t get to testify until the next day; however, 

I was outraged with their tactics. I rushed home, tracked down the headquarters 

for McDonald’s. Fortunately, McDonald’s was in Illinois giving me an extra hour. 

I called the office of Ed Schmidt, President. His secretary was off for the day and 

her replacement naively put me through to him. I told him my story and what the 

paraphernalia pushers were saying. He replied, ‘‘What do you want from me?’’ I 

said, I want you to redesign that spoon and let me go back tomorrow and announce 

it to the Senate committee, proving you will not allow them the privilege of using 

a legitimate business for their narco scheme.’’ He said, ‘‘Lady, we have 4,500 stores.’’

I asked, ‘‘How many children do you have? He told me and I said simply, ‘‘Don’t 

do it for me. Do it for them.’’ He asked me to call him back in 15 minutes. I did. 

He said, ‘‘We’ll do it.’’ The incident got media coverage around the world. It didn’t 

stop the drug epidemic but it was testimony that the good guys will do anything 

to stop drugs. 

FUTURE: 

We plan to keep on winning starting with getting John Walters approved as Drug 

Czar. 

We plan to pass an Express Preemption bill to 1011 the effort to pass the medical 

marijuana cigarette scam. We have already distributed information on the Express 

Preemption bill to EVERY member on four (4) different occasions. Senators Hatch 

and Feinstein have actual copies of the bill. Congressman Mark Souder, who introduced the bill last session, has a copy of the new version. Please contact them for 

a copy and help lead the effort to protect the future of this nation’s children. 

We plan to work for school drug testing. 

We plan to stop all forms of illegal drug legalization. 

We plan to do major fundraising to empower us to fight back against the multimillionaires mentioned in the enclosed Reader’s Digest article. 

We plan to continue organizing especially parents who have lost children and the 

tens of thousands of grandparents who are forced out of retirement to raise their 

grandchildren because their parents believed the legalizers. They are focused and 

determined that other parents don’t have to walk down that road. Wait till this 

group gets moving. 

We invite all members of Congress to walk with us.

f129

DRUG FREE SCHOOLS COALITION, INC. 

FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822

September 10, 2001

Senator Kyl 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Dirksen Bldg. Room 224

1st and C Sts. NE 

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator

The Drug-Free Schools Coalition is an organization of parents and schools dedicated to helping schools become drug-free. We have members in over 21 states. 

We strongly urge you to support the nomination of John Walters to the Director 

of ONDCP. We believe that he has the experience and the skill to do an outstanding 

job as our Drug Czar. 

We know that he will support strong drug-free school programs including treatment, education and drug testing. 

Please do all you can to support him. 

Sincerely yours, 

DAVID G. EVANS, ESQ. 

f Executive Director

DRUG PREVENTION NETWORK OF THE AMERICAS

ALPINE, TEXAS 79830

September 7, 2001

The Hon. Patrick Leahy 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

433 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Leahy:

I am writing to highly recommend John Walters as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Our nation needs a strong, experienced, Drug Czar as 

never before. Drug use by America’s youth is too high, pressure from the drug legalization lobby to make harmful drugs legal and available is mounting and the dangers from narcotrafficking threaten U.S. borders and our international neighbors. 

John Walters has the experience, vision, and leadership necessary to marshall the 

forces and to turn the tide against this insidious scourge to society. He has a proven 

track record with his leadership at ONDCP and with the anti-drug movement, 

which resulted in such dramatic declines in drug use in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. 

Mr. Walter’s approach to the drug problem is solution-oriented, balanced, and centered on the prevention of drug us. He recognizes the need for a well-coordinated 

strategy invloving education, treatment, enforcement, and cooperation with the 

international community. He was one of the authors of ‘‘What Works? Schools Without Drugs’’ which inspired the nation and the drug-free schools and communities 

initiative. He is recognized and well-respected by substance abuse professionals and 

community anti-drug leaders and grassroots organizations across the nation. 

The Drug problem can be dramatically reduced, as has been proven; it is not 

hopeless and inevitable. America needs the leadership, wisdom, and inspiration 

which Mr. Walters will provide. I respectfully urge you and all Senate Judiciary 

Committee members to strongly support John Walter’s nomination. 

Respectfully, 

STEPHANIE HAYNES

f130

JEANETTE MCDOUGAL, MM, CCDP 

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

September 7, 2001

Hon. Joseph Biden 

Members of the Senate 

Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510

I am asking that you SUPPORT JOHN WALTERS as the Director of the Office 

of Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) for the following reasons: 

First of all, for his stellar record in support of policies which promote and support 

a drug-free America. 

Next, I am assuming that you and your Committee are interested in promoting 

the good health and welfare of all US citizens, and therefore oppose the use of illegal drugs, especially by youth.I would further assume that you would disassociate 

yourself from those who would ‘‘push a drug-use philosophy,’’ again, especially to 

youth. 

I direct your attention to the latest issue (Oct/Nov 2001 pg 69) of Canada’s premier pro-drug publication, CANNABIS CULTURE (their version of USA’s HIGH 

TIMES) which reports that ‘‘NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) will be an integral part of the effort to challenge the nominations of 

John Walters and Asa Hutchinson for the office of drug czar and DEA head.’’ This 

comment was made by Nick Thimmesch, NORMAL spokesperson. 

It is telling that NORML is opposed to John Walters—and should be revealing 

to this Committee. 

NORML has promoted and lobbied for the legalization of marijuana and other 

drugs for over 30 years. I trust that the members of this Committee will not align 

themselves, either philosophically or by vote, with those who aim is to weaken and 

undermine our protective drug laws. 

It is also telling that NORMAL scheduled their annual conference this year on 

the 4/20 to coincide with 4:29 which is recognized by the drug culture all over the 

world as the ‘‘time to make marijuana’’. In fact, the normal conference opening date 

was described in many prog-drug publications as ‘‘National Get High Day.’’

Some might say, ‘‘Guilt by association, that’s not fair.’’ I would remind this Committee that:

‘‘We are known by the company we keep’’—a more delicate way of saying—

‘‘When we lie down with dogs we get up with Fleas.’’

I am confident that when the members of this Committee and the members of 

the U.S. Senate carefully review the evidence, you will vote to confirm John Walters.

f GRAND LODGE

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87109

July 25, 2001

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch 

Ranking Member 

Cimmittee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Hatch:

I am writing to inform you of the strong of the Fraternal Order of Police for nomination of Mr. John P. Walters to serve as the Executive Director of the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). 

The F.O.P. first got to know John in 1989 when he served as Chief of staff to William Bennett, the first ‘‘drug czar.’’ As the Deputy Director for supply reduction 

from 1991 to 1993, he helped law enforcement, in 1992, achieve the lowest levels 

of drug use in the past twenty-five years. 

131

As a nation, we need to recommit ourselves to winning the drug war. The F.O.P. 

supports a balanced approach to the insidious drug epidemic. Prevention, effective 

treatment, and diligent and aggressive enforcement are necessary elements of any 

national drug control strategy. The strategy must include the high Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and the Edward Byrne Memorial funding programs. 

These two programs are essential to a comprehensive and coherent attack on drugs. 

2We must also be aware that some in this country believe the war on drugs is 

a failure. Governor Gary Johnson in my home state of New Mexico has, in the past 

three years, become a high-profile spokesman for those who believe that we have 

failed and the ‘‘war’’ is unwinnable and not worth fighting. I agree with Mr. Walters, the war is winnable and worth fighting. 

Like the Fraternal Order of Police, he recognizes that we must have a balanced 

attack—prevention and treatment for addicts along with the interdiction of drugs 

by law enforcement. John’s success at ONDCP was a result of his balanced approach 

to our nation’s problems with crime and drug use. In his tenure at ONDCP, funding 

for drug prevention programs increased three hundred and thirty-five percent 

(335%) and funding for treatment programs increased two hundred and fifty-nine 

percent (259%). 

John Walters has the experience, the leadership and the knowledge to lead our 

nation’s anti-drug efforts. Also, he is highly respected by those of us on the front 

lines of the drug enforcement effort. He will be an asset to law enforcement at the 

local, state and federal level. 

I have every confidence in his qualifications and believe he will make an outstanding Executive Director at ONDCP. 

Please do not hesitate to contact my Executive Director Jim Pasco, or me at 202–

547–8189 if you need further information. 

Sincerely, 

GILBERT G. GALLEGOS

f National President

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

September 6, 2001

The Hon. Patrick J. Leahy 

Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Washington, DC 20510

The Hon. Orrin G. Hatch 

Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member:

We write as members of the Speaker’s Task Force for a Drug Free Force for a 

Drug Free America to express our strong support for the President’s nomination of 

John P. Walters to be Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(ONDCP). In the area of drug policy, we are at a crucial time in our nation’s history. 

As such, we applaud the President’s nomination and the President’s decision to 

maintain the ONDCP Director as a member of his Cabinet. 

There is substantial consensus among members of the U.S. House of Representatives that we must pursue an aggressive counter drug strategy ‘‘balanced’’ among 

demand reduction and supply reduction to adequately address our nation’s illegal 

drug problem. The President and his nominee are committed to such as approach. 

As former Deputy Director for Supply Reduction and former Chief of Staff to the 

ONDCP Director, there is no question that John Walters knows the inner workings 

of the office. This coupled with his extensive work at the Department of Education 

give him the experience he needs to tackle this most difficult assignment. But beyond his background, we believe John Walters brings renewed energy, Vision and 

the right approach to this critical position. 

132

We appreciate your Committee’s leadership on narcotics control programs in the 

past and we respectfully urge your Committee’s expeditious confirmation of John P. 

Walters as our nation’s next ONDCP Director. 

Sincerely,

J. DENNIS HASTERT

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Signatories: 

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, 

Representative Mark Souder, 

Representative Rob Portman, 

Representative Mark Kirk, 

Representative Sue Myrick, 

Representative John Peterson, 

Representative Ben Gilman, 

Representative J.D. Hayworth, 

Representative Joe Barton, 

Representative Porter Goss, 

Representative Kay Granger, 

Representative Bob Barr, 

Representative John Mica, 

Representative Frank Lobiondo, 

Representative Anne Northup, 

Representative Doug Ose, 

Representative Mike Rogers, 

Representative Henry Bonilla, 

Representative Howard Coble, 

Representative Dan Burton, 

Representative Hal Rogers, 

Representative Frank Wolf, 

Representative Melissa Hart, 

Representative Nathan Deal, 

133


81443.002
134


81443.003
135


81443.004
136


81443.005
137


81443.006
138


81443.007
f139

NATIONAL FAMILIES IN ACTION

ATLANTA, GA 30329

September 10, 2001

The Hon. Joseph Biden, Jr. 

United States Senate 

Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator Biden:

Tomorrow you will preside over the confirmation hearing of John Walters to serve 

as Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy. As executive director of a 25-

year-old national organization that helps families prevent drug abuse among children, I write to tell you that America’s families strongly endorses Mr. Walter’s can- didacy. For the first time in the history of this office, Mr. Walters has selected a 

deputy who comes from the prevention field, Deputy nominee Mary Ann Solberg, 

and those of us in prevention applaud him for doing this. We are equally pleased 

with his selection of Demand Reduction Deputy nominee Andrea Barthwell, M.D., 

an expert in addiction treatment. Both are women who have long-term, practical experience in their respective fields. Families who are deeply concerned about keeping 

children away from drugs, and about improving treatment to help all who have become addicted recover, greatly appreciate the wisdom of Mr. Walters’ choices, for 

they signal that he will truly seek to balance demand reduction with supply reduction, both of which are necessary components of effective drug policy, but neither 

of which is more important that the other. 

You have already heard, and will continue to hear, loud voices opposing Mr. Walters’ candidacy. This is an organized protest that comes straight from the drug-legalization movement, which insists our drug policies have failed, that the drug laws 

do more damage than drugs themselves, and that we should therefore legalize 

drugs. Legalization would be a disaster for this country and its citizens. Currently 

105 million Americans regularly use alcohol and 67 million use tobacco, our two 

legal addictive drugs, compared to just 15 million who use all illegal drugs combined, according to the 1999 National Household Survey. These levels of use produce 

530,700 deaths a year from alcohol and tobacco, compared to 16,000 deaths a year 

for illegal drugs, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s newest report, 

Substance Abuse: The Nation s Number-One Health Problem. If drugs were legalized, new legitimate revenues would be used to mass produce and mass market 

drugs to increase consumption, and use of drugs that are now illegal would quickly 

rise to levels similar to alcohol and tobacco today. Legalization proponents are simply wrong, both in their analyses of the problem and their solutions for it. The only 

people listening to them are drug users, dealers, and traffickers, and many in the 

press who sympathize with their views. 

The policies this Congress has overseen since before and after it created the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy have not failed: since 1979, our nation has cut pastmonth drug use by nearly half (from 25 million Americans to 15 million Americans). 

More importantly, between 1979 and 1992, past-month drug use among adolescents 

and young adults fell by two-thirds. The crime rate has dropped to the lowest levels 

since the 1960s. So has the murder rate. Before such drug polices, adolescents suffered so many alcohol- and drug-related deaths in the 1970s that their life span as 

a group actually decreased, while the life spans of every other age group lengthened. 

Thanks to our nation’s drug policies, this is no longer true: far fewer adolescents 

use drugs and alcohol today compared to the 1970s, and far fewer suffer all the 

problems that drug use generates. 

Perhaps the greatest anxiety that parents and families feel about legalization efforts is the changes proponents are trying to make in drug-education for children 

and adolescents. Drug use is not a ‘‘fundamental human right,’’ as Ethan 

Nadelmann, executive director of the George-Soros-funded Lindesmith Center asserts. Nor, God help us, will it ever be appropriate for parents to ‘‘model the safe 

use of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, methamphetamines, and other drugs 

around the dinner table,’’ as Mr. Nadelmann insisted in a debate with the author 

of this letter at the 1998 Vail Valley Institute (a debate at which John Walters and 

I served as the opponents of legalization). 

Nor should we ever teach children they can use harmful, addictive drugs ‘‘safely,’’

as Mr. Nadelmann’s colleague Marsh Rosenbaum, director of The Lindesmith Center West, asserts in her drug-education guide for teachers, Safety Rust., A RealityBased Approach IV Drug Education. At a Drug Policy Foundation conference, Ms. 

Rosenbaum warned against sending recovering addicts into the classroom. They are 

140

‘‘failed drug users,’’ she said, and .we should be usurp ‘‘successful drug users as good 

role models for children.’’ At a conference her organization sponsored in 1999, Ms. 

Rosenbaum featured Healthwise, a British company, whose drug-education curricula 

tell parents that their children are safer using drugs than participating in outdoor 

activities. 

Parents also worry about the efforts of another legalization organization, the 

Harm Reduction Coalition, whose newsletter explains how to enter schools as ‘‘drug 

educators’’ to surreptitiously establish ‘‘user groups’’ to support students’ drug use. 

Gain access, the newsletter advises, with a ‘‘proposal that clearly outlines a harmreduction approach, but uses language that bridges the gap between traditional prevention and harm reduction. One hysterical parent may be enough to get you program thrown out of school.’’ The coalition advises advocates to ‘‘cast a wide net to 

include alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, chocolate, and sugar to breakdown stigma by 

showing that drug use is the norm, not an aberration.’’

John Walters will not let these kinds of assaults on school children happen. His 

experience as Deputy of Supply Reduction in the previous Bush Administration gave 

him the opportunity to take the measure of the re-emerging drug. legalization movement and the destructive policies it advocates. He will help America’s parents and 

families reduce drug use and addiction among their children and in their communities. We wholeheartedly endorse his candidacy and ask you to confirm him quickly 

so that he can get on with the critically important task of shaping effective drug 

policy for our nation. 

Thank you for considering our request. 

Very truly yours, 

SUE RUSCHE

Co-founder and Executive Director 

f National Families in Action

NATIONAL TROOPERS COALITION

ALBANY, N.Y. 12207

July 11, 2001

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch 

Ranking Minority Member, 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

The National Troopers Coalition, (NTC), represents this nation’s state police and 

highway patrol law enforcement troopers and retirees. Our membership includes all 

ranks, inclusive of Trooper through the rank of Colonel. State and local law enforcement efforts account for over 90 percent of criminal arrests and troopers do the majority of highway drug interdictions. Our troopers are on the front lines daily arid 

some of them are seriously injured and killed in the performance of their duties. 

On behalf of our Chairman, Trooper Scott Reinacher, and our membership it gives 

me great pleasure to give our highest recommendation and support for the nomination of Mr. John P. Waiters to be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy. From 1989 to 1993, Mr. Waiters served in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) under the tutelage of William Bennett. During 

his service at ONDCP; he was responsible for helping guide the development and 

implementation of anti-drug programs in all areas of prevention, treatment, education and law enforcement. 

Prior to his service at ONDCP, Mr. Waiters was a founder of the Madison Center, 

a public policy organization devoted to advancing improvements in education and 

related fields, including early childhood education and drug abuse prevention Mr., 

Waiters began working on drug policy matters at the U.S. Department of Education 

in the mid-1980’s. He was a major designer of the largest federal funding increases 

for drug treatment and treatment research in U.S. history. He has always been a 

major supporter of innovative drug prevention programs and a steadfast advocate 

of a balanced anti-drug effort. 

John Waiters is an articulate advocate, an able administrator, old a man of deep 

and reasoned convictions. The National Troopers Coalition believes that a successful 

effort depends on a thoughtful and integrated approach with strong law enforcement 

in conjunction with treatment, prevention and educational programs. John Waiters 

141

is the right man, and the best man, to lead America’s anti-drug efforts. In addition 

to endorsing addition to endorsing John Waiters, the NTC would like to publicly 

commend him for the fine work he has accomplished in the anti-drug arena. 

The NTC hopes the Senate Judiciary Committee will review the record of John 

Waiters, which is strong and unwavering and that an early Senate judiciary Committee confirmation will be forthcoming. 

Sincerely,

JOHNNY L. HUGHES

fDirector, Government Relations

PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG-FREE AMERICA

NEW YORK, NY 10174

July 2, 2001

The Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 

SR–221 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510–0802

Dear Senator Biden:

Thank you for your years of commitment and leadership to drug prevention andtreatment. Your advocacy has been critically important to all of us working to reduce levels of drug use in America. 

Recently I had the opportunity to meet with John Walters, the Bush administration’s nominee for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). 

I first came to know John when I Joined the President’s Drug Advisory Council in 

1989, the same year I became Chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America 

(PDFA). At that time, John was Deputy Director of Supply Reduction for ONDCP. 

While most of toy dealings with ONDCP then focused on demand reduction issues,, 

it was my impression that John was an insightful and outspoken supply reduction 

advocate. 

In our recent conversations with John, he assured us that if he is confirmed the 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign—a collaborative effort between ONDCP 

and the Partnership—would have his continued support. 

Further, he made clear he would honor the administration’s stated objective of 

pursuing a balanced approach to the nation’s drug policy, one that focuses on reducing demand through prevention, education and treatment as well as on reducing 

supply through interdiction and law enforcement. 

Given the above, I ask you to support the confirmation of John Waiters as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

Sincerely, 

f JAMES E. BURKE

PRIDE SURVEYS

ATLANTA, GA 30326

September 7, 2001

The Hon. Jon Kyl 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Jon Kyl,

Over the past two decades I have had the opportunity to work with John Waiters 

on issues surrounding youth, parents and drug use. 

I know there are many other issues he must deal with if confirmed by your committee to direct ONDCP but I cannot believe there is a issue more important than 

preventing drug use among Americas youth. John has always proven to be knowledgeable and truly concerned about use of drugs by our youth. 

More importantly, John has shown strong leadership when issues on policy were 

in conflict during past administrations. His support for America’s youth has never 

wavered. 

142

I want to give my strongest endorsement for the confirmation of John Waiters as 

Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS J. GLEATON

President, PRIDE Surveys

Æ