    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

              OVERSIGHT OF THE 1999 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
                        DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 25, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-82

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

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

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    62-537 CC                   WASHINGTON : 2000

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                GARY A. CONDIT, California
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida                 DC
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
        Carolina                         DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  JIM TURNER, Texas
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            (Independent)
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
               David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                          Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

       Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

                        JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    DOUG OSE, California

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
              Robert B. Charles, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                  Margaret Hemenway, Professional Staff Member
                   Sean Littlefied, Professional Staff Member
                              Amy Davenport, Clerk
                        Micheal Yeager, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on February 25, 1999................................     1
    Statement of:
        McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
          Drug Control Policy........................................    26
    Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
        Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New York, prepared statement of...............   118
        Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Ohio:
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
            Prepared statement of the family of Detective Robert
              Clark II...............................................     3
        McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
          Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of.................    32
        Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida:
            Chart on counterdrug funding statistics..................    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Hawaii, prepared statement of.....................    17
        Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California, prepared statement of.......................    23

              OVERSIGHT OF THE 1999 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
                                       Human Resources,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
    room 2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Souder, Hutchinson,
    Ose, Mink, Cummings, and Kucinich.
        Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director/chief
    counsel; Margaret Hemenway and Sean Littlefield, professional
    staff members; Amy Davenport, clerk; Michael Yeager, minority
    counsel; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Earley Green,
    minority staff assistant.
        Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of
    the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
    Subcommittee to order.
        Our business today is to hear from the Director of the
    National Office of Drug Control Policy.
        Before I get into my opening statement and before the
    regular order of business, I am pleased to recognize the
    gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, for a special introduction
    to our panel.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    express my appreciation to you for giving me this opportunity.
        The topic of this hearing, of course, is so serious, and
    the chairman is to be congratulated for his focus on this.
        I know how these issues become local. In Cleveland, OH, a
    police officer was killed in the line of duty while attempting
    to execute a drug-related arrest. The officer, Robert Clark,
    was a decorated police officer, a husband, and father of three.
    As part of the street crimes unit, he routinely participated in
    coordinated antidrug operations. He was shot during a drug
    arrest by an individual that had an extensive criminal record
    in several States, an individual that seemed to have slipped
    through the criminal justice system, but may not have had
    greater coordination and information been made available to
    local law enforcement professionals.
        Mr. Chairman, Officer Clark's sister, Mary, and her husband
    John, who is with the U.S. Custom's Office, are here today. I
    would ask them to stand so that I can recognize them.
        Stand up, please.
        And I would also ask for unanimous consent to submit a
    written statement from them into the record.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of the family of Detective Robert
    Clark II follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.003

        Mr. Mica. We are, indeed, honored to have you with us and
    appreciate the tremendous sacrifice your family has paid in
    this terrible crisis that our Nation and law enforcement
    officials face in executing their responsibility under the laws
    of this country.
        So, without objection, we are pleased to recognize you
    today, and also make that part of the record.
        Mr. Kucinich. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And,
    if I could ask the indulgence of the Chair, if the Chair and
    those in the audience could join in a round of applause in
    appreciation for the sacrifice of the family.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.005

        Mr. Mica. Thank you so much. It does bring to home the
    reason that we are here today trying to find solutions so that
    a tragedy such as that we have heard about with this family can
    be avoided in the future.
        We had a vote, and right now have the swearing in of a
    Member, but we are going to go ahead and proceed with our
    regular order of business this morning, which is, again,
    testimony from our Director of the Office of National Drug
    Control Policy.
        I am going to start with an opening statement.
        I will ask unanimous consent that it be submitted for the
    record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.007

        Mr. Mica. Let me just try to spend a few minutes, as our
    members join us, to express some of my concerns outside that
    official statement about my review of the proposed drug
    strategy, the 1999 strategy that has been submitted, and some
    of the accompanying documents. In light of a trip that the
    ranking member, myself, Mr. Souder, and some of the
    subcommittee just took, I would like to look, just for a few
    minutes, at an overview of where we are and what I believe are
    some of the shortcomings of this proposal before us.
        First of all, I want to publicly acknowledge the tremendous
    job that General McCaffrey has done. I think he has had a very
    difficult assignment. I think he has handled himself in a
    manner to be praised by this subcommittee, by the Congress, and
    by the administration.
        That being said, I do have some so-called ``bones'' to pick
    with the proposal before us, and I am sure he'll have an
    opportunity to respond.
        One of my major concerns is that we look at the cost-
    effectiveness of our approach to this problem. We are now
    spending, this past year, $17.9 billion taxpayer dollars, not
    to mention almost a quarter of a trillion dollars in cost, just
    dollars and cents, to the taxpayers on substance abuse and drug
    expenses that our country incurs every year.
        So you have to look at the most cost-effective approach.
    Maybe some of these items are more on our minds, since we have
    just returned from some of the major drug-producing countries,
    but it doesn't take a whole lot of education or information to
    figure out exactly where the core of the drugs are coming from.
    By the estimates of this report, we have got 60 percent, maybe
    as much as 70 percent of the hard drugs coming through Mexico,
    and most of the cocaine and heroin is now produced in Colombia.
        We learned through our trip that Colombia has now become
    the major source of cocaine production, with the tremendous
    efforts that have been made by President Fujimora of Peru and
    by the President of Bolivia, Hugo Bonsar. So we know that drugs
    are being produced--the hard drugs, heroin and cocaine, in
    Colombia.
        We still have the problem of getting the resources--
    helicopters, ammunition, eradication programs--underway in
    those countries.
        We know that 100 percent of the cocaine is being produced
    in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Now 50 percent has switched
    over to Colombia. We know that heroin is trafficking up through
    Mexico, and that's 60 to 70 percent of it.
        I point this out because the strategy does not appear to me
    to be focused sufficiently to deal with these source countries.
    Now, in Peru and Bolivia a few million dollars extra could make
    a big difference. They have shown some dramatic intentions and
    actions to eliminate, not just cut back, but potentially
    eliminate production in those two countries.
        So it seems that a lot of our resources should be to stop
    drugs at their source. What disturbs me about the budget and
    the strategy is that it does not seem to focus enough attention
    there. In fact, I think over last year's actual total dollar
    expenditure we see decreases.
        So I have some serious concerns that we are putting a few
    dollars where they can do the most good, in Bolivia and Peru,
    and also in Colombia.
        What is even more disturbing is the situation with Mexico,
    where most of the drugs are transiting. Today's newspapers make
    me even more concerned, General McCaffrey. We had the testimony
    yesterday of Tom Constantine, the head of our Drug Enforcement
    Agency, and he testified in the Senate. In my lifetime, I have
    never witnessed any group of criminals that has had such a
    terrible impact on so many individuals and communities in our
    Nation. Mr. Constantine said they have infiltrated cities and
    towns around the United States, visiting upon these places
    addiction, misery, increased criminal activities, and increased
    homicide.
        There is no doubt that those individuals running these
    organized crime, drug trafficking syndicates today are
    responsible for degrading the quality of life, not only in the
    towns along the southwest border of the United States, but
    also, increasingly, cities in middle America. That disturbs me
    greatly.
        The headlines are, ``Drug Corruption in Mexico Called
    Unparalleled,'' again, by our Chief Drug Enforcement Officer of
    our Nation.
        Further, what concerns me is a lack of organization that
    the ranking member and I observed, first in Panama, which has
    been our major reconnaissance center. Today is almost the end
    of February. Monday is the first of March. We have March and
    April. It does not appear that we have any coherent plans for
    relocating those surveillance and incredible volume of
    equipment that now is in Panama. It seems disorganized, at
    best. It looks like we got out-negotiated by the Panamanians,
    and we are turning over $10 billion in assets, and you have $73
    million to relocate in your budget, which, again, is probably
    an expensive policy failure by the administration.
        So I am very concerned about what we are going to do. We do
    not have anything in place. Our folks told us that our troops
    may be living in tents or in temporary quarters if and when an
    agreement is reached for relocating them. This also opens a
    huge gap in our reconnaissance, surveillance, and interdiction
    activities.
        We then went to the southwest border and met with border
    officials and some of our ATF folks there. We were basically
    told, Sir--and correct me, Mrs. Mink, if I am wrong--that there
    is no one in charge of the southwest border program, that it is
    greatly fractionalized, that there is no direction and no or,
    at best, little coordination.
        Certainly, the southwest border, given the chart that I
    have here, has to be one of the major entry points. The border
    patrol told us--and correct me again if I am wrong, anyone out
    on the panel--that we have not restarted our efforts of having
    the reserve and military do proper surveillance. They said they
    can detect most folks coming across the border through sensors.
    The local border patrol folks have requested, in fact, that
    that be reinstituted, but nothing in Washington has been done
    to, again, provide the sensors at the border which are so
    important.
        Then, I know that you and the administration have been
    strong advocates, and the Congress, Mr. Portman, strong
    advocates of education and prevention and our Drug-Free
    Communities Act that passed the Congress. I find that we do not
    have adequate resources in this budget to even fulfill the
    minimal needs.
        Mr. Portman told me last evening it took 16 months to
    appoint board members, and most of it was a fight. The delay
    was a fight between HHS and DOJ in trying to decide who would
    run the program.
        So I have some very serious concerns about what is in the
    proposal, about what I read in the newspaper today, about the
    possible certification by the administration of Mexico in the
    next couple of days, and that we do not have coordination and
    action on a couple of these fronts.
        Now, I do not mean that all in a critical vein, Mr.
    Director. I am wondering if maybe we need to give you
    additional authority. We certainly can do a better job from our
    perspective in applying the financial resources where they need
    to go to get the job we think needs to get done.
        Those are my candid, open remarks. We have learned from the
    past that if we do not put the proper emphasis on these areas--
    multi-faceted eradication, source country programs, and
    international programs on interdiction, education, treatment,
    and prevention--that it does not work. And there is no question
    that it does not work if we do not have that emphasis.
        So those are some of my concerns today. I think we have
    most of the members of the panel back. I apologize for taking
    time.
        Again, I do not give that totally in a critical vein, but
    hopefully in a constructive vein that we can find answers to
    some of the problems as we move along here.
        With those comments, I am pleased to yield to the ranking
    member, the distinguished lady from Hawaii, who also
    accompanied us on our first initial visit. We are anxious to
    hear her remarks. I recognize her.
        Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to you,
    General McCaffrey, to this hearing.
        I occupy a new position as ranking member of this
    subcommittee, and the entire subject area, although in many
    ways is something that I have been concerned with my entire
    political life, nonetheless, there is so much in this whole
    area that requires concentrated, detailed attention in order to
    understand all the inner workings and ramifications of the
    problem. It is an immense task that you have assumed, and I
    want to take this opportunity first off to commend you and your
    staff for the exceptional work that you have done since this
    organization was established.
        There are so many fronts to this issue, and perhaps coming
    onto it initially I would have underscored the particular
    attention we have to pay to our young people, who are the real
    victims of this crisis, and organize efforts to educate them
    and their parents and their families about the dreadful
    consequences of becoming a user and an addict; the cost to the
    family, as well as to the community and to society and the
    Nation, as a whole, and so we concentrate our efforts.
        I serve on the Education Committee, and we concentrated our
    efforts in the educational aspects and the prevention aspects,
    and then, when you look at the health area, you know that there
    is a whole arena of health services and treatment, and some of
    the debate that goes along with those issues.
        Then, traveling with this subcommittee to Central and South
    America, you understand that much of it is outside our realm of
    control. These source countries have total responsibility to do
    the things that are necessary to curb the source, to interdict
    the smugglers, and to do everything they can to prevent the
    traffic into our country. To some extent we are dependent upon
    their will and their determination to get at the source
    question and all the crime and other kinds of corruption that
    occur in societies that are governed by the law of drugs.
        We know significant achievements in some of these countries
    that we want to pay special tribute to for their new efforts--
    Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia, in particular--and all of us are
    concerned about the developments in Mexico.
        But, in looking at this overall picture about our drug
    strategy, what comes to my mind as something that I would have
    always considered self-evident was that we knew exactly what
    was happening within the United States in terms of where the
    drug syndicates were located, who ran them, who was in charge
    in what city, with respect to the wholesale activities of these
    drugs, and managing and controlling the flow in and out of our
    cities and our communities.
        I have looked over a number of the reports and descriptions
    of the various functions of agencies, and I am not really quite
    sure that I have a grasp of what our efforts, in terms of our
    own law enforcement, are within this country.
        That is an area I would like to pay special attention to as
    we begin our inquiry on the scope and strategy for the
    eradication of the drug abuse in our country.
        I would like to know, frankly, where these people are and
    what their names are. I would like to put a face to these
    names. I would like to know where they are located, to what
    extent the intelligence within this country can identify them,
    know their operations, and, if so, why they have not been
    arrested and put in prison.
        That's the short view of my perspective of one small corner
    of this immense subject area.
        I would like to share those concerns with you, General
    McCaffrey, and hope that in the ensuing months we have an
    opportunity to engage in discussion about this far-reaching
    activity that those concerns of our enforcement part of this
    huge operation are fully understood, because, to a large
    extent, I think my community, my District that I represent has
    sort of given up on this thing. They say, ``Well, what can you
    do about it? It is there.'' We do not see many results in terms
    of the whole traffic.
        I am alarmed because my State is listed here as one of the
    major growers of marijuana, which is the leading illicit drug
    trafficking in this country, and I want to know who these
    people are that are bringing it in or growing it or picking it
    up and shipping it and where it goes and who these people are
    throughout the country.
        I think that most families want to have that information--
    the knowledge, the belief that everything is being done that
    could be
    done to help engage this Nation in this very, very critical
    problem for the sake of our children and our families.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that my
    statement be entered into the record.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.011

        Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize now the vice chairman
    of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, General McCaffrey,
    it is always a pleasure and an honor to have you here. You have
    always and continue to distinguish yourself as one of our true
    leaders in the antidrug movement, and I very much appreciate
    that, as do the citizens of the 7th District of Georgia that I
    represent.
        I think primarily, through no fault of your own but through
    some of the policy decisions that the administration makes, the
    effectiveness of your personal efforts and those of the people
    that serve with you, and, in particular, the brave men and
    women of the DEA have not enjoyed as much success as I know
    they would like and as you would like, and as, certainly, we up
    here would like to see, problems with regard to Mexico being
    one of the foremost problems, an effort by some, I think, in
    the administration not to be quite as strong on the marijuana
    legalization effort, as I know you are, and on needle exchange
    programs.
        I guess what I am saying is I think we would be a lot
    better off if you were President and not just head of ONDCP,
    because then you would be in a position to make the broad
    policy decisions and dictate many of the steps that we would
    like to see and that I know you, personally, would like to see.
        But I do look forward to the questions and answers today in
    your statement, and you are always very, very frank and
    forthcoming with us, and I appreciate that, and I know you
    appreciate where we are coming from in terms of sometimes some
    very tough questions.
        Again, it is always an honor to be with you and with the
    brave men and women that you represent in the forefront of the
    war on drugs.
        We had, through one of our subcommittees, a very
    interesting discussion yesterday with Mayor Guiliani of New
    York, and I may have a question or two to ask you, comments on
    some of the positions that he has taken. I think he has really
    done many of the things that we would like to see done. Of
    course, he is the chief executive for New York City and can
    make those decisions and dictate that they be carried out.
        But, again, it is a pleasure to have you here. I look
    forward to the testimony and to the questions and answers, and,
    again, look forward to working with you in fighting the war
    against mind-altering drugs in the coming Congress.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. I thank you and now recognize the gentleman from
    Indiana, Mr. Souder.
        Mr. Souder. I just want to thank General McCaffrey for
    being here and look forward to getting into the questions and
    comments.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Hutchinson, the gentleman from Arkansas, you
    are recognized.
        Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will yield for my opening statement.
        I have started reviewing the report, General McCaffrey, and
    I look forward to your testimony.
        I will take the opportunity just to make one remark. I
    believe in the importance of educating teenagers about tobacco
    use and the dangers of that. I always have believed, though,
    that we should distinguish the case of illegal drugs, the
    narcotics, the methamphetamine--the message on that, you know,
    from the antidrug message on tobacco.
        Sometimes I think we just sort of meld all of that
    together, and so I just wanted to express that comment to you.
    I have raised four teenagers, and I think you have got to
    distinguish that message out there. Both are important, but I
    hope that we can really put the focus on the illegal drugs--I
    think that is the greatest danger in our country--and then we
    can have a separate message for the antismoking campaign.
        I look forward to your testimony, General McCaffrey, and,
    likewise, I thank you for your hard work for our country.
        Mr. Mica. The gentleman from California, Mr. Ose, you are
    recognized.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
    hearing and the opportunity to go with you this past week. I am
    very interested in hearing what General McCaffrey has to offer
    here this morning.
        Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the Federal funding for
    the war on drugs has increased for fiscal year 2000, however
    nominally or however much we might think it needs to be more.
        The questions that I have deal with how can the Federal
    Government assist localities and communities in reaching their
    drug prevention goals. It is the details of this that I am
    looking forward to hearing from General McCaffrey about this
    morning.
        I also want to comment on a statement that General
    McCaffrey made to the Community Anti-Drug Coalition's
    newsletter this past winter. The General commented that the
    responsibility of combating minor use of drugs, alcohol, and
    tobacco falls on communities and coalitions and not on the
    local police chief and sheriff.
        My specific question--and I hope you address this--is: how
    can the Federal Government encourage and equip local
    communities and coalitions to actually participate effectively
    in this effort?
        Again, these are just a few of my concerns. With respect to
    the time, I will yield back whatever I have left in favor of
    listening to General McCaffrey.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.012

        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
        Just to make sure we correct the record before we recognize
    the General, on page 89 of the National Drug Control Policy I
    want to present a national award for graphics liberties, which
    is the National Drug Control budget funding trend up, which
    last year the total expenditures were $17.9 billion, and this
    year they are $17.8 billion, $109 million less, and it is
    cleverly done with the graphics that are represented, breaking
    out the supplemental as a separate expenditure. But, in fact,
    there are decreases in some of the areas which I pointed out
    and expressed concerns about, and I have this awesome chart
    that the staff has prepared, which I am going to ask be
    submitted to the record. It shows the fiscal year 2000
    expenditures for international dropping 43 percent from 1999 in
    the proposal by the administration, for total dollars spent in
    interdiction, which would be down 18 percent. These are the
    exact figures, in spite of the classy fashion in which the
    information is prepared.
        Without objection, that will be made part of the record and
    tidy it up a bit, I hope.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.013

        Mr. Mica. With that, General, we are pleased to have you
    here. We apologize for the delay. We look forward to your
    testimony and look forward to working with you as we tackle
    this tough problem.
        You are recognized, Sir.

     STATEMENT OF GENERAL BARRY R. McCAFFREY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
                      NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

        General McCaffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    opportunity to appear in front of this committee and try and
    not only lay out what the administration's strategy and budget
    entail, but also to listen very carefully to your own comments
    and respond to your questions.
        Let me also thank Representative Mink for her leadership. I
    look forward to working with you as a partner in the coming
    years in this committee, and for the many others in the
    committee who I have worked with over the last several years.
        A lot of the people who are vital to the national drug
    effort are here in the room with us, and I would not be able to
    mention all of them, but I would be remiss to not note Dr.
    Linda Wolfe Jones, Therapeutic Communities of America; Jennifer
    Collier McCall of the Legal Action Center; Sara Cason from the
    National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; of
    particular pride to have here Sue Thau representing Community
    Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, more than 4,000 coalitions
    across the country; Tom Hedrick from Partnership for Drug-Free
    America.
        I will try and show a smattering of this enormous effort.
        Mr. Mica. General, would you mind repeating them and having
    each of them stand so we can recognize them.
        General McCaffrey. Yes, I would be glad to.
        Dr. Linda Wolfe Jones, Therapeutic Communities of America;
    Jennifer Collier McCall, the Legal Action Center; Sara Cason
    from the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence;
    Sue Thau from Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the
    umbrella organization all across the country; Tom Hedrick from
    Partnership for Drug-Free America. I know all of you know Jim
    Burk and the absolutely brilliant work they have done on the
    antidrug media campaign. I am always proud to have DARE America
    present. Jim McGivney is here representing the biggest antidrug
    prevention program in the country, 26 million kids and 9
    million now in the international community. Susan Weinstein,
    from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, is
    here. There were 12 drug courts 3 years ago. There are almost
    500 now, either operating or standing up. Johnny Hughes is here
    from the National Troopers Coalition; and Dr. Bob Balster from
    the College on Problems of Drug Dependency. Many of the most
    serious academic researchers associate themselves with that
    program. I thank him for being here, along with Joe Peters, who
    has newly joined us as our HIDTA Director. He is a very
    experienced assistant U.S. attorney from Philadelphia, where he
    is chief of narcotics and organized crime, and we thank Joe for
    joining us.
        Mr. Chairman, if I can, let me ask your permission to enter
    into the record a written comment.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
        General McCaffrey. We tried to pull together and provide
    you the facts that may help guide your own deliberations.
        Let me also run through very briefly, just laying out, so
    you can see it and hear it, the principal subcomponents of our
    national effort.
        [Simultaneous slide presentation.]
        General McCaffrey. There are four volumes, one of which you
    have already referred to, the national drug strategy. You just
    changed the law last session. You reauthorized ONDCP. The
    Speaker of the House was heavily involved in it, along with
    Denny Hastert, who was his quarterback. This now represents
    long-term commitment on the part of the U.S. Government,
    because you told me to do this with a 5-year or longer
    perspective.
        We have also now, by law--this is no longer collegial
    participation by my 50 associations in the executive branch.
    This is the 5-year drug budget that I am mandated by law to
    submit each year. It is still not very good, but it is now
    subject to your analysis and debate and the scrutiny of the
    news media and these other representatives from the principal
    national antidrug elements so that we can start getting into a
    dialog on prevention, treatment, law enforcement, interdiction
    over time. I commend this to your attention. We put enormous
    energy into it.
        We have also submitted performance measures of
    effectiveness. We have revised them again. Last year we thought
    it was a dramatic breakthrough in trying to hold the executive
    branch accountable over time with achieving results.
        There are now 12 outcomes that are defined by an algorithm,
    and there are 82 subordinate variables that we will measure,
    and I will report to this committee each year what we achieved
    with the money you gave us in the earlier year.
        The 1990 report makes the first attempt to give you a
    report on what we claim we have achieved, and we welcome your
    own questions on that.
        A classified volume, which is available to you in the
    normal controlled manner, is the national drug control strategy
    classified annex, which is classified ``secret'' and tries to
    outline the interdiction and international law enforcement
    policy and programs. This is the second time we have put it
    out. It is better. It is more useful now to help govern our own
    internal dialog among, particularly, the intelligence and law
    enforcement agencies.
        If I may, let me briefly show you a few charts to tell you
    the principal elements.
        The first chart, to your front here, again reiterates that
    we have organized this effort around five goals. There are now
    31 objectives. They were designed in consultation with
    literally thousands of individuals and institutions across the
    country. We think it is a solid piece of work. As you read it,
    it will make sense to law enforcement, educators, health
    professionals, coaches, and the men and women of the Armed
    Forces--the Coast Guard and other agencies. We think this is a
    good way to organize ourselves.
        This is also, I underscore, not the Federal drug control
    strategy, it is the national drug control strategy, so I am
    putting a lot of effort into it, along with my colleagues, to
    make sure that States and local governments and NGO's see this
    conceptual architecture and try and talk about the issue and
    organize programs and budgets in some common way.
        We have got to acknowledge it is possible to do something
    about drug abuse in America. We are persuaded by Partnership
    for Drug-Free America data, by Columbia University, by the
    brilliant work at University of Michigan Survey Research Center
    that youth attitudes drive drug behavior.
        We are persuaded that the number of adolescents using
    gateway drugs, the degree to which they become involved in pot
    smoking, alcohol abuse, cigarettes, and the rest of this
    stuff--and when I say ``the rest of this stuff,'' I acknowledge
    more 8th graders than 12th graders use heroin in today's
    America. That is the second year in a row I have said that. It
    is still a minute aspect of the problem, but it is an
    indication that if we want to see 10 years from now what will
    be the drug abuse problem we are debating, watch the middle
    school kids.
        As we look at the middle school kids, we think we are
    beginning to see the turning point in what will have to be a
    10-year struggle to grab each group of adolescents as they hit
    those years and persuade them that drug abuse is harmful to
    their own health and development. And we are starting to see
    youth attitudes in the 8th grade, 10th grade, and 12th grade
    have all definitively, from a mathematical correlation point,
    turned around from 5 earlier years of running the wrong way.
    These are modest changes in behavior and attitudes, but, if
    continued, and if we focus on that age group, in my judgment
    and the judgment of most of us--Dr. Allen Leshner, in
    particular, our Director of NIDA--this will be the payoff.
        Having said that, there may be a decade lag between an
    adolescent who becomes a compulsive drug user--and I know you
    understand this. Kids actually get addicted when they are 15,
    16, 17, and 18, and some of them are completely wrapped up in
    drug-taking behavior; 10 years or 15 years later they are in
    the hospital emergency rooms or in the prison system, they are
    HIV positive, they dominate the crime scene.
        And so, if you look at the 4.1 million Americans who are
    chronically addicted to drugs, they are doing enormous damage.
    That is who is in the hospital emergency room.
        Social cost--there is a lot of money involved in this.
    These are huge dollar amounts. And I put alcohol in there to
    underscore the fact that in today's America we are talking
    about poly drug abuse. It is rare to see somebody who is in
    serious difficulty who is not using heroin and alcohol, cocaine
    and other drugs. These are poly drug abuse situations, and if
    the treatment system is not adequately focused on the client,
    you end up with one behavior being modified and the addict goes
    to other drug-taking methods. But $110 billion is the bottom
    line to the damage done in the criminal justice system, the
    health system, industrial accidents, et cetera. It is a huge
    problem. It dominates some aspects of our society, and we are
    going to talk about its impact on criminal justice.
        This assertion I would say is scientifically unarguable. If
    you do effective drug treatment, if you target this drug
    treatment on this modest percentage of the population which is
    addicted, 4-million-plus people--that is probably the most
    useful estimate of its size--their malevolent behavior, their
    malignant behavior, their impact on society will change
    dramatically.
        You cannot cure a 31-year-old heroin addict, but you can
    change their behavior, and so one of the two studies that I am
    most likely to cite, the DATOS and ENTIES study, both tend to
    show, using large numbers of the addicted, that if you get them
    into treatment you modify their behavior dramatically. And most
    of those numbers essentially say there is a 50 percent
    reduction in the behaviors that are most dangerous to us.
        The next one again talks about criminal activity, rather
    than just drug-taking activity. If you look at things like
    selling illegal drugs, shoplifting, assault, beating somebody
    up--down a little more than 77 percent. Treatment pays off, and
    there is a cost, of course, in the criminal justice system to
    all these deviant behaviors.
        Here is a point I think we need to make most strongly.
    Donna Shalala, our Health and Human Services Secretary, I would
    argue is the most knowledgeable about being opposed to the use
    of marijuana combined with other drugs, particularly by young
    people. She has seen it all her life as a college president and
    professor.
        It is inarguable that, although we do not claim causal
    linkages, young people who smoke marijuana a lot--and you will
    also find other drug-taking behavior associated with this--that
    their tendency to be involved in criminal behavior, deviant
    behavior, failure to learn, dropping out of school, sexually
    transmitted diseases, all of them are higher. And so we say
    that this is harmful to the physical, emotional, and moral
    development of young people. Physically attacking people,
    destroying property, almost across the board there is a
    relationship between pot use and these activities.
        Let me also again make the point--and this is University of
    Michigan data of Survey Research Center. It has been going on
    since the 1960's, in which we tried to follow youth behavior,
    self-reported, to track their attitudes. There are two
    attitudes that are key: to what extent do I disapprove of drug
    use? The second attitude is: to what degree do I fear drug use
    for me?
        When those attitudes go back, drug use goes up. When the
    attitudes start to change, their personal behavior begins to
    reflect it.
        What we are seeing clearly, having seen a spectacular and
    extremely threatening 5-year rise, these behaviors, almost
    across the board, most dramatically among 8th graders, least
    dramatically among 12th graders--which is what you would
    expect--the curves are beginning to turn around. It is still,
    obviously, unacceptable. We have got one out of four high
    school seniors in this country regularly using drugs, one out
    of four, and that is the population that will generate the
    chronic addicts of America 10 years out.
        Let me just again remind you that if you go to the serious
    law enforcement people--Lori Robinson, Assistant Attorney
    General, is the basis for a lot of our studies, along with
    Jeremy Travis, but also the experienced law enforcement,
    leadership, Louis Freeh, Tom Constantine, Ray Kelly, and
    others--this huge number of Americans behind bars, costing $36
    billion. It is growing. It will go up another 20 percent in the
    coming years if we do not do something differently.
        If you look at that population, if you buy Joe Califano's
    Colombia University data, 80 percent of them are in there
    because their behavior is contaminated by alcohol and drug
    abuse. My guess is 50 percent is probably a more demonstrative
    statistic, but people end up unemployed, sick, and involved in
    criminal behavior, and then behind bars, resulting from the
    abuse of alcohol and other drugs.
        If we get at that behavior--and there really are not that
    many of them--1.8 million people--50 percent of them clearly
    are addicted to compulsive drugs. That is the population that
    we have to bring under control, and I think there has to be a
    tough love element to it. It is not enough to have a $3 billion
    treatment effort. It has to be linked to the criminal justice
    system.
        Thanks very much.
        Let me, if I may, end by also stating that our drug budget,
    the fiscal year 2000 budget, which was also sent over--we will
    have hearings on that next week. I would, however, underscore
    my appreciation for the rather dramatic increase in funding
    that the Congress has given us between fiscal year 1996 and
    2000. That is the piece of it that I have focused on. In that
    period of time, Mr. Chairman--and I thank you for your personal
    support--international programs went up 120 percent. That is in
    raw dollars. That is not a sound bite. That is fact--a 120
    percent increase in international programs.
        You have increased interdiction funding by 47 percent in
    those budget years. You have increased law enforcement funding
    by 24 percent.
        Now, in addition, I would underscore my appreciation that
    prevention dollars are up 55 percent, if you would take the
    fiscal year 2000 submitted budget. Treatment dollars are up 25
    percent, and research money--most importantly, many would
    argue--up 35 percent. So we are moving to respond to the
    dictates of our own strategy, of our own rhetoric, and we think
    it is going to pay off over time.
        I would also add, however, I share--you listed six
    concerns, Mr. Chairman, and I think you are right on the money
    on all six of them. I think there are ways to put it in
    context, and I would appreciate the chance to lay out what we
    are doing, but I think you are quite correct being worried
    about cost-effectiveness, lack of organization, what are we
    going to do in the interdiction effort once we lose Panama,
    what are we doing on the southwest border, corruption and
    violence in Mexico, drug-free communities, are they adequately
    funded, yes or no. And your concerns about the certification of
    Mexico I think are all quite valid.
        With your permission, let me show you a minute-and-a-half
    of video, and I would welcome your questions on the media
    strategy.
        We went, in 2 years, from a 12-city test with 12 control
    cities to national implementation using Partnership for Drug-
    Free America material. Now we have got the big guns involved.
    Some of the most sophisticated people in this country are
    involved in the effort.
        We, again, are grateful that more than 200 advertising
    companies do this work for free. We pick up production costs,
    but this work is nonprofit for the ad agencies involved. The
    Actor's Guild wave their fees. So what we are doing with our
    precious dollars is targeting access where kids and adult
    caregivers are involved.
        We have made, we think, initial and rather dramatic impact.
    Our target was four times a week adolescents in America, with a
    90 percent target penetration, would see or hear or read our
    material. In fact, we are about seven times a week with 93
    percent target penetration. It is almost unprecedented in this
    area.
        Kids see the ads, they notice them, they are responding,
    the calls to community coalitions have skyrocketed, even though
    only 10 percent of those initial ads had a telephone number on
    them, and the calls into Secretary Shalala's information
    clearinghouses have gone up dramatically.
        By the end of the summer I hope we will be online in 11
    languages. When we started Spanish, it went from 4 calls a day
    to more than 60 per hour when we got online with targeted ads.
    We are going to work, essentially, substrategies in 102
    different media markets.
        We are quite proud of it.
        And, on top of that, in accordance with the law, we
    negotiated 100 percent or more matching access, and we have
    done it with a very conservative algorithm on measuring what
    constitutes matching. We actually have achieved 107 percent
    increase in access with the dollars Congress gave us.
        On that note, if you will, let me just end by showing you
    this video on work that is being done by the networks to
    reinforce our own PDFA efforts.
        [Videotape presentation.]
        General McCaffrey. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the chance
    to make these statements and look forward to responding to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of General McCaffrey follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.076

        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. McCaffrey. I appreciate your
    testimony and want to take just a minute, if I can, to
    introduce a couple of additional guests that we have with us
    who are visiting from Bolivia. One is Juan Francisco Porque,
    who is the antinarcotics minister for that country; Naguida
    Nayar, who is the minister of government. If you gentlemen
    would stand up, I would like to recognize you.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Mica. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Bolivia has
    embarked on an unprecedented eradication and crop substitution
    program, through the efforts of some support from the United
    States and some international support. They have just done an
    incredible job of eliminating coca production by very
    significant percentage, and have a plan that we discussed with
    President Hugo Bonsar during our visit to try to get almost all
    production eliminated by the year 2002. Bolivia is a small
    country with a big determination and some young, aggressive
    leaders who show what people can do when they want to turn a
    situation around, a model for all of us.
        We are pleased to have you with us.
        General, I have several questions. I support the treatment
    effort and the prevention effort and the education effort. We
    put tons of money in it.
        I have a little chart here that shows the national drug
    control policy from 1991 through 1999. We have just about
    doubled the amount of money in enforcement. In prevention, we
    have gone from $1.4 billion to $2.1 billion. In treatment, we
    have just about doubled the money from $1.8 to $3.1. And in
    these three areas I notice that we have significant increases
    over this period of time.
        However, in interdiction we still are not at the 1991
    levels, and in our international efforts we still are not at
    the 1991 efforts.
        Also, over the total funds that we increased last year, as
    I said, we have a 43 percent reduction in international and an
    18 percent reduction in interdiction.
        The trafficking pattern, as you know, has changed. We are
    not seeing as much cocaine. We are seeing heroin,
    methamphetamines, and dramatic increases across our Nation.
        I think we are being engulfed in new drugs that are coming
    across the border, and our strategy is not flexible enough to
    deal with this new marketing and with the incredible volume of
    drugs that is coming in.
        Can you answer why we are not looking at putting more into
    international and interdiction programs?
        General McCaffrey. Well, I chose 1995 to 2000. If you go
    back to 1991, your data is entirely correct. I certainly have
    an open mind to hearing a different viewpoint on how we could
    more effectively use additional dollars in both interdiction
    and international programs. It is clear that Colombia, in
    particular, is encountering enormous difficulties, and so the
    support, which we doubled last year for Colombia, is going to
    be money well spent in standing with a fellow democracy.
        The one caution I would have on 1991 funding levels versus
    2000 is for us to make sure we understand that when President
    Bush's team went after the Caribbean initiative and we first
    got spun up on this, a lot of that money was accounting for
    train-up costs for the United States Navy, who were working up
    for Med deployments in the Caribbean out of Guantanamo. So I am
    not persuaded that a lot of those dollars actually reflect
    smart drug policy, but, instead, are initial attempts,
    particularly in DOD, to respond to the President's
    instructions.
        But I think you are quite right, you know. We have a
    responsibility to stand, not just with Colombia and Mexico, but
    to continue the support to Bolivia and Peru and other nations
    as they succeed in their eradication program.
        I think your comment is a good one, as long as we spend
    money smartly when we do this.
        Mr. Mica. Well, again, we must stop drugs at their source,
    and it is so few millions of dollars that these partners are
    asking for.
        Some of the other concerns I have are the levels of
    funding, and I am not sure what you submitted to OMB or what
    your recommendations were, but I will give you a few areas that
    are of concern to me: the micro-herbicide program, the R&D
    program, the Customs and interdiction program, the counter-
    intelligence program.
        I have become more and more convinced that intelligence can
    help us in this whole effort of stopping drugs before they ever
    reach our country.
        The Coast Guard operations and maintenance budget, and the
    United States-Mexico border security funding, can you tell us
    on those areas what your recommendation was and why these are
    not funded at congressionally approved levels?
        General McCaffrey. I would be glad to submit the working
    documents, because I do certify agency budgets and I certify
    department budgets, and so that is all public record, and I
    would be glad to show it to you.
        Mr. Mica. Were your recommendations higher in these areas
    than----
        General McCaffrey. Some are a little tough. The micro-
    herbicide we fully support. We are going to go at it. The
    problem right now is not money. I would, indeed, argue right
    now the problem is we have got more money than I can safely
    spend. In future years, we are going to have to bring that
    program online, ensuring that we bring along with it answers to
    the environmental questions and we involve the multi-national
    community in its execution.
        So we do not have a problem with micro-herbicides. We are
    going to move on that, a very intelligent program.
        Mr. Mica. Do you believe that only $29 million additional
    for the Mexico/Andean countries and international strategies is
    sufficient?
        General McCaffrey. Probably not. I mean, these are tight
    budget decisions. There are unsatisfied demands in the Andean
    Ridge.
        I would argue we have made rather substantial increases in
    funding, and particularly in Colombia. I would also tell you
    that some of the countries--Mexico is less interested in our
    money than in our training, less interested in equipment than
    in intelligence sharing. So in some cases the answer is not
    money.
        Mr. Mica. My final question, then----
        General McCaffrey. The Coast Guard is another one.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. Will deal with training in Mexico. I
    went down there and offered to extend any assistance possible,
    and members of our subcommittee did in our visit last week, but
    I have some concerns.
        Let me read from an account today, as reported in a
    magazine article,

        In September last year, DEA officials were snubbed by
    Mexican authorities when they offered their aid in
    investigating a vicious drug slaying in Baja, California, that
    left nearly two dozen people dead, including a toddler and a
    pregnant teen. One of the reasons for the refusal could well be
    that the killers, according to a U.S. intelligence document,
    may have been Mexican lawmen attached to one of four elite
    antinarcotics units trained by the DEA and FBI. They are
    suspected of having ditched their Elliott Ness-like untouchable
    status in favor of moonlighting for the Felix Brothers, the
    blood-drenched bosses of the Tijuana Cartel.

        I am concerned, and I have heard reports now that, even
    when we go back and see these people, that more than 50 percent
    of them are failing the lie detector test, and now I am
    concerned that people that we are training may be involved in
    some of the terrorism which is--we have gone from corruption to
    terrorism in Mexico, and this is a concern to me.
        Would you like to respond?
        General McCaffrey. I would not want to comment on our
    intelligence appreciation of that incident or others in a
    public hearing. What is unquestionable is that there is a
    massive threat of corruption and violence directed at Mexican
    institutions, in general, and law enforcement and the military,
    in particular.
        There are serious shortcomings in training and reliability,
    and the Mexicans are struggling to build new institutions.
        My own assessment, as I read Mr. Constantine's proposed
    testimony before they all came down here yesterday, I really
    did not factually have any substantial disagreement with any of
    them.
        Mr. Mica. We have 10 minutes. This, I understand, is going
    to be the last vote of the day. Why don't we go ahead and vote,
    and we will be back in exactly--well, we will try to make it 15
    minutes, and hopefully finish up by 12:30 or 12:45.
        Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Mica. I would like to call this meeting of the Criminal
    Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee back to
    order.
        This seems to be the day for introductions, but I would
    like to take a point of personal privilege and use this
    opportunity to introduce my local sheriff, who has done an
    outstanding job in heading up our HIDTA activities in central
    Florida. Many of you have seen--they carry around this
    headline, ``Drug Deaths Top Homicides in Central Florida,'' and
    we are trying to do something about it, and the person who is
    leading this charge just happens to be with us today, Sheriff
    Don Eslinger from Seminole County.
        Don, welcome.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Mica. I have finished my questioning, at least in the
    first round, of General McCaffrey, and I would like to yield
    now to our distinguished ranking member, Mrs. Mink, for
    questions.
        Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
    to assure your sheriff that I am going to do everything I can
    to get him more money. How is that? Can you top that?
        Mr. Mica. Working together, we can spend enormous funds,
    thank you, in a bipartisan effort.
        Mrs. Mink. Thank you. I have only 5 minutes, General
    McCaffrey, and there are really so many parts of your strategy
    that are important, and they are all inter-related.
        Coming new to this subcommittee, I wonder if you could just
    give us a brief rundown of the difference between this 1999
    strategy and the one that was prepared previously. What are the
    significant points of differences in terms of the strategy that
    you--I think it was 1996 when you put out your first report.
        General McCaffrey. Well, of course, Madam Congresswoman,
    there have been nine strategies, if I remember, starting over
    the space of four ``drug czars.'' In 1996, we went to 4,000-
    some-odd people around the country. We listened carefully to
    them. We put together a strategy that we have been retooling
    over the last 4 years.
        Mrs. Mink. So what are the major differences?
        General McCaffrey. There are no dramatic changes, except,
    as you look at it, we have tried to tighten up the language. We
    actually switched two of these objectives among goals. We
    eliminated one objective. We were trying to satisfy the demands
    of some pretty knowledgeable people in law enforcement, drug
    research, prevention, treatment, et cetera, and I think we have
    gotten there.
        This strategy is widely applauded and accepted across this
    country by the people involved in this effort.
        Mrs. Mink. Now, going to that, on page seven of this
    strategy, where you have the goals of 1999, I am searching for
    the words in any of those goals, five goals, which relate to
    what I was trying to say in my opening statement, and that is
    emphasis on the local, national, State efforts to identify the
    drug syndicates, the drug lords who are operating within the
    United States and have--what have we done in terms of that
    effort, because, as I read the goals, there is not one of them
    that singles out that particular effort, and yet I know that a
    significant portion of your budget is devoted to that effort.
        My question really is: why is not it elaborated in one of
    your five goals?
        General McCaffrey. Well, I had an opportunity to meet with
    Congresswoman Mink for an hour or so this past week and took
    her comments to heart, and I certainly share your belief that,
    although prevention and education of youngsters is the heart
    and soul of this strategy, at the same time we owe the American
    people the most effective defense possible to keep drugs out of
    the work place, the school place, the home, and the community,
    and we have not adequately done that in the past.
        Now, having said that, it is unquestionable that--I mean,
    thank God for U.S. law enforcement. If they give up on us, our
    prevention and our treatment will fall apart. You cannot
    operate in a quasi-legalized fashion and succeed.
        I would also suggest to you that their effectiveness in
    going after organized crime inside the country is
    extraordinary. We arrested about a million-and-a-half people on
    a drug-related offense last year. We have behind bars--these
    data are somewhat soft--about two-thirds of the people in the
    Federal prison system, which is where most traffickers will end
    up, serious ones, if you look at that number it is almost
    60,000, are drug-related offenses, two-thirds of it. And, of
    that group, 86 percent are significant trafficking offenses.
        Even when you go to simple possession, Federal prosecution
    guidelines, we will not even prosecute if you do not have more
    than 100 pounds of marijuana on you, so you look at simple
    possession--normally it is up in the ton or more if you are in
    the Federal prison system.
        Literally, we have locked up thousands of people, and it is
    hard to find gringos who survive long in interstate criminal
    conspiracy involving drugs or money laundering. Half those
    people we locked up in the Federal system are Americans. The
    other half are foreigners, roughly.
        And if you go to the State system, the number we use, there
    is about 900,000 people behind bars at State level. Probably
    half of them are compulsive alcohol or drug users, or more, and
    22 percent of that 900,000 people are drug-related crimes. It
    is trafficking. It is that kind of activity. And so State-level
    authorities have been extremely aggressive in going after it.
        The shortcoming probably is--and, although we are doing
    better on it, it is things like money laundering. If we believe
    our own data, if we are really spending $57 billion a year on
    illegal drugs, where is the money going? And so we have done
    some--I would hope you would have a chance to visit the
    Financial Enforcement Center right outside of Washington. The
    Secretary of the Treasury runs it. It is an attempt to use a
    $200 million bank of computers up in Detroit, the Bank Secrecy
    Act, suspicious transaction reporting, and commercial data
    bases to go after money laundering. And it is really beginning
    to pay off.
        The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury run
    a joint operation which is sensitive in New York and L.A. and
    in other places, targeting--one of them was in the press,
    Project El Dorado up in New York City--targeting money
    laundering.
        A lot of very clever things have been done. They use what
    is called ``GTOs,'' which restrict the use of set amounts of
    currency, and it is starting to pay off.
        I think what is happening now is these criminal
    organizations are trying to use other than the U.S. banking
    system. I mean, you can hide $1 million. You cannot hide
    multiple billion dollars. You have got to get it into something
    where there is a paper record. And they are going into other
    ways, trying to stay away from U.S. law enforcement.
        I think U.S. capabilities in the DEA, FBI, and Customs
    supporting local law enforcement have been extremely aggressive
    confronting urban and rural drug-related criminal
    organizations.
        Mrs. Mink. Our budget figures how much the Federal
    Government is spending in the national Federal level in terms
    of law enforcement. Can you give us a best estimate or guess in
    terms of what is being spent in the local and State areas for
    drug law enforcement efforts?
        General McCaffrey. If I may, let me provide it to you on
    the record. Two years ago the number I was using--and it is
    important that I get the question written down so that the
    answer matches the question--but the Federal effort, which was
    about $17 billion at the time, the national effort I was
    listing at more than $32 billion. So most of the law
    enforcement capability in this country against drug-related
    crime, the overwhelming majority of it is municipal police and
    sheriff departments. That is where our citizens are protected
    from this criminal activity. It is not Federal.
        Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the ranking member.
        I am pleased to yield now to our vice chairman, Mr. Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        One thing that Mayor Guiliani and those of us on the
    subcommittee discussed yesterday was relating not directly to
    his work in the city of New York as its chief executive officer
    and the tremendous gains that New York has witnessed through
    primarily his leadership in violent crime, crime, generally,
    and certainly drug usage, but he also touched a little bit,
    based on his extensive knowledge on fighting the war against
    drugs on all fronts, he also touched yesterday on some of the
    foreign policy aspects of drug control policy.
        And Major Guiliani, who I have great respect for, as I know
    you do, General, said that, in his view, at the very top, not
    just as a priority, but at the very top of the list of the
    questions that our President and our foreign policy officials
    ought to ask of foreign leaders in any discussions or
    negotiations with foreign leaders, those that are involved in
    the drug control business, is: where are you on helping us
    fight the war against drugs? And before we move on to question
    No. 2 or No. 3 or No. 4 or No. 8 or assistance or what not,
    that question ought to be answered satisfactorily; otherwise,
    we do not reach the other questions.
        I think the mayor is right on target. I think that the
    history of our Government's--not just this administration, but
    our Government's efforts in dealing with these matters,
    antidrug matters with foreign nations, does not follow the
    mayor's advice. I hope that one day it does.
        I think that we are witnessing very serious problems in
    Mexico, partly as a result of this administration's policy
    decision not to place that question at the top of the list, and
    anything that you can do to move them in that direction would
    certainly be appreciated.
        I would like to specifically, General, address an issue
    that we have had a number of discussions on in the past, and
    that is legalization efforts.
        The language in your report with regard to marijuana is
    very similar to the language in last year's report. I am
    somewhat intrigued by this year's report having a separate
    section for countering attempts to legalize drugs and
    countering attempts to legalize marijuana. I am wondering what
    sort of message that sends to people that legalizing marijuana,
    even though it remains a Schedule One controlled substance and
    is a mind-altering drug, why that is somewhat different, why
    there is not just a very short statement that the
    administration will continue to resist all efforts to legalize
    mind-altering drugs. I do not know why the administration has a
    hard time just making that statement and separating out
    marijuana legalization.
        To treat it differently I think sends a very contradictory
    message that is not lost on young people. They look at this
    report, and it will be cited by all sorts of legalization folks
    out there, and our delightful friends, George Sorros and so
    forth, who are in the forefront of the legalization movement,
    and I think it will undermine your efforts, the way you all
    have dealt with this.
        Why cannot the administration just come out and boldly say,
    ``We are against mind-altering drug legalization. We are not
    interested in participating in studies to see if marijuana can
    be legalized''? Why not have the entire burden and have it a
    very high burden on those that seek legalization? Why should
    we, our Government, which is against mind-altering drug usage,
    why should we spend any taxpayer dollars? Why should we even
    care about efforts to legalize marijuana?
        If somebody wants to come forward and say, with a
    scientific certainty, that marijuana does, indeed, have
    legitimate medical uses and ought to be removed from Schedule
    One, why not put the burden entirely 100 percent on the
    legalization proponents, have them propose legislation to move
    it off of Schedule One? Why are we involved in any way, shape,
    or form with these what I consider very almost contradictory
    statements on legalization of marijuana?
        For example, if, in fact, somebody comes forward or one of
    these studies shows that, well, maybe there is some medical
    benefit for the use of marijuana, which I disagree with, does
    that mean that the administration would seek to move it off of
    Schedule One, even though there are other drugs on the market
    and more coming on the market, as I understand the research,
    that can more than adequately handle the purported beneficial
    uses of marijuana?
        General McCaffrey. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
        Let me join you in saying that Mayor Guiliani has been, of
    course, an extremely effective mayor, and there is a lot to be
    learned. I go up there all the time to look at what Howard
    Safer and the NYPD do in community policing, and there are some
    very effective linkages of drug treatment.
        New York City, of course, has a gigantic addicted
    population, and, whether it is from Phoenix House, Dr. Mitch
    Rosenthan, or from Dr. James Curtis in Harlem with his method
    on maintenance programs, there is just a lot of good thinking
    up there and I have great admiration for them.
        I would also agree that drug policy should be a preeminent
    concern of the United States dealing with our international
    partners. One of the challenges is that the biggest drug
    problems that we face--Afghanistan, Laos, Burma, eastern
    Colombia, some of the mountainous regions of Mexico,
    southeastern Turkey, the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon--it is places
    where organized governments have little or no control over
    their own territory, and where the criminal elements in the
    area--the FARC in Colombia is such a lethal threat to democracy
    that their battalions have more automatic weapons and better
    pay than the Colombian army. That is one of the challenges.
        So when you deal with the President of Colombia, you have
    to take into account the degree to which he can do something
    about it.
        But your point is well taken, and I could not agree more.
        Let me, if I can, talk about the legalization issue. I had
    not heard the comment about separating them and the way that
    one could interpret that, and I thank you for that comment.
        Now, let me tell you what our own intent was.
        We, the administration, are unalterably opposed to the
    legalization of marijuana, directly or indirectly, and it is
    clear, from listening to our repeated public statements by
    Attorney General Reno, Secretary Shalala, and I, in particular,
    but also Mr. Constantine and others, that we are adamantly
    opposed to the legalization of marijuana, and it is not open to
    debate.
        Now, I think what has happened is the legalization people
    are about as cunning a group as I have ever seen. I do not
    think there are many people involved in it. As far as I can
    tell, there are about five of them that pay for most of it, and
    about 300 of them on the Internet that help organize it. They
    have done extremely well with limited money--$15 million or
    whatever to intervene in California. I think it was under $8
    million in the State of Washington. So now we have ended up
    with eight States and possibly the District of Columbia that
    have passed some form of medical marijuana act. In Arizona it
    was most sweeping. Five of them are literally the same act. It
    is the same TV ads that turned the States around.
        Added to that is the kind of clever dealings with
    industrial hemp, which is the other piece of this, and which,
    as I am fond of saying, noted agronifs like Woody Harrelson are
    speaking out to have industrial hemp save America's forests.
        So we have focused on that issue and pulled it out so that
    we can directly confront the notion that medical pot is off
    limits to this discussion.
        Now, why do we investigate medical marijuana's claims? I
    think, just as a matter of principle, starting in the 1980's,
    any drug that alleges it has benefit, if it can demonstrate to
    the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration under clinical
    trials that it is safe and effective for the purpose
    prescribed, then the door is wide open, and under that logic
    methamphetamines are available to physicians, cocaine products
    are used for eye surgery, and, indeed, in the mid-1980's,
    marijuana was pulled apart, 435-some-odd compounds. THC, 1 of
    the 30-some-odd active cannaboids in marijuana, was isolated as
    having potential medical benefit, and it was produced
    commercially as synthetic THC marinol, which is available with
    a doctor's prescription in a pharmacy today, and it is
    available for use, to include control of nausea from
    chemotherapy.
        It is not used much because it is not effective compared to
    other drugs, but it is there. And we have said, ``Well, we are
    perfectly willing to have these bright people in NIH fund
    controlled studies where other components of smoked marijuana
    could be looked at as potentially beneficial, and, indeed, if
    smoked marijuana can demonstrate that it is useful, then it
    would presumably be made available to America's medical
    community under controlled conditions.
        I do not personally believe that is going to happen. I do
    not believe somebody is going to have a joint stuck in their
    face in an ICU. My daughter works in ICUs in Seattle, and I do
    not believe that is going to be the pain management agent for
    prostate cancer 10 years from now. I think it is nonsense. But
    it is potentially possible that there are other compounds in
    marijuana that might have some payoff, and if there are, fine,
    provide them to American medicine.
        I think we have to confront this issue directly. I share
    your anxiety. I think your concern is valid.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, General.
        Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize the gentleman from
    Indiana, Mr. Souder.
        Mr. Souder. Thanks. I have a series of things here, some of
    which can be followed up later if you want to get into more
    detail. Our office will be in touch with your office.
        I have one thing directly that came up right in my District
    in the Drug-Free Communities Act and leads me into some policy
    questions, and I am going to go through and name a couple of
    these different categories, even though some of them are
    different from each other.
        In the drug-free communities program, I worked aggressively
    with all these different groups in our District. A number of
    them got their proposals in. One of them was from a smaller-
    sized county, where the biggest city in that county is roughly
    12,000 people, and they had been very active in community
    things and got a grant. They informed me that they have been
    told that their grant is going to be reduced 25 percent next
    fiscal year and 50 percent the following 3 years because of a
    policy change because we did not, in the past Congress or in
    your budget that is in front of us, fund it at the level that
    we authorized the program.
        Combined with that, to try to reach more different
    programs, now the programs that already have been told this is
    how much money--in the case of this one in Noble County,
    already hired the personnel, started the program--are suddenly
    faced with having to raise $25,000 to $50,000 a year
    additional. In this community, they do not have it. Maybe in an
    urban area there are those kinds of resources, but in the rural
    communities, if they got the grants, and probably in some inner
    city communities, as well, there is not, particularly once you
    have started the program, the ability to suddenly change that.
        I have some concerns about what, in effect, they are going
    to do, most likely, around the country is weaken the programs.
        And part of our problem in the drug-free schools, which I
    want to touch on next, is that sometimes we seem to give these
    schools just enough to run an ineffective program but not
    enough to run an effective program.
        It is a dilemma that we have of how to spread the reach
    without compromising the integrity of it. But what is
    particularly upsetting in this case is the program started out
    assuming they had that and may not have the resources to go
    ahead.
        We can followup with that with your office, but I would
    like to at least get a preliminary on the record as to why we
    changed this after we started, or should we make that a
    priority in our funding that this program needs additional
    dollars.
        On the Drug-Free Schools Act, I am on the Education
    Committee and I am going to be working with this directly and
    have battled the last 2 years because this program has had a
    very tenuous existence in our appropriations process, partly
    because, while you cited in your research a few studies that
    have suggested there has been some success, the truth is, the
    studies with this are very mixed.
        What we know is they are not doing any harm; it is just not
    clear how to make these programs more effective.
        I carefully went through your national strategy, and, while
    you give some things in it that you did last year, there is not
    a whole lot of suggestions for us to grab hold of as we retool
    this program, and I would appreciate working with your office
    as we look at this, as we go through our hearings, and try to
    target this program, in particular.
        So that is open ended. We need to work together because
    this is a--we are all saying we need to do demand reduction in
    education efforts, yet the facts are the studies are very
    mixed. A lot depends, even in the DARE program, which I, when I
    worked for Senator Coates, helped with Senator Wilson at that
    time do the first funding bills. It really depends a lot on the
    commitment of the particular officer. It is so erratic.
        And then we have tracked in every school in our District to
    see how they are using these moneys, and some of them are
    having health clinics and some of them are doing self-esteem
    courses, and some of them need to get hold of, if we are really
    going to turn, rather than slightly turn, and particularly in
    the youth, we have to have a more-aggressive strategy directly
    in the schools with the youth.
        Which then leads me, I completely agree with Congressman
    Barr. Unless we can get a hold of this medicinal use of
    marijuana, when I go into schools and talk about this you get,
    ``Well, it is medicine'' back in your face. And the more
    particular referendums we are losing, it is like, no matter
    what else we do, we are going to be overwhelmed with that.
        I have a couple of things I just want to throw out. One is
    that in your documents that you produced, one of my questions
    is you have a, ``Marijuana Facts for Teens,'' a ``Marijuana
    Facts for Parents,'' and I am wondering whether the question of
    medicinal use of marijuana is integrated in these documents in
    an informational way.
        Two, there is no doubt that the partnership ads are the
    most effective thing we have on the market. Has the PDFA or a
    combination of similar advertising experts been asked to look
    at printed materials that are going into the hands of kids in
    school, or is that something we should look at in the Drug-Free
    Community Schools Act and something we should be aggressive at?
    And how can we do creative things or integrating some of the
    people we see in these TV ads into a print format, rather than
    just have dry fact booklets or scare type booklets? Some sort
    of way in the schools to reach these kids, particularly--I saw
    we had at least one Hispanic ad there--one of our weaknesses
    has been how to reach the populations that are highest risk.
    Everybody is at risk in drugs. I understand that basic
    principle. But some, quite frankly, are higher risk than
    others. Are our programs aimed at trying to do that type of
    thing?
        I am also looking for creative ways, both in medicinal use
    of marijuana and in the Drug-Free Schools Act, to say, ``What
    about tying in not only the commercial television, but how can
    we use the video systems in the schools to get this information
    out on the partnership ads and other things inside the
    schools?'' Are there creative things we can do with the Drug-
    Free Schools Act? Also, should we have medicinal marijuana
    information and education parts as a mandatory component of any
    school that wants drug-free schools money, they have to have
    something? And then do we have materials to give them?
        I threw far more than you can probably handle here, but I
    threw that more out as a stimulus, and I do have a particular
    concern with the Communities Act that I worked with Congressman
    Portman to do.
        One other thing. I want to commend you for this drug
    treatment conference and prevention that you are going to work
    with Mexico. I think one of the ways we can--while we are not
    likely, in the short term, to drop certification, reaching out
    to these countries now that have their own treatment problems
    and working together in treatment and prevention is an
    important step, and I wanted to commend you for that.
        General McCaffrey. Thank you for those comments. I will try
    and ensure that our staff responds to each one of these
    concerns in turn, the four of them you have expressed.
        The Drug-Free Community Act, it is interesting to me to
    watch the reaction of that. That was a tiny program, thank God
    for Rob Portman and Sandy Levin and Senators Biden and Hatch
    and others that gave us that money. It is not much money. It is
    about $180 million over 5 years, and it was going to ramp up 10
    million, 20 million, et cetera.
        It was seed money. It actually, if you look at the
    algorithm, it was 435 Districts times 100,000. That is sort of
    where we started in on it. But there was no intention to do a
    large program. It was an HHS block grant, one time, fund these
    guys, allow them to hire people, rent buildings. That was seed
    money to initiate a new coalition.
        They are fighting over it now. There was no guarantee that
    if you got a grant approved year one you would get it for 5
    years. It was never the intention, never mind that it would
    remain at standard funding level.
        And in every case Congress wisely required matching funds,
    unlike most HHS programs. So we said, ``If you want to come in
    and get some of this startup money, you have to be--'' there
    were several criteria listed. You have to be in existence 6
    months, you have to have matching funds, et cetera.
        We will sort it out, and I will certainly listen to the
    intent of Congress. If there is a lot more money there, we
    could do it a different way. But our intention was, 5 years
    from now, instead of 4,000 community coalitions, there would be
    more than 15,000, to try to incentivize getting new coalitions
    to stand up and not pay for manpower.
        I would also tell you that the drug-free schools program--
    Secretary Riley and I have been working on it. We agree people
    are too all over the map. The law has no controls on it. There
    is no requirement to report what you spent the money on, there
    are no constraints on what you can spend the money on.
        Some of these programs are mismanaged. The GAO found out
    about that, the ``Los Angeles Times'' did, and my own view of
    it is that we are paying for some programs that do not work.
        Two years ago, Secretaries Riley and Shalala and I called
    in the educators of America, and we again gave them a tutorial
    that NIDA--National Institute of Drug Abuse--spent a half
    billion last year on research. We do have studies that talk
    about prevention guidelines. There are ways to go about this
    that do work.
        I might add, the DARE program, which I am an absolute
    supporter of, has revalidated their curriculum and is asking
    the officers to go through training and follow the curriculum,
    and if they do it will help.
        So we have got to get U.S. educators to understand and use
    prevention guidelines.
        I would also tell you I do not think we are going to solve
    this until the Governors get involved. We have got to have
    Governors figure out where this money is going and internally
    ensure that it is well spent, and right now Secretary Riley has
    tried to get, as I remember, a 20 percent set-aside to begin
    that process, and some States are really jumping into it, and I
    applaud their leadership.
        Pot use in schools--are we talking to kids in the
    classroom? Mr. Congressman, we are doing that in a big way.
    This is an integrated campaign. We have got Ogilve Mather doing
    the advertising, a firm called Fleishman-Hillard trying to
    integrate the thing and make sure that it is not only inside
    the Entertainment Industry Council, but it is inside the
    school, it is inside the Internet. I have Porta Novelli, which
    has a tremendous amount of experience in health-related
    campaigns, advising me personally.
        We have talked to the producers, the writers of the major
    TV networks of America. We are on Fox Family TV. We are on the
    Learning Channel. Secretary Riley has got an enormous amount of
    information going in written form, and we are supporting other
    institutions that are influencing that educational process.
        So I could not agree with you more. When they are in
    school, they should be subjected to a scientifically correct
    message about drug abuse, and it should not come from some
    outsider. It ought to be their own health teacher, the coach,
    the social studies teacher. That has to be who communicates to
    young people.
        There is an enormous amount of printed material going out,
    and some of it is first-rate.
        I, by the way, just approved the second generation and have
    seen the beginnings of the third generation ads, so we are
    going to start developing materials that are extremely
    effective.
        And I thank you for your comments on conferences with
    Mexico on demand reduction. We have made the argument that
    Mexico's drug abuse problem is a fraction of ours, but theirs
    is going up and ours is going down. No society is immune from
    drug abuse. The drug abuse problem in Caracas is abysmal, and
    Rio de Janeiro is disastrous, in Bogota, in Lima. The Bolivian
    authorities who were here have learned that the drug abuse
    problem down in Shapari Valley region among their own kids is
    skyrocketing.
        I think it is healthy for us to all understand that this is
    the important dimension to the drug program, and no one who
    handles this stuff gets away free.
        Thanks for those comments. I will try to respond
    practically to your concerns about the Drug-Free Community Act,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman, and I would like to
    recognize now the gentleman from California, Mr. Ose.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Briefly, I would like to request that the record be left
    open so I can submit questions for the General to respond to. I
    do not have time to do this verbally. I am going to have to
    submit questions.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, we will make your questions
    part of the record, and also submit them to the General, and
    the responses will be part of the record.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from
    Maryland, my former ranking member who I miss tremendously on
    the Civil Service Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings from Maryland.
        Mr. Cummings. I was just floored by your statement, Mr.
    Chairman. I miss you, too.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, I first of all want to thank you for all you are
    doing to address this problem--and it is a major problem. And I
    just have a few questions.
        Yesterday, Mayor Guiliani came before the subcommittee and
    criticized the use of methadone as a long-term solution to
    heroin addiction. I just want to know what your view is on that
    and what you think of methadone maintenance therapy.
        And I want to--I mean, in my discussions with addicts that
    have recovered, I must tell you that most of them have a
    problem with methadone. They pretty much agree with the mayor.
    They feel as if it is just transferring to another drug.
        I was just wondering what your feelings are on that, and
    whether or not there are any other drugs on the horizon that
    might be able to address the problem. I just want to know where
    you stand on that right now.
        General McCaffrey. Mr. Congressman, the problem of heroin
    addiction is a pretty tough one. The number we now believe is
    accurate--there are probably 810,000 of us addicted to heroin,
    and they, indeed, cause more damage to American society,
    arguably, than any other group. They do not flame out and die
    younger, as violently as the crack cocaine or methamphetamine
    compulsive users, but it is just a disease. They live on until
    their 50's, and they steal $60,000 a year and commit literally
    hundreds of felonies, and they cannot help themselves, and they
    are in misery. They get HIV. They cost us a quarter of a
    million dollars a head when they go HIV positive. They are a
    disaster.
        A lot of them are not in treatment. The capacity to deal
    with them has been limited. It is clearly the viewpoint of the
    Attorney General, Secretary Shalala, and I that you have got
    to--and they flow through the criminal justice system. They end
    up clearly behind bars. And at that point we have got to get
    them, if we have not got them early, and get them into
    treatment, stabilize them.
        One important tool available to treatment is methadone and
    LAM, LAM just being a longer-acting variant of methadone. There
    are about 175,000 heroin addicts that are involved in about 900
    nationwide clinics.
        Some States have no methadone maintenance at all. Other
    States prescribe dosage rates by law. Other States do not
    supervise it very well. And so you end up with just methadone.
    There is no assessment. I am a 16-year-old, I am a 30-year-old,
    I have reported into the clinic as a heroin addict, I am now
    under methadone maintenance, when, in fact, perhaps I should
    not be. Perhaps I should have gone to therapeutic communities
    and an abstinence-based treatment modality.
        So we have got to, it seems to me, have a broad-gauged
    approach. We do have to make methadone available, though, to
    that community. When people are on methadone, they use less
    drugs, commit less crimes, and work more, and in some cases it
    is dramatic ability to sustain this behavior for a good period
    of time.
        I also am very uncomfortable when I hear people talk about
    substituting one addiction for another. I think, both
    clinically and practically, that does not help. Clinically, it
    is incorrect. You do not substitute a heroin addiction. You are
    using a compound that, although it is addictive, allows you to
    function not in euphoric state, not stoned, dazed, incapable of
    relating to people you love or the work force. It is quite a
    different product.
        Now, I would also argue, you know--and I personalize it. I
    have a dear friend who is a very impressive artist. He is a
    sculptor, a painter. He is in recovery from severe alcoholism.
    He is clinically depressed. He is using Prozac. And those of us
    who admire his work and appreciate him as a friend are grateful
    that Prozac exists and that he is able to use it and function.
        And so if you ask me do I hope he gets off Prozac, I am not
    sure I would see that as the right question to ask me. I think
    in a theoretical sense I would say, yes, probably. But I am
    more grateful that each week he goes to work and he is living
    at home.
        And I feel the same way about methadone and LAM. It is a
    tool that physicians should use where appropriate, as part of a
    total package of therapeutic care, of social services, and of
    linkages to the criminal justice system.
        Mr. Cummings. I could go on with that, but I hear you, but
    we will talk about that some other time.
        You probably talked about this, but what are we doing with
    regard to treatment beyond methadone? What are we doing?
        General McCaffrey. Well, NIDA and SAMHSA have put out some
    pretty decent products. There now is scientific basis to
    understanding various treatment protocols. It is in writing. If
    you are the administrator of a plan and you look at the
    scientific studies that are done, you should be able to
    replicate, if you follow those guidelines, treatment
    methodologies that do work.
        That was a study I put up. These are thousands of people.
    In my view, it is inarguable, from a policy perspective, that
    treatment will pay off. We do not have enough of it. Though I
    have carefully not used the word ``treatment on demand,'' it is
    clear, if you are a heroin addict in Baltimore and you are
    waiting for a slot in treatment, you hit bottom, you are under
    arrest, and if you do not put me in treatment during that
    timeframe and tell me to come back in 90 days you do not
    understand the nature of addiction.
        So we do need to get our capacity where it can deliver
    services for mayors and county executives and hospitals and
    drug treatment providers. We have done better. We have got more
    funding going into it. The number is so soft I almost hesitate
    to use it. I say we have eliminated a 300,000 addict piece of
    the gap, but we essentially have still got half the people who
    are compulsively addicted cannot get access to treatment.
        If you are a doctor and you go to the Talbot Marsh Clinic,
    a year after treatment there is a 93 percent chance you will
    not be using drugs. If you are an adolescent and you can afford
    $14,000 for 28 days in the Hazelton Institute, where I would
    send my kid if they were compulsive drug users, the chances are
    excellent, if you go from that 28-day program to NA, AA
    attendance and follow-on community care, you will be drug free.
    That is what we need to provide.
        Mr. Cummings. Before my time runs out, the reports that you
    just mentioned--you know, in Maryland one of the things that we
    have been looking at is trying to figure out what is effective
    treatment. There is a difference. I think we have got some
    folks who are not being effective. I think they know they are
    not being effective. And I think the addict comes out worse
    off.
        And so I think what we are trying to do--as a matter of
    fact, the Lieutenant Governor and yours truly are going to be
    holding some hearings with former addicts, 10 years clean, to
    talk about what works and what does not work, because a lot of
    the former addicts are very concerned about whether money is
    being wasted in certain types of treatment.
        So I assume the reports that you just referred to analyze
    treatment, various types of treatment, and what is effective
    and what is not; is that right?
        General McCaffrey. Although, again, there are gaps in it--
    we are doing a lot of research right now on methamphetamine
    addiction--there is really nothing published, per se, right
    now. They are using the same treatment protocol that they do
    for cocaine addiction. And I am not sure that we are going to
    get there until we have some therapeutic tools, medical tools
    to use on cocaine products, for example. So there is a lot of
    research where I hope 5 years from now we can give doctors a
    way to stabilize those addicted to cocaine.
        Catalytic enzyme blockers out of Columbia University, Johns
    Hopkins has some research going on--we lack some tools for the
    treatment community.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas,
    Mr. Hutchinson.
        Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, I know you are growing weary, so I will try to be
    brief, but I did want to followup on some questions.
        I was reading your testimony, and there were some
    statements on page 3 about drug availability. You do not need
    to turn there, but your testimony indicates that in 1992 the
    drug availability of cocaine was 529 metric tons. In 1997, this
    has been reduced to 289 metric tons but you make the
    statement--and that is almost a one-half decrease in the
    availability of cocaine since 1992--that in the 1980's it was
    even lower. And you go ahead and talk about the prices that are
    significantly lower now than in 1981. We had, I assume,
    interdicted, or we had done something right that would raise
    the price on the streets.
        My question to you is: that appears to me to be a drastic
    difference in cocaine from the present back to the 1980's. Was
    there something that we were doing right then that we are not
    doing now? How do you explain the difference in regard to that
    and what appears to me some statistical indications of growing
    success in the 1980's that suffered a lapse in the 1990's and
    we are trying to regain territory, but what is your analysis of
    that?
        General McCaffrey. I have some wonderful support out of the
    Defense Intelligence Agency over cocaine trafficking flows, and
    the CIA has a wonderful officer over there with a substantial
    amount of manpower.
        We spent the last 3 years where now maybe our reporting is
    consistent and they match up in that the drug production of
    cocaine matches what we claim is moving, and then matches what
    the DEA and others report is arriving. I am still enormously
    suspect of my own data.
        The only thing I am sure of is we have got a very good
    handle on coca production hectarage, and then we go in and do
    crop samples, and we know the alkaloid content. So we have got
    a good idea on what is being made, and we follow the rest of it
    pretty closely.
        Mr. Hutchinson. My question, though, is the contrast
    between the 1990's and the 1980's. Now, if I am understanding
    you right, there is a statistical variation and there is not
    any difference in the level of success, but I think that is
    contrary to the overall statistics, particularly the poll
    numbers on the use and experimentation of drugs by minors.
        So are you saying there is not any difference? That we did
    not slide from the 1980's?
        General McCaffrey. Well, let me tell you, for 8 years
    cocaine production went up, went down, did not vary by much. It
    was between 700 and 800 metric tons a year for 7 or 8 years. It
    did not change any. And the amount of drugs coming to the
    United States grossly exceeded the demand.
        In the last 10 years, that demand, in terms of the number
    of us who casually use cocaine, has gone down enormously. The
    number we use is 6 million down to 1.3 million, the numbers who
    casually use cocaine. There is another 6.3 million of us who
    are compulsive cocaine users, and we consume most of the
    cocaine in America.
        Supply still grossly exceeds demand. Demand is going down.
    The drugs are, therefore, by simple economic law, you would
    expect purity is up, cost is down. There is no shortage of
    cocaine products anywhere in America, even though the supply
    now is also going down.
        We actually, for the first time in modern history, have a
    dramatic reduction in tons of cocaine produced in the Andean
    Ridge. But if you are a police officer or a hospital emergency
    room physician, it is hard for you to believe that because the
    population that is addicted is older and sicker and as
    dangerous as ever.
        Simply put, supply grossly exceeds demand. It did in 1982,
    it does today, and there are less of us fooling around with
    cocaine today than there were 10 years ago.
        Now, I would bet when we come back here in 5 years, you are
    going to find cocaine use has continued to go down and
    compulsive drug users will go into treatment----
        Mr. Hutchinson. One of the objects is to make the price
    higher so that it is less available to teenagers.
        General McCaffrey. In my view, not doable. What is doable
    is to make it less available. The casual cocaine user will
    respond to availability. I agree. The chronic addict will not.
        Mr. Hutchinson. Let me just ask a couple questions before
    my time runs out. I thank you for your comments. And these are
    sort of unrelated questions.
        In reference to mandatory minimum sentences, in your
    opinion, has the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences been
    helpful to our country in making strides in the war against
    drugs?
        General McCaffrey. I am basically an engineer and a systems
    analyst, and, from a systems perspective, in general, it has
    not been helpful, because we are spending more money locking
    people up who have compulsive drug using problems, $36 billion,
    than the payoff we would get from investing some money in
    prison-based drug treatment and had sentences where I go behind
    bars for a year, I am in treatment, I am out with a suspended
    sentence hanging over my head.
        And so I would argue the drug court system on the front end
    of it and the break-the-cycle program, which is in this 2000
    budget, again, on the prison piece of it, is the way to go
    about dealing with compulsive drug users.
        At one extreme, you would have the kind of notion, the
    Rockefeller laws, that, as I look at them, they also--they are
    not dealing with compulsive drug users, by and large. They are
    trying to deter young men from selling drugs for enormous
    profits through exaggerated sentences. So I do not think they
    work.
        Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you.
        Do you believe that the drug war is winnable?
        General McCaffrey. I do not like to call it a war. I call
    it a cancer. I think we can reduce the rates of drug abuse in
    America dramatically in the coming years. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Hutchinson. That really sounds like a defeatist's
    attitude. That distresses me. I know that terminology was used
    before, but I was just with some gentlemen in the anteroom and
    they referred to a quote that was attributed to you that you
    did not believe the drug war was winnable. That just seems to
    me really the wrong message. So I would urge your office--I
    mean, you have got to be the cheerleader, you have got to be
    optimistic. We have to have hope in America. That just really
    is troublesome to me to term it as a cancer. I believe that we
    can win this. I believe that law enforcement has that
    commitment, and we are undercutting them when we do not have
    that message.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General McCaffrey. Well, let me, if I can, say I have great
    respect for your opinion on this. I am not a cheerleader. I
    never have been. I am trying to produce results. And I do
    believe--again, let me underscore a very optimistic message.
    The message is, in 15 years we have brought drug abuse in
    America down by 50 percent, cocaine use by 70 percent. We have
    got a big problem out there in our children. They are using
    drugs again. We never adequately got the addict population
    under control, which means treatment and coercive pressure.
        If we do those things, in 5 or 10 years when we are talking
    about this issue, drug use will go from 6 percent of our
    population to well below 3 percent. America will be happier,
    safer, and have less crime on the streets.
        Now, if you ask me the question: will there be a total
    victory akin to the Gulf war attack, the answer is no. But you
    should not be discouraged about that. I think we need to
    understand the nature of the dilemma we face and stay at it.
        I am all for vigorous law enforcement, and I am also an
    optimist.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield for a couple of
    final questions to Mr. Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, one of the many problems that is brought to my
    attention back in the District, in talking with some of our
    local government officials, as well as our Federal and State
    and local law enforcement officials, is illegal aliens. I know
    the problem is not unique to the 7th District of Georgia, but
    it is a serious one in our District.
        Recently, we have heard and I have heard also from INS
    personnel that out in the field, down in Atlanta and other
    parts around the country, the enforcement effort is not only
    not being increased, which it ought to be, pursuant to
    congressional mandate--we have vastly expanded the number of
    dollars authorized and appropriated to INS for enforcement in
    our communities, in our regions, in our Districts, yet, not
    only apparently--and I have seen the figures on this to
    substantiate it and the memos on it that reflect it--are some
    of those Districts not seeing any increases, the money is not
    getting down there. They are being directed to cut back their
    enforcement effort, and this is having a very profound effect
    on local law enforcement, who have always looked to the
    assistance of INS to be able to keep and deport illegal aliens.
        The particular problem right now is methamphetamines in the
    illegal Mexican communities in our area.
        We also understand that the INS Director is indicating that
    INS will start releasing aliens, including those who are
    charged with drug offenses.
        Do you see this problem? And is there any assistance you
    can be, as the Director of ONDCP, in this regard?
        General McCaffrey. Well, I do not know the specifics, Mr.
    Congressman, of the decrease in budget you have commented on. I
    will find out and respond to your question. Nor do I believe
    directly that the illegal aliens, for example, crossing the
    southwest border represent a significant component of drug
    smuggling. The drugs essentially come in in 18-wheeler trucks
    and fast boats out of Colombia and rail cars and welded in the
    compartments in vehicles, along with every other way--
    backpacking across the border, mule trains, the goofiest ways
    imaginable. But, by and large, it is not illegal migrants who
    carry drugs.
        Having said that, they are a tremendous component of local
    drug-related crime in some midwestern communities, and so they
    are a problem--and we have substantially increased funding for
    law enforcement. There is clearly more money in there, perhaps
    inadequate. We need to listen very carefully to your own ideas
    on it.
        I will make sure I will go look at the deportation
    statistics on drug-related crime. I hope we never release
    anybody drug related.
        Mr. Barr. But we know that Doris Meissner is proposing
    that. Does it make any sense, from a policy standpoint--and
    that is really your role as, essentially, the implementer of
    national drug control policy and the coordinator thereof, and
    INS is a part of that. Does it make any sense to you to say,
    ``OK, Congress, reflecting the will of the people of this
    country to crack down on illegal drug usage, including by
    illegal aliens--'' I am not talking primarily border
    interdiction. That effort is moving forward and is paying some
    results, some positive results. But in the interior of the
    country, Congress has appropriated substantial increases in
    moneys over the last few years for the interior enforcement
    effort by INS, and one of the components of that is for INS to
    assist other Federal agencies and local agencies in getting
    illegal aliens who are using the drugs and engaging in
    methamphetamine traffic, or whatever, off the streets, not in
    putting them back on the streets.
        Does it make sense, given the fact that our Government,
    through Congress, and laws and appropriations bills signed by
    the President, has directed that more money go to that effort,
    to see memos to INS regional and district directors telling
    them, ``Not only are you not getting any more money; you are to
    cut back overtime, you are to cut back travel, you are to cut
    back positions, you are to cut back cell phone usage.'' Does
    that make any sense? Does that seem consistent with our drug
    control policy and with congressional mandate?
        General McCaffrey. Well, I will take your words and go find
    out what the situation is and do something about it.
        Mr. Barr. Let us say hypothetically that I am correct.
        General McCaffrey. I do not want to answer a hypothetical
    question. Let us go find out what the situation is.
        Mr. Barr. General, it is not a hypothetical.
        General McCaffrey. Mr. Congressman, I have got your point.
    I will look into it and give you an answer.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, because it is apparently a fairly
    serious problem.
        Just a couple of other quick points.
        With regard to tobacco, I agree it is bad for kids to smoke
    tobacco. I am somewhat intrigued by the section on the youth
    tobacco initiative. Apparently, the CDC is distinguishing
    itself in assisting in the tobacco initiative.
        I would be interested if you could get me the figures on
    what the CDC is doing with regard to the terrors of tobacco
    versus the CDC involvement in and resources directed to illicit
    drugs. I would really be interested to see those areas in which
    it is active in the tobacco initiative, because apparently they
    are very active in that, contrasted with their involvement in
    what I think probably all of us here agree is the more serious
    problem of illicit drug usage.
        General McCaffrey. I think almost all of our Nation's
    funding on any illegal drug program is in NIDA, and NIDA's
    budget has increased substantially in the last 3 years, so I
    think that will be the answer, Mr. Barr, that CDC does a lot of
    things--youth violence, youth tobacco, that kind of thing.
        Mr. Barr. Right.
        General McCaffrey. But when it comes to drug-related abuse
    problems, it is NIDA funding. And Dr. Leshner has tremendous
    support out of Congress.
        Mr. Barr. OK. Finally--and I think this is something that
    the chairman is interested in, also, in terms of the targets,
    the hard targets in last year's ONDCP drug reauthorization
    bill, could you just briefly describe how you are going to meet
    the current and former Speakers--Speakers Gingrich and Hastert
    now are very, very concerned and, as you know, very active in
    setting targets that can be met and that will be met,
    hopefully, with regard to the drug war.
        How are you going to meet those targets, the hard targets
    set by both former Speaker Gingrich as well as Speaker Hastert
    over the next 5 years?
        General McCaffrey. Well, this is one of the areas where
    arguably we have made the most progress. We do have some
    extremely well-researched and, we believe, achievable goals set
    out in the PMEs. There are numbers there, IOU annual targets,
    and I have required the administration's 50-some-odd agencies
    to tie their budget to those targets.
        Now, in addition, the Speaker and others have added
    congressionally mandated viewpoints, which we have cranked into
    the drug strategy. It is there. It is a target. Those targets
    Congress will use as a measurement against the funding that we
    request, and that it is your viewpoint that the funding is
    inadequate to achieve the congressionally mandated targets,
    then presumably you are going to change our budgets.
        So I think we look forward to working in cooperation with
    Congress and seeing what your own ideas are. If there are
    substantial increased resources required to hit those
    congressional targets, then I welcome your own involvement and
    advice.
        Mr. Barr. Would you submit to us a plan to meet those
    targets and that plan representing a 5-year? What would you
    need to meet those targets within 5 years? That seems to me the
    starting point for us to make a determination what resources to
    provide you should be, 5-year targets.
        Now, you have made current projections, and the targets you
    all are using may be 10-year, but would you provide us what
    resources you need, along with a plan, to meet targets by 5
    years?
        If you can--I cannot speak, obviously, for all Members of
    Congress, but I think you would find considerable support in
    the Congress for meeting your needs if you can put together,
    obviously, what would have to be a very vigorous, very
    proactive, very aggressive campaign to meet those targets
    within 5 years.
        Will you do that for us?
        General McCaffrey. Let me say----
        Mr. Barr. And we will take that to the Speaker and work
    that as a top-priority issue this year.
        General McCaffrey. Mr. Barr, let me invite a continuing
    frank dialog on this.
        We have got a 5-year budget on the table. That will be the
    administration position. And I would add that it can benefit
    from congressional debate.
        Having said that, the budget has gone up 32 percent per
    year in the 4 budget years I have been involved in this. There
    are enormous resources flowing into this across the board, and
    I plan on continuing to be adamant with the administration to
    provide increased funding, which, fortunately, I got again in
    fiscal year 2000.
        Now, I do not believe it is logical to conclude that there
    will be a separate budget submitted for congressionally
    mandated guidelines. The budget on the table is the
    administration position.
        Mr. Barr. OMB is not terribly supportive of it, I do not
    believe.
        General McCaffrey. Well, now, again, I came out of there
    with some substantial increase in funding over what I got last
    year from them.
        Mr. Barr. Right. But below what you requested.
        General McCaffrey. It was 32 percent per year over 4 budget
    years, so----
        Mr. Barr. I understand, but----
        General McCaffrey [continuing]. I am hard-pressed----
        Mr. Barr [continuing]. But it was below what you requested?
        General McCaffrey. Sure. I can give you those figures.
    Again, because I certified the agency budgets, we certified----
        Mr. Barr. I would appreciate it if you would send us those
    figures.
        Again, the administration may have a particular policy and
    that policy may be oriented toward a 10-year meeting of
    targets. What we are asking for--and I cannot speak for the
    chairman. He can speak for himself, and he may want to weigh
    in--is for you to furnish us--and this is not contradictory or
    antagonistic to any policy of the administration--we would like
    to see what you believe would be necessary to meet specific
    hard targets over a 5-year period as opposed to a 10-year
    period.
        General McCaffrey. That is on the table. We absolutely have
    submitted--you have now available the budget and the numbers to
    go with targets in 5 years. You got that in the PMAs.
        Mr. Barr. The targets, for example, as set forth on page
    44, that is what I am talking about.
        General McCaffrey. There are congressional targets that do
    not match up with the PMA targets that are on the table. I have
    developed----
        Mr. Barr. We want to see them matched there. That is what
    we would like to see. Will you send us your assessment of that?
    Will you submit that to us?
        General McCaffrey. Well, in terms of developing another 5-
    year budget, no. You have on the table the OMB position over
    the coming 5 years to achieve those targets.
        Mr. Barr. We are not terribly interested right now in OMB's
    position. We are interested in the position of the Director of
    the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
        General McCaffrey. I understand, and what I----
        Mr. Barr. Which I much prefer.
        General McCaffrey. I am standing behind the OMB position.
        Mr. Barr. You may do that, but would you be responsive to a
    specific congressional request, regardless of what OMB may
    eventually do with it? They may say, ``This is terrible.'' That
    is fine. That is OMB position. But we would like to have hard
    targets, those reflected on page 44 of your report, matched up
    against a 5-year calendar.
        General McCaffrey. There is a 5-year calendar, again, hard
    targets.
        Mr. Barr. And what you would need to meet those.
        General McCaffrey. Again, Mr. Barr, I do not believe that
    it is logical to assume that I am going to produce another
    different 5-year budget to achieve a separate set of goals. The
    5-year budget on the table is actually our position.
        Mr. Barr. And you can send that up to us and say you do not
    like this, but we would like to see your best judgment on how
    to meet these targets within 5 years.
        General McCaffrey. Yes. Well, I hear your concern and I
    look forward to learning from the staff or from the principals
    your own viewpoints on whether you believe the budget that was
    submitted adequately responds to your own concerns. I have
    great respect for your opinion.
        Mr. Barr. Are you saying that you will not submit----
        General McCaffrey. Correct. There will not be----
        Mr. Barr [continuing]. A response to the request we just
    made?
        General McCaffrey [continuing]. A different 5-year budget
    than the one that is on the table. That is it. I would be
    welcome to let you see the evolution of our thinking internally
    in the government. That is certainly legitimate.
        But, again, I would be cautious about some notion of
    arbitrarily being able to match resources with self-mandated
    targets. I am very uncomfortable----
        Mr. Barr. Any targets in a theoretical sense are going to
    be somewhat arbitrary. We are projecting----
        General McCaffrey. No. Ours are not arbitrary.
        Mr. Barr. They may not happen.
        General McCaffrey. Yes. The ones I have developed were a 2-
    year process----
        Mr. Barr. Every target is, to some extent, arbitrary except
    yours. That is fine. All I am saying is: why would you not be
    able to be responsive to a request which I am making and which
    the chairman may make to give us your best judgment of how to
    meet the Speaker's targets over 5 years and what would you need
    to meet that?
        General McCaffrey. Yes. Well, I think----
        Mr. Barr. Let me just ask this question. If you had the
    opportunity and the resources to meet goals in 10 years as
    opposed to 5 years, why would you choose 10 years?
        General McCaffrey. Of course we would not. But what we need
    to do is----
        Mr. Barr. Then why cannot you give us your best judgment in
    writing as to how we could meet those in 5 years?
        General McCaffrey. Well, Mr. Congressman----
        Mr. Barr. And then we can take that and----
        General McCaffrey. Let me give you an answer to the
    question. The answer to the question is there are nine
    appropriations bills dealing with 50-some odd agencies of
    Government. And when you are talking about machinery, people,
    optempo, and dollars, and creating capacity in treatment and
    prevention programs involving 52 million kids, 900,000 cops,
    hundreds of thousands of people in the Armed Forces, I am not
    going to make it up on the back-of-the-envelope analysis.
        Mr. Barr. I do not want an----
        General McCaffrey. Let me finish the response. You asked
    the question. I will have to lead the governmental process to
    give you prudent, well-thought-out solutions that I think are
    achievable, and that is what you have got in front of you.
        Mr. Barr. Do you think meeting these targets in 5 years is
    not achievable?
        General McCaffrey. The ones that Congress mandated, many of
    them are not achievable.
        Mr. Barr. In 5 years?
        General McCaffrey. Right.
        Mr. Barr. What we would like to do is help you make them
    achievable. You have a Speaker, Denny Hastert, who is extremely
    interested----
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Barr [continuing]. And believes that they are
    reachable, and is willing, I believe, to work very closely with
    you and the administration in making them achievable.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Barr. But if we go into this and you are saying they
    are not achievable and we are not even interested in working
    with the Congress to try to make them achievable, then maybe we
    have a problem. I would hope we would not.
        Mr. Mica. If I may, I am going to interrupt. I did promise
    the General that we would get him out around 1. He has another
    obligation. And I do want to try to conclude the hearing.
        First of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    submit to the general questions from Mr. Blagojevich and also
    have your responses made part of the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I have a statement for the record, which we will submit
    without objection from Mr. Gilman, chairman of the
    International Relations Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.078

        Mr. Mica. We will also, without objection, leave the record
    open from this hearing for a period of 2 weeks for additional
    comments.
        General McCaffrey, we appreciate your coming with us today.
    As we conclude, I have a couple of immediate concerns.
        First of all, we know where the heroin is coming from. You
    talked a lot about cocaine. It has really been supplanted with
    heroin and meth and designer drugs, and we know where this
    stuff is all coming from.
        We were in Colombia, and we found that some of the funds
    were diverted because of their natural disaster. We might want
    to get something in the supplemental, and we would like your
    assistance in seeing that Colombia, which is the source of a
    lot of these hard narcotics coming into the country and through
    Mexico, that we address that.
        Also, the ranking member has asked that we have an
    additional closed hearing or a closed briefing session, which I
    have agreed to. We will try to do that in the next 2 weeks. I
    think next week we are occupied. But, according to your
    schedule--and we will have some of the other folks in--maybe we
    can discuss the issues that Mr. Barr has raised about trying to
    speed up and adequately fund--if it takes another supplemental,
    whatever it will take.
        There are still some unanswered questions relating to the
    organization and disorganization on the southwest border, the
    Mexican question, the question of Panama, and what we are doing
    as far as relocating our forward reconnaissance efforts in the
    drug war, so I think there are a whole bunch of areas that we
    need to work on, plus the big problem of Mexico and its
    possible decertification or how we get that situation under
    control.
        So we will reconvene in a closed session at a date mutually
    acceptable in the next couple of weeks here to help resolve
    some of these, and also develop, in a cooperative fashion, a
    strategy and a finance plan to make these things happen on a
    sooner rather than later basis, if that is acceptable.
        General McCaffrey. I will look forward to that. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. There being no further business--Mr. Ose, you did
    not have any comments----
        Mr. Ose. No, Sir.
        Mr. Mica. There being no further business to come before
    this subcommittee, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
    to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2537.087