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

                  THE NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN

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

                                    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

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 14, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-137

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    66-224                     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                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho              (Independent)
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                          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                 JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
               Sharon Pinkerton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                    Gill Macklin, Professional Staff Member
                       Steve Dillingham, Special Counsel
                              Lisa Wandler, Clerk
                        Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on October 14, 1999.................................     1
    Statement of:
        Cooper, Tinker, Families Against Drugs, Orlando, FL; Shona
          Seifert, Ogilvy & Mather, New York City, NY; and Harry
          Frazier, senior vice president, Fleishman-Hillard, Inc.,
          Washington, DC.............................................    98
        Johnston, Lloyd, program director and university
          distinguished research scientist, Institute for Social
          Research, University of Michigan; and S. Shyam Sundar,
          director media effects research laboratory, College of
          Communications, Pennsylvania State University..............   131
        McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
          Drug Control Policy........................................    19
    Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
        Cooper, Tinker, Families Against Drugs, Orlando, FL, prepared
          statement of...............................................   101
        Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland, prepared statement of...............    15
        Frazier, Harry, senior vice president, Fleishman-Hillard,
          Inc., Washington, DC:
            Followup questions and responses.........................   122
            Prepared statement of....................................   109
        Johnston, Lloyd, program director and university
          distinguished research scientist, Institute for Social
          Research, University of Michigan, prepared statement of....   134
        McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
          Drug Control Policy:
            Followup questions and responses.........................    79
            Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida, prepared statement of....................     8
        Seifert, Shona, Ogilvy & Mather, New York City, NY, prepared
          statement of...............................................   105
        Sundar, S. Shyam, director media effects research laboratory,
          College of Communications, Pennsylvania State University,
          prepared statement of......................................   155

                  THE NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 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 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Mica, Cummings, Souder, Turner,
    Terney, Barr, Ros-Lehtinen, Portman, Hutchinson, Ose, and
    Kucinich.
        Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief
    counsel; Steve Dillingham, special counsel; Gill Macklin, Mason
    Alinger, and Carson Nightwine, professional staff members;
    Charley Diaz, congressional fellow; Lisa Wandler, clerk; Cherri
    Branson, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority staff
    assistant.
        Mr. Mica. We don't have a gavel this morning, and we don't
    have all of our members, but I would like to go ahead and start
    the hearing this morning and call this meeting of the
    Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
    Resources to order.
        I would like to get started. We are expecting our ranking
    member and will be joined by other Members, but we do have, I
    believe, three panels today, and we want to keep the
    proceedings moving.
        I will start with an opening statement, and hopefully we
    will be joined in a few minutes, as I said, by our ranking
    member, and we can move the hearing along.
        Today's topic is the national youth anti-drug media
    campaign, and a review of what has been taking place with that
    campaign.
        Today, our subcommittee is conducting this oversight
    hearing as the first in a series of hearings to examine that
    national youth anti-media drug campaign.
        It is vital that this program be administered both
    effectively and efficiently, and also in keeping with the
    intent of Congress.
        I do want to inject at this point a little bit of my
    concern, and I will express it to the Director of ONDCP, right
    at the outset that we have had some difficulty in obtaining
    information to conduct this hearing and to perform our
    Constitutional duties of oversight and our particular
    responsibilities because we have been unable to obtain some
    information from ONDCP.
        Our staff has compiled a list of documents, including
    subcontractors' monthly activity reports, evaluation reports,
    and project status reports which have been requested but not
    submitted by ONDCP to date.
        Now, we had first requested information, I believe, back in
    March. We have delayed conducting this hearing on several
    occasions. We wanted to give the ONDCP an opportunity to first
    complete a full year of activity in the program, and, second,
    to also compile and provide us with that information.
        So today's hearing will be somewhat preliminary in that we
    have not had an opportunity to review all of the documents that
    we requested, nor have we received those documents.
        It is my hope that we can work cooperatively with ONDCP to
    both secure those documents, records, and information, and have
    them provided to the subcommittee so that we can conduct our
    proper oversight role.
        In addition to our oversight responsibilities for the
    Office of National Drug Control Policy, our investigative venue
    extends to a host of departments and agencies that partner with
    ONDCP to fight illicit drug use.
        ONDCP is responsible for the policy guidance that is
    incorporated into our national drug control strategy and for
    assisting in the coordination of Federal, State, and local
    anti-drug efforts.
        Early in this administration, drug issues were largely
    neglected, and in an effort to reduce White House staff, the
    Office of National Drug Control Policy staff was dramatically
    slashed, down from more than 100 staff positions to only a
    couple of dozen.
        Congress has acted to reinvigorate the national anti-drug
    effort by putting pressure on the White House to adequately
    staff the office.
        I might say, too, under the leadership of our new drug czar
    and Director, General McCaffrey, that we have dramatically
    brought up staffing. With a staff today of nearly 150, ONDCP is
    many times the size it was after the slash and burn activities
    back in the early part of this administration.
        Congress continues to increase the Nation's anti-drug
    budget, which now exceeds $17.8 billion. Just since 1996, our
    anti-drug budget has grown by $4.3 billion. That is just since
    1996, a $4.3 billion increase. Most of this increase, 55
    percent, has funded more prevention and education programs.
        ONDCP's budget for fiscal year 1999 was $350 million, with
    about $200 million being spent on the high-intensity drug
    traffic areas [HIDTAs], and $185 million, more than 40 percent
    of the total budget, on the media ad campaign.
        ONDCP's performance of its responsibility to promote anti-
    drug messages nationwide is the focus of today's hearing. ONDCP
    refers to the effort and they have given it the title, ``The
    National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,'' or some refer to it
    as ``the campaign.``
        The campaign is no small program. At nearly $1 billion over
    5 years, this is one of the largest advertising campaigns ever
    launched. One advertising executive recently noted that there
    are only a handful of ad campaigns in excess of $1 million a
    year, and cited New York, where $30 to $40-million accounts are
    fought for, as he said, tooth and nail.
        In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $195 million to
    ONDCP. I might add that that was $20 million over the
    President's request. That $195 million was to support this
    national anti-drug media campaign.
        In fiscal year 1999, $185 million was appropriated, and
    another $185 million will be provided for in fiscal year 2000.
        The predecessor to the campaign was developed and run from
    1987 to 1997 free of charge to the taxpayers by the Partnership
    for Drug-Free America.
        As we are here today, experience has shown that when a
    strong anti-drug message is commercially nationally
    communicated and media time is maximized, drug abuse begins to
    drop.
        Before 1998, the partnership, the private partnership,
    donated air time from the big three television networks to
    disseminate anti-drug messages nationwide. Creative talent was
    donated to develop and produce anti-drug ads. In 1991, the
    estimated value of these donations exceeded $350 million
    annually.
        Increased competition from the industry deregulation in
    1991 resulted in the beginning of a decline in donated media
    time. As a result, the partnership and others worked to
    convince Congress to appropriate Federal dollars to continue
    media buys so that the anti-drug message might continue.
        During this time, I proposed to ONDCP and the FCC, Federal
    Communications Commission, that the public had a right, as
    owners of the public airwaves, to require a minimum level of
    public service announcements on this issue. However, a
    compromise was reached that Congress would fund media buys that
    would be matched by donated broadcast time and space.
        I should note that in the early 1980's First Lady Nancy
    Reagan contributed immensely to an anti-drug awareness campaign
    through her ``just say no'' campaign efforts. That simple yet
    powerful message reached the entire Nation without cost to the
    taxpayers.
        In the absence of such a clear message today and
    recognizing the need for a strong anti-drug message, Congress
    agreed to commit substantial tax dollars to replace previously
    donated media time.
        Again, this decision was made as a result of a proven media
    track record and congressional appreciation for the urgency to
    respond to a growing drug crisis.
        As shown in the 1999 national drug control strategy on page
    12, based on a national household survey data from 1985 to
    1992, use of illicit drugs declined in that period by 50
    percent, from about 12 percent to about 6 percent of
    households. However, since this administration took office in
    1992, the declining trend in illicit drug use reversed
    direction.
        Throughout the 1990's, reports of the National Institute of
    Drug Abuse [NIDA], indicate that, overall, illicit drug use
    rose at an alarming rate among our young people during the
    beginning of this administration. Now skyrocketing heroin use
    and addiction are threatening our young people more than ever
    before.
        From 1993 to 1997, the number of Americans reporting heroin
    use in the past month rose from 68,000 to 325,000. That is more
    than a quadrupling.
        In 1998, over half of our Nation's 12th graders reported
    trying an illicit drug, according to the University of
    Michigan's report, which is entitled, ``Monitoring the Future:
    A Study.'' This has taken place and, in fact, has occurred
    since this administration took office in 1992. The fact is that
    lifetime marijuana use has nearly doubled among 8th and 12th
    graders, and gone up over 50 percent among 12th graders.
        Since this administration took office, lifetime crack
    cocaine use has more than doubled among 8th and 10th graders
    and has gone up nearly 70 percent among 12th graders.
        Since this administration took office, lifetime use of
    cocaine has more than doubled among 10th graders, and gone up
    nearly 60 percent among 8th graders, and over 50 percent among
    12th graders.
        The need for action is abundantly clear.
        In appropriating moneys for the media campaign, conditions
    were placed on funding uses. The Office of Drug Control Policy
    was instructed not to supplant community-based coalitions or
    pro bono public service time and not to use funds for
    politically partisan purposes or to feature elected or
    administration officials.
        ONDCP was asked to plan for securing private contributions
    and having qualifications of fund recipients, and also to have
    a system to measure outcomes.
        As a consequence of funding this media effort, this
    subcommittee is responsible for ensuring that the campaign is
    both effective and efficient and that taxpayer dollars are
    maximized and not wasted.
        We cannot afford wasteful or inefficient government
    practices in saving our youth from drugs.
        Today, as this subcommittee learns more about ONDCP's
    administration of the media campaign, we must examine both the
    progress that is being made and the areas where improvements
    are needed in this program.
        Based upon available information, there are some signs of
    some significant progress, and there are also some signs that
    raise doubts as to the media campaigns effectiveness and also
    its efficiency.
        Again, I have requested important contract information from
    ONDCP that our investigative staff has not yet received. This
    is not a national security issue and neither is the information
    that they have something that deals with our national security.
    I will withhold final judgment regarding this initiative for
    now. Still, based upon information that I have, I have numerous
    concerns regarding the campaign's effectiveness and efficiency,
    and I think some of the information we have already received
    also makes me question some of the expenditures. But, again, I
    am going to withhold judgment until we get all the facts and
    information and document in hand.
        I do consider it a positive sign that ONDCP budget figures
    indicate that significant media buys have been made, and that
    we have had very significant donated match services received.
    Still, I am concerned about paying for production costs that
    were donated in the past. I don't have a complete accounting of
    all these expenditures at this point, but I have a number of
    other concerns.
        One expectation that I had about this initiative--an
    expectation that I believe was shared by others in Congress--
    was that the funds were to go to media buys. That was the need
    articulated to me and to other Members of Congress. Therefore,
    I envisioned a media effort, simple in design and easy to
    administer. After all, ONDCP is a policy office and part of the
    White House.
        Congress--wisely, I think--generally does not have the
    White House administer government programs. The departments and
    agencies generally administer sizable programs, as they have
    inspector generals, established procedures and safeguards, and
    more experience and resources.
        Accordingly, I envisioned, perhaps, a single competitive
    contract award for buying media time with donated matches, and
    a concise plan for possible private contributions. After all, a
    proven and tested media approach was in place, based on studies
    and experience.
        Instead, what we have seen so far is a very tangled web of
    contracts that appears overly complicated, expensive, somewhat
    bureaucratic, and, unfortunately, untested. And I might add, it
    is very difficult for our investigative subcommittee staff at
    this point to sort through these expenditures and, again, this
    tangle of contracts.
        The media campaign has now been divided into dozens of
    contracts, subcontracts, interagency agreements, and transfers
    for a wide assortment of purposes. Why was a media buy
    converted into a very complicated and expensive programmatic
    activity? Was this approach necessary and the most effective
    and cost-efficient course to take? I am not quite certain.
        I question the need for a $10 million reimbursable work
    agreement with a contractor to provide contract and
    administrative support services. Why is this needed?
        Why was $750,000 sent to the Substance Abuse and Mental
    Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], to develop innovative
    and effective approaches to the prevention of substance abuse?
    Doesn't SAMHSA already do this? If not, why not?
        ONDCP is responsible for guiding and leveraging these
    agencies to contribute to anti-drug efforts. I know that the
    National Institute for Drug Abuse [NIDA] sends instructional
    packages to every middle school in the Nation. I have one with
    me today, and I assure you that I have plans for learning more
    about what SAMHSA is or is not doing.
        I suggest guidance and coordination with our Education
    Department, which has a half-billion-dollar-per-year safe and
    drug-free school program.
        Are we duplicating that effort? It, too, is designed to
    fight drugs in schools. Our oversight of that program reveals a
    strong need for quality guidance.
        In particular, I question the award of almost $10 million
    per year over a 5-year period totaling more than $48 million to
    a public relations firm, apparently with little Federal
    contract experience, as part of a non-advertising campaign.
        Wasn't the whole purpose of this campaign to advertise more
    extensively?
        I realize that ONDCP sought and received the advice of
    others in planning these activities on how funds might be
    divvied up. Still, Congress is responsible to all the taxpayers
    and citizens for ensuring that these funds have been used
    effectively and efficiently and in accordance with
    congressional intent.
        Congress is also responsible for ensuring that all agencies
    contribute their fair share and do not skim moneys from this
    media effort. It appears to me that many of the non-advertising
    campaign activity should be conducted by other well-funded
    Federal agencies.
        I also am concerned about recent contract reimbursement
    issues resulting from non-reimbursements and about delays in
    deliverables such as non-advertising campaign evaluation due
    last month. It is my understanding that one of these
    evaluations was due September 4th. We were given conflicting
    information as to whether ONDCP had that report, and we
    certainly have not been able to get a copy of that report. That
    is troubling to me.
        A more complete discussion of the funding and contract
    concerns may have to wait until later hearings, again because
    we don't have the information from ONDCP or access to records.
        I will be requesting additional information from ONDCP, but
    available information raises some very serious questions.
        Was it necessary to spend $1 million for a 50-page
    communications plan? Are the expensive evaluations truly
    needed, including a $4.5 million evaluation of cities, that
    reaffirm the obvious--that the anti-drug message can increase
    awareness and perception of risk? That was a $4.5 million
    expenditure. What do we expect from the projected 5-year, $35
    million national evaluation?
        I agree that we need to evaluate the effectiveness of our
    efforts. That is very important. However, we already have
    federally sponsored research of the monitoring of the future
    project. That project has been monitoring attitudes and drug
    abuse trends for decades. In fact, its surveys are being used
    in this effort.
        Again, I support reasonable evaluation research and can
    understand dedicating funds for this purpose and that they are,
    in fact, needed.
        In fiscal year 1999, for example, $100,000 of the ONDCP was
    earmarked for evaluating the Drug Free Communities Act. It
    appears to me that spending and media evaluations may be
    running amuck.
        If you wave large amounts of money in front of contractors
    and consultants and researchers, I can assure you that they
    will come and they will be attracted to these opportunities.
        Finally, I am skeptical of the effective and efficiency of
    Internet celebrity chats. My staff has identified public
    figures and celebrities who are willing to share their anti-
    drug messages to much larger audiences without cost to
    taxpayers.
        I would encourage ONDCP to identify celebrities who will
    volunteer anti-drug messages through donated media productions.
        There are also questions raised about the credibility of
    celebrities who are being paid for these messages, particularly
    in this setting.
        In sum, I support ONDCP's media buys and donated time and
    talents, efforts to date. We have seen positive impacts of
    effective media messages and donated time and talents in the
    past.
        Past successes clearly motivated Congress to fund this
    media buy initiative, but I am very concerned about the
    questionable expenses and uses of tax dollars that could be
    spent directly for media buys and their value more than doubled
    by donated matches.
        I do not consider it appropriate for ONDCP to become a
    program office. That is why the ``P'' in ONDCP stands for
    ``policy,'' not for ``programs.'' ONDCP, as a component of the
    White House, is not well-situated, suited, or equipped to
    manage complicated programmatic activities.
        Most Federal programmatic activities require a multitude of
    administrative duties and bureaucratic tasks, including
    developing programs and projects, devising and implementing
    plans, monitoring deliverables, conducting cost-effective
    evaluations, and ensuring fiscal accountability and integrity.
        In my opinion, Congress never intended for ONDCP to
    undertake major program activities or to fund a multitude of
    contracts, subcontracts, and agreements. If the media campaign
    truly requires a complicated approach and a multitude of
    contracts and financial agreements for non-media buys--
    something I am not aware of or convinced of--then Congress
    could specify such an approach and assign it to an agency with
    media experience. After all, nearly $17 billion in anti-drug
    activities are now managed outside of ONDCP.
        As I see it, Congress does not intend to create a
    bureaucratic monster to fund a study, and also plan and
    contract, coordinate, evaluate, and chat the anti-drug message
    to death.
        I feel that a truly integrated campaign should emphasize
    partnering rather than paying other Federal agencies,
    nonprofits, corporate sponsors, and interested public figures
    and celebrities.
        Congress and ONDCP need to work together on many fronts
    involving supply and demand. We agree that much more
    coordination and resources are needed to respond to the
    Colombian situation and to our southwest border crisis. I am
    convinced that many of these issues could have been avoided had
    there been closer coordination by ONDCP with Congress and this
    subcommittee, both with the majority and the minority.
        I look forward to closer communications and coordinations
    in the future.
        I hope we find common ground today in recognizing that the
    protection of our Nation's youth from drugs is our paramount
    concern, and that decisive and effective action is needed.
        I am interested in hearing from our witnesses. I apologize
    for the length of this opening statement, but we have spent a
    considerable amount of time. This is the largest program that
    we have ever undertaken. It was undertaken, I think, with good
    will on both sides, and we want it effective.
        We are spending more money, as I said in my opening
    statement, than we probably ever had on any media campaign in
    the history of the Congress, and we want to look on it with
    pride and also with success in that it is effective in
    addressing this terrible problem that we face.
        With that long opening statement, I am pleased now to hear
    from Mr. Cummings.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.005

        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you very much for holding this hearing.
        As I sat there and I listened to you, I was saying to
    myself at one time, 3\1/2\ or so years ago I sat here as a new
    member of this committee and I didn't have an institutional
    history, but thank God this morning I do, and I remember some
    of the things that have happened.
        As I listened to you--I will be very frank--I got kind of
    concerned because a lot of the things that you just criticized
    the agency for are the very things that this Congress told them
    to do. And that I find very interesting.
        Like, for example, there was some talk about the anti-drug
    media campaign that was, prior to this, operated effectively
    using donated television time. But back in 1994, a 1994
    hearing, the majority decried this dependency on donated time,
    and in 1998 the majority pressed for the creation of a paid
    media campaign.
        Then, another thing that concerns me is this whole issue of
    evaluation. And General McCaffrey knows that he and I don't
    agree on everything, but I do believe in fairness. I am sure he
    will address these issues.
        Back in October 1998 the Congress directed. We told them to
    do it. It wasn't like something that just fell out of the air.
    We said, ``Do it.'' We directed ONDCP to implement a
    comprehensive communications strategy. Congress instructed
    ONDCP to purchase media time and space. But listen to what else
    we told them to do. He didn't do this, we told them to do it:
    to test and evaluate advertising; test and evaluate the entire
    campaign; forge partnerships with community, civic,
    professional, and government organizations; form collaborations
    with the entertainment industry. We didn't tell them who to go
    to in the industry; we told them to do it. Engage in
    interactive media activities--we told them to do it.
        And now, a few years later, we turn around and we say, ``We
    don't like the way you did it. You spent too much money here.''
        I don't know whether it is a question of micro-managing or
    not. I think that General McCaffrey will address these issues
    very effectively.
        But I must tell you, Mr. Chairman--and I do appreciate and
    I know that your heart is in the right place, but one of the
    things that concerned me about the entire statement that you
    just made--and I think that you and many others have been very
    concerned about whether the rates of drug use have gone up or
    down, but it is interesting to note that not one syllable was
    mentioned about the fact that teenage drug use in the African
    American community is going up, not one syllable of that long
    statement.
        General McCaffrey knows that this is a great concern of
    mine, and he has agreed to come to my District to sit down with
    some young African American children to address this issue so
    that they can let him know why, perhaps, this media campaign
    has not affected them the way it has affected others.
        And the other thing that I was very impressed with--and,
    you know, I know we sort of glance over sometimes the
    achievements of folks when we are trying to make sure we make
    our point. But the fact is that General McCaffrey has done a
    good job. I mean, there is a 13 percent drop in the number of
    teens using drugs.
        And, as much as I want to give credit to the ``just say
    no'' campaign--and I will tell you, I don't know how effective
    it was. I am going to be frank. I just don't know, somebody
    just saying no. But I applaud every single person who stands up
    and tries to do something about drug use. But I don't know. I
    don't have a barometer that says, ``Just say no says something
    to the children that I represent.'' I don't know whether it
    affected them or not.
        But one thing I do know is that when you give children a
    good education and when you do the preventive things that the
    general is trying to do, I think you stand a better chance of
    reducing drug use and preventing drug use.
        And so I am excited about this hearing. I am looking
    forward to hearing the response.
        I think we have to be very careful. I have seen us spend,
    as a new Member of this Congress, billions of dollars, and it
    doesn't seem like there is very much oversight at all in some
    areas.
        On the other hand, we have an area where there seems to
    be--and, general, you can address this--there seems to have
    been some effectiveness with the spending of these dollars, but
    we sit here and say, ``Well, maybe you aren't doing it right.
    Maybe you ought to tweak it here, tweak it there, tweak it
    everywhere.'' But the fact is that there has been progress.
        Last, but not least, as a member of this committee I have,
    over and over again, said this, and I mean it. While I may
    disagree with the general and his staff on some issues, there
    are very few human beings that I have more respect for than
    this agency. I think they have one of the toughest jobs in
    America. And it is so easy to sit up here and say things should
    be different, but when you are in the streets, when you are so
    often sadly dealing with parents, sometimes, who don't take the
    responsibility that they should take, when you are dealing with
    substances which are often almost dropped in communities, and
    the things that I see, where wholesale sale of drugs, where
    drugs are marketed as if you are marketing some great product
    for headaches or something, it is a tremendous thing that we
    have to address.
        I mean, when we think about all the drugs that folks are
    trying to float into this country, fly into it, send by train
    and cars, it is a tremendous responsibility.
        And I just wanted to take a moment, General, to thank you
    for what you do. I could probably say this at the end of the
    hearing, but I thank you for what you are doing. It is a very,
    very difficult job, and I applaud you and I applaud your staff.
        I do have my concerns. I want to thank you for agreeing to
    try to address them as best you can. And I look forward to your
    testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.006

        Mr. Mica. I thank the ranking member, or acting ranking
    member today, and recognize the vice chairman of our
    subcommittee, Mr. Barr, the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    calling this hearing. It is always an honor to have General
    McCaffrey with us, and I look forward to hearing from him and
    the other panelists that you have in the other two panels.
        We, of course, share much in common, those of us up here,
    with you, General McCaffrey--certainly a commitment to our
    young people, our abhorrence of mind-altering drugs, and our
    commitment to continue to wage an unrelenting battle against
    their usage.
        We also share a common understanding that both of us are
    stewards of the public's money, and, while some on the other
    side may not view exercising that stewardship in oversight is
    important, I know that you know that it is and the chairman and
    we do, also, so I appreciate your being up here to discuss with
    us some of the specifics about how the moneys are being spent,
    and I have no prejudgments at all on it. I think it is an
    important part of our oversight to periodically look and hear
    from you as one of the prime administrators of these anti-drug
    moneys to see that they are being spent most wisely.
        There are a lot of questions that we have, and you are
    always very forthcoming, except when it relates to some
    political issues that are difficult for you to deal with, and I
    understand that, and I will get into another one of those,
    which is the D.C. legalization initiative again today, and
    hopefully you will be able to share with us some thoughts on
    that, since we have progressed down that road a little bit
    since you appeared last here before the Congress.
        But I do appreciate our different witnesses today and think
    that this is a very important hearing, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your convening this.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman and recognize now the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, General McCaffrey. We appreciate all of your good
    work and efforts over the years to combat drug abuse.
        I come here today, Mr. Chairman, with no preconceived
    notions about our efforts. I am very supportive of the fact
    that we at the Federal level are committing significant dollars
    in trying to combat drug abuse and to the advertising effort
    that is being made.
        Those of us who hold political office all have different
    opinions about the effectiveness of advertising because we have
    to engage in purchasing advertising every 2 years, and we all
    struggle to be sure the advertising is out there where people
    can see it and that we don't spend an inordinate amount of our
    funds on consultants and other expenses that never actually get
    out there where the rubber meets the road, so it is an
    interesting subject for us to undertake.
        I am certainly supportive of the continued efforts to try
    to involve the private sector and to secure private donated
    funds and donated media. It is a very important part of the
    effort, and I want to be sure that we are continuing to
    encourage it.
        But, in the final analysis, I think the commitment that we
    are making, both publicly and privately, to communicating an
    anti-drug message to young people is a very important effort
    and should be continued, should be subject to review and
    oversight by this committee, and I commend you, Mr. Chairman,
    for holding the hearing for this purpose.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman and now recognize the
    gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I
    congratulate you for holding this hearing, because I think all
    of us in Congress, and especially this committee and this
    subcommittee, have an important oversight task, and that is to
    carefully look at and monitor how our scarce taxpayer dollars
    are being spent, and I think this hearing today should help us
    to do that, but I am going to say some positive statements
    about this media campaign. I know a little bit about it because
    this national campaign kicked off in my Congressional District.
    I am not going to speak about what they did in other areas, but
    I would like to just briefly talk about the great efforts that
    this campaign did in my area, where we have an overwhelming
    number of Hispanic children in our public and private school
    systems.
        This campaign reached out to the Hispanic community,
    especially. They got very good support from our Spanish-
    language press. They were all out there saying what a positive
    message it is to have kids talking to other kids about why it
    is wrong to take drugs.
        Not only is that an encouraging message to me, as a Member
    of Congress, but as a mother of a 13-year-old and a 12-year-
    old, I know how pervasive this message of, ``It is OK to take
    drugs'' is to young people. They see it all the time in
    television, in MTV, on the Internet, and they actually pay
    money to hear the message that drugs are OK, because if you pay
    attention to the kind of movies that are out there--and I do--
    when was the last time that you had the hero or the heroine of
    that movie be someone who is doing well in school, that
    academic achievements are applauded and that drugs are
    terrible?
        All around our children today is this culture in which
    drugs are OK. What a shame that we actually have to pay to get
    a message out there saying that drugs are not OK.
        I think that we, of course, must be careful with our tax
    dollars. Is this campaign the best use of our tax dollars? Is
    the message getting through? Are we doing enough? Are we
    reaching out to the partnership groups that are already out
    there? Is the drug czar doing enough to work with those anti-
    drug groups and get the free media exposure? Is Madison Avenue
    doing its part to get those ads out for free?
        We want to make sure that we exploit whatever free media is
    out there, but, barring that, I think we need to reach out to
    the young people, we need to get the message that drugs are not
    OK.
        I know from the kind of campaign that was done in Miami
    that it is a message that needs to be heard. I want my children
    to hear it. Too bad we have to pay to get them to hear it, but
    if that is the way it has got to be done, then that is what we
    must do. But let us monitor, let us make sure that it is being
    correctly used.
        I know General McCaffrey is a semi-resident of south
    Florida, he goes down there so much. But I think every time
    someone goes out and says drugs are not OK, that is a positive
    message. I want Amanda and Patricia to hear that. If it is in
    Spanish, all the better. They have got to practice their
    Spanish.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady and recognize the
    gentleman from California, Mr. Ose, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As always, I welcome the opportunity to participate in your
    hearings. I regret our good friend, Mr. Cummings, had to
    depart. I, too, share a specific interest in how minority
    groups are being affected, and I find it ironic, his testimony
    that use among minorities is growing, and his objection to our
    oversight over the matter which we are participating in an
    oversight hearing.
        I look forward to the General's feedback, because I do
    think that if use is growing in a particular sector, such as
    some of our minority groups, we do need to exercise oversight.
        With that, as always, I learn something every time I have
    the opportunity to visit with the general. I thank you for
    including me.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Ose.
        I am pleased now to recognize--he is not a member of our
    panel, but he is one of the three co-chairs appointed by the
    Speaker as the chair of our anti-drug effort in the House of
    Representatives, Mr. Portman.
        Mr. Portman of Ohio has really been the leader in working
    on the demand side of the equation, and a close ally to this
    subcommittee and its efforts.
        You are recognized, sir, if you want to make an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
        First, I would thank you very much for allowing me to be
    here today, not being a member of the panel, and, second, to
    commend you for holding this oversight hearing. I think it is
    extremely important that we have these hearings so that we can
    have the information out in the public and we can talk honestly
    about some of the issues that sometimes only get addressed
    behind closed doors.
        I am very supportive of the campaign. I think Congress took
    a huge risk in 1996 by entering into this, which was
    unprecedented, setting up what is going to be, over time, the
    single largest campaign of any kind, largest media campaign not
    just in the country but in the world. We did it because we
    believe that the research indicated it was the right thing to
    do.
        I believe that the campaign has made considerable progress.
    I know we will hear from Lloyd Johnston and others on that
    later, as well as General McCaffrey. However, I do think that
    oversight of a program of this magnitude is extremely
    important.
        I see three challenges, Mr. Chairman, among the many before
    us that I would like to mention, if I could.
        First is being sure that we continue to integrate the
    effort of the anti-drug media campaign with what is going on in
    our communities around the country, particularly the community
    coalition movement, which is now about 4,000 community
    coalitions strong, and we hope to double in the next 4 or 5
    years.
        I think we have made some progress in that regard, but I
    think we have considerable more progress to make.
        Second would be working to mobilize and complement the work
    of the private sector. I have spoken with General McCaffrey
    about this. I know he is committed to this. But it is to keep
    the Partnership for Drug-Free America, keep all the other
    private sector entities that are working on this so diligently
    and have been over the last decade with this program, and use
    them, frankly, to maximize the impact of this program, use the
    creative talent on Madison Avenue, use the folks who have,
    again, spent years working on this, and to be sure that we are
    continuing to complement their work with the work that the
    Federal Government is supporting through this program.
        The final one is evaluation, and this is one area where I
    want to particularly compliment ONDCP for taking this
    evaluation--what Mr. Cummings' earlier mentioned--mandated from
    Congress, which I think would have been probably been something
    the general would have done anyway, but taking it seriously.
        I know Lloyd Johnston is going to address that in his
    statement.
        I also know we have a GAO report, Mr. Chairman, I think,
    that you have been involved with coming out in March 2000,
    which I am anticipating eagerly.
        But it is absolutely essential in the prevention area that
    we do a better job of evaluating the progress of taxpayer
    dollars being spent, particularly when it is of this magnitude.
        So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me
    the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to the
    testimony.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman, and I would now like to
    turn to our first panel, and that consists of the Director of
    the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
        Director McCaffrey has been with us before. If you would
    stand, sir, this is an investigations and oversight committee
    of Congress. Raise your right hand to be sworn.
        [Witness sworn.]
        Mr. Mica. Welcome again to our panel, Director McCaffrey.
    We are anxious to hear about the progress that has been made on
    this anti-drug media campaign. I think we have had about 1 year
    now under our belts. We have tried to allow as much time as
    possible for the program to run its initial course, and now
    have an update provided by you about its progress.
        So you are welcome and recognized, sir.

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

        General McCaffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance
    to appear before you and to present some of our own insights,
    respond to your own questions.
        Let me, if I may, with your permission, ask to enter into
    the record the written statement we have pulled together, as
    well as the copies of the charts that I am going to run through
    very quickly.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, that documentation and those
    reports will be made part of the record.
        General McCaffrey. We have tried to pull together, and
    particularly in our written statement, some very detailed data
    that tries to get at the questions on what are we doing and how
    effectively is it working.
        I say that, and excuse the props, but here are the initial
    evaluations of phase one and phase two, so I think we have
    gotten a very detailed and serious scientifically based
    evaluation of how we are conducting this campaign and to what
    effect.
        Let me also, if I may, take note that this has been a team
    effort, and it is a team effort because here in the room you
    have wisely elected to have several of them testify. We have
    the Partnership for Drug-Free America. Dick Bonnett is down
    here with some of his people. We just had a very effective
    multi-hour session with Jim Burke and the others, one of our
    periodic updates. They are the right arm we have in this whole
    outfit.
        The Ad Council is here, Jody Berkowitz, campaign manager.
    Peggy Collins, their new president, she came in with about 30
    of their people and gave us a spectacular layout on their work,
    which I will talk about more later. But let me, if I may,
    underscore: the most important thing they are going to do is
    connect community coalitions and volunteers to the anti-drug
    effort. Wait until you see the work that they are about to
    start putting on the air. I thank them for their creativity.
        The American Advertising Federation--Wally Snyder is the
    president and is here--do the heavy lifting in 102 local media
    markets. We couldn't get off the ground without their
    leadership on convening and facilitating the media match task
    forces.
        As you know, by law Congress has required me to get at
    least 100 percent match, and that is where mechanically the
    leadership goes on in communities all across America.
        You have elected to have testify one of the most brilliant
    people I have met in the last 4 years, Shona Seifert, who is
    the senior partner and project director of Ogilvy & Mather, our
    prime advertising contractor. I won't speak for her, but let me
    just say that her team has sparks jumping off them. We are very
    pleased with their efforts.
        Fleishman-Hillard, although it only has about 5 percent of
    our money, will be represented by Harry Frazier, who I know
    will testify, and Bev Schwartz, who is our vice president and
    project director. Their rather modest funds arguably at the end
    of the day may turn out to be the biggest lever we apply on
    this whole effort, particularly when it comes to the Internet.
        I am not sure any of us yet appreciate the extent to which
    the adolescents in our country have moved away from television,
    radio, and other forms of communication and are in the Internet
    right now. Fleishman-Hillard has done truly brilliant work
    there.
        Lloyd Johnston is here. He has been a source of wisdom on
    the drug issue since I picked up these responsibilities.
    University of Michigan Survey Research Center--there is no
    substitute for beginning with some facts, and Lloyd Johnston's
    analysis of his own data base has been instrumental.
        A bunch of other folks are here, but let me, if I may,
    underscore Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. Sue Thou
    is here, their public policy coordinator. They are
    instrumental. We don't have a national drug problem; we have a
    series of community drug epidemics. That is where we are going
    to get at it.
        There are also many other people here. I would just briefly
    mention that Dr. Linda Wolf Jones, Therapeutic Communities of
    America, reminds us that, although we are talking prevention
    and education, which ought to be about 85 percent of our
    efforts, we still have to be concerned with the 4 million of us
    who are chronically addicted to illegal drugs, and the work of
    her association and others has been instrumental in getting at
    that problem.
        I am going to run through very quickly, just to show you
    sort of the architecture or the structure of this effort
    through a series of slides. You have copies, and I would like
    to end with a 2-minute video.
        The first viewgraph--the strategy. I have to remind all of
    us that what we are doing is not random motion, it is part of
    the national drug strategy. This is an inter-agency process.
    There are 14 Cabinet officers involved in it, and I consult
    with Congress each year to make sure you have an influence over
    this document.
        It is complemented by a communications strategy. This is a
    $2 billion, 5-year effort involving all means of communication.
    We are going to talk about some of these concepts around
    advertising, a 360-degree approach. It won't work if there
    isn't a blueprint on how we are going to address these
    challenges.
        We are talking about the most important thing we are doing,
    which is goal No. 1. How do we shape youth attitudes to reduce
    the abuse of these illegal drugs?
        This is borrowing from Dr. Lloyd Johnston. We have good
    data. Over time, youth attitudes shape how young people behave,
    and we are confident that, when you shape attitudes that
    essentially reject the abuse of illegal drugs from about age 9
    through 18, drug abuse goes down. And when that happens, years
    out, a decade out, chronic addiction goes down, its enormous
    cost.
        That chart is good news, as Congressman Cummings noted--
    Donna Shalala and I were really very proud to note a 13 percent
    reduction in youth drug abuse last year.
        I say that. That was not a creature of the media campaign.
    That was only--about half of it was influenced by phase two
    media. So this is old work, old data, but drug abuse is going
    down, and I would argue much of it, Congressman Portman, is due
    to the work of the 40 great civic, patriotic organizations, and
    the more than 33 other NGO's who are associated in communities
    across America with addressing this problem. But it is moving
    in the right direction, thank God.
        Basically, we are just going to take and show you a series
    of bar charts. This isn't the light at the end of the tunnel.
    What this indicates is the slope of the curve has changed. It
    was getting worse from 1990 on, youth attitudes followed by
    youth behavior. Attitudes are getting better and behavior is
    starting to change. But we clearly still have unacceptably high
    rates of drug abuse.
        Here is what you told me to do. And I appreciate
    Congressman Cummings reminding us that we have to take into
    account, there are 154 people in ONDCP. You have given me
    program management of a half billion dollars a year of
    programs. It is not the case that I am just acting as a policy
    spokesman for the administration. I am now organizing and
    running the high-intensity drug trafficking program, the media
    campaign, the Safe and Drug-Free Communities Act, as well as
    other very useful tools.
        I do this, obviously, not by running it myself, but by
    using contractors and by organizing other agencies of
    government. But clearly you have made me accountable for a half
    billion dollars in program activity, a responsibility I take
    quite seriously.
        Here is the guidance you gave me on this one--next chart.
        This is not a simple activity. It is coherent, it can be
    understood, but it requires a lot of study, and you have to
    listen to people who know what they are talking about.
    Fortunately, on these issues, arguably, one of the most
    creative industries in America are those associated with
    advertising and communications. Thankfully, we have had benefit
    of some very serious people who have spent their lives in this
    field.
        I do need to underscore right off the bat that this is a
    good news story, and I will just tell you quite bluntly, we
    know what we are doing and we are proud to explain how it is
    going and how we are organized. But it isn't just a buying a
    Seinfeld 30-second spot. It is more than that. And if you want
    to talk to children and their adult mentors in today's America,
    you can't go to the Super Bowl and buy million-dollar ads. You
    have got to understand more about the issue. You have got to
    see the change in the communications industry, and you do have
    to be sophisticated in your thinking. That is exactly where we
    are. We intend to document how we are doing this and to what
    impact.
        Let me just throw that up as a snapshot. That is
    astonishing. We went out and we tested it in 12 cities, and we
    got some pretty good snapshots--and that is all they were--12
    control cities, 12 test cities. The message got heard. We were
    astonished when we found out it actually started to change
    thinking.
        Phase two, we went out and took a snapshot. Mind you, our
    goal was 90 percent market penetration and four times a week
    contact. Those are the results we got in phase two, and that
    was using PDFA's old material.
        Now we are into phase three. September 6 we started with
    the print media, September 20th with television. It is
    incredible what we have now got on the air.
        If you are an old guy, you are not seeing a lot of it. If
    you are a 14-year-old black kid, last week we probably got to
    you as much as 12 times a week with a market message. This is
    brand new.
        We put $33 million in the minority outreach. We are in 11
    languages. We have a different strategy in 102 different media
    markets. This effort does not look the same in Orlando, FL, as
    it does in Hawaii and Newark and Cleveland, OH. But that is a
    snapshot.
        In phase three, the fully integrated campaign is now up and
    running, and that is the one to watch.
        We argued at the beginning that it is a 2-year impact, the
    elasticity between action and shaping attitudes. But I would
    expect you should see this thing accelerate over time.
        We have got to take into account America's diversity. We
    are different people. If you want to talk to a Hispanic kid in
    the L.A. basin, if you want to talk to somebody in North
    Dakota, you have got to go where they are. You have to take
    into account that the drug threat they see is quite different.
    If it is Boise, ID, it is white kids and it is
    methamphetamines. We have to understand the nature of the drug
    threat, the nature of the ethnic group we are talking to, and
    that is why we are in Tagalog. That is why we are using ads in
    Cantonese, in Vietnamese. That is why we are out in the Pacific
    islands with a very different message than one we crafted for
    the midwest.
        We have got to learn while we are doing this. There is no
    blueprint for what we are up to. But, fortunately, we have
    people like Dr. Alan Leshner, NIDA, and his colleagues. We have
    the behavioral science expert panel. We have paid a decent
    amount of attention to chronicling how these things are
    working. We are focus group testing these ads, and then we are
    watching the feedback, and if they are not working we are going
    to eliminate them, and where they are working we are going to
    try to enhance them. We are going to produce 130 new ads in the
    next 2 years.
        By the way, we are doing that pro bono. The advertising
    companies of America, more than 200 of them, are doing this for
    free. We are covering the actual production cost, only. The
    actors you say that you talk about, the celebrity outreach,
    they are not getting paid for their work. The Actors Guild of
    America has waived their fees. They are not getting paid for
    this work. We are enormously proud of their response in the
    Entertainment Industry Council, as example.
        Public/private partnership--huge, important contribution. I
    won't go through it verbally, but I would be glad to provide
    for the record the enormous generosity of Disney, ABC, America
    Online, computer corporations, never mind the actual broadcast
    media, because public/private partnership--we are not running
    things at 2 a.m. now. These are prime time pro bono matching
    component. We are up to 109 percent matching. It is $175
    million to which we have gotten access, and we are very
    grateful for what they are doing. We have also got more than
    $40 million in other kinds of pro bono response.
        Now, let me, if I may, rap up with four 30-second spots
    that I think you will enjoy and learn from.
        I must admit, Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me, it is
    enormously important to me, personally, that I be viewed as
    responsive to Congress, in general, and to this committee.
        By law, I am a nonpartisan officer of government. I take
    that responsibility very seriously. This is the sixth time I
    have appeared in front of this committee this year. This is the
    fourth time since June.
        I have provided your staff with more than 12,000 documents.
    It cost me over $10,000 to do this. We have brought my agency
    to a halt for the better part of 2 weeks. I take offense at the
    notion that the somewhat ham-fisted raids on ONDCP over the
    last 2 weeks were nonresponsive to your concerns. I will comply
    with the law. That means I have to roll personally and be held
    accountable on Privacy Act and proprietary information, and I
    will not violate that responsibility.
        So I will make myself available personally to you. That may
    have been part of the problem, that I didn't pick up the phone
    and call you to find out what it is you want and help shape
    your staff's thinking so they can come over there and not have
    what I would call unprecedented oversight and interference,
    particularly in the activities of these contractors.
        I do not want payroll information or names released from
    this committee or from my office. I have told my own people
    they will not send anything out of the building until my
    lawyers have reviewed it and I am satisfied that I am in
    compliance with the law.
        But let me just say that I will take this as a challenge to
    make sure that I can earn your trust personally and be viewed
    as responding to what I view as one of my principal
    responsibilities, which is to be accountable to congressional
    oversight.
        Now, finally, I would also tell you that there was almost a
    tone that no good deed will go unpunished by your opening
    statement. This campaign is working. This thing is not screwed
    up. We are proud of what we are accomplishing. I am following
    the directions of Federal law, put together by Congressman
    Colby and his committee.
        So if there is a different viewpoint now I want to listen
    very closely and we can rewrite the law, but rest assured that
    is where we are going.
        On that, note, I again appreciate the chance to talk to
    you. That is a layout of the money. It shows you our focus. And
    this isn't words; those are dollars. That is where the effort
    is going. And I can track those dollars, each one of them, back
    into a piece of paper--more than 100,000 documents which are on
    file at ONDCP.
        We have a contractor who does this work for us, so I know
    where the dollars are going.
        Let's run a couple minutes of that video clip. I think the
    committee will find that instructive.
        Thank you, sir, for the chance to appear here.
        [Video presentation.]
        General McCaffrey. You are seeing, among other things, two
    concepts there--one flighting and the other branding. And I am
    sure most of us are sort of instinctively familiar with this,
    but flighting is powerful. Rather than randomly produced
    events, what we now have is a concept that you can't escape,
    both the children and their adult mentors. The first ones are
    parent effectiveness, for example. The second concept is
    branding.
        The resiliency of the message will be enhanced by this
    approach.
        So, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the chance to be
    here, and I look forward to responding to you or your committee
    members' questions.
        Mr. Mica. I thank you, General, for your presentation, and
    also for your work and the campaign.
        [The prepared statement of General McCaffrey follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.042

        Mr. Mica. I do have some questions.
        First, let me say, in response to your last comments about
    our requests for information, Mr. Colby has his responsibility
    in funding this program. The founding fathers set up this
    trilateral system of operation where we have the appropriators
    funding, authorizers authorizing, and we conduct investigations
    and oversight.
        This started in 1808, and I think it is one of the great
    things about our system versus other systems, and some have
    adopted even the same basic system that don't have the
    oversight responsibility.
        So our responsibility isn't to be bad guys or to give you a
    hard time, but when you have a billion-dollar program--it was
    done somewhat in a hurry because Congress wanted immediate
    attention to this, and now we do have an oversight
    responsibility.
        We only asked for the documents and the reports that we
    think substantiate and document how those funds were expended,
    and we will do that.
        In the beginning, we thought that we would have open
    access. Some of the vendors and others indicated, ``Anything
    you want, you can see,'' and then suddenly there was a shroud
    around all of the information.
        I do know that there are some constraints by which you can
    provide--some legal order in which you can provide the
    information to Congress, but we will get the information. If it
    requires subpoenas, we will get the information. If it requires
    working with your staff, we will get the information. And I
    don't think that we are interested in revealing anything
    confidential about payroll or names and things of that sort, it
    is just basic information to find out how the program is run
    and the cost effectiveness of it and how dollars are expended.
        I do have some specific information. I have sent repeated
    requests for specific information--project status reports,
    evaluation reports--I will give you copies of these--
    subcontracts and subcontracting reports, none of which I think
    we should have a problem with, of which we still haven't
    received to date.
        But we will continue and we will have additional hearings
    and go over how the money has been expended.
        For example, I might cite one area. In the beginning--and I
    think you testified in one of the--you said you had been here
    five or six times.
        General McCaffrey. This is the sixth time.
        Mr. Mica. OK. In one of the previous hearings you had
    yourself testified--I can get the transcript of it--that the
    initial efforts were somewhat disorganized, I think you said,
    on the campaign, that you stayed up late at night and bantered
    about how to approach this. And then I guess the Porter and
    Novelli contract was one of the initial ones that helped in
    organization.
        In the beginning of ONDCP's effort to jump start a media
    campaign--that was back in September 1997--a contract was let
    to Porter and Novelli to develop an integrated strategy for
    this effort. According to your staff, later in 1997 ONDCP, who
    had already had a contract with Porter and Novelli, transferred
    funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Veterans
    Affairs Department then contracted with ABT Associates for $1.9
    million. ABT later subcontracted back to Porter and Novelli for
    a contract worth $1.91 million. The result, as far as we can
    tell, is that ABT Associates received funds, but for what? And
    we are trying to figure out what the difference was in the
    money there.
        This is one example of the very beginning and core of this
    and how money went from agency to agency or contractor. So that
    is one question. I don't know if you want to address that now
    or could provide us with that information.
        General McCaffrey. The request for subcontracts you made on
    October 7, 1999, an oral request for a series of requests which
    we are now working on. We will provide all that. I will be glad
    to provide it. I don't think there is anything really sensitive
    in any of it unless it is covered by proprietary information or
    payroll data or something.
        You requested the initial stuff the first part of
    September, the contracts. You wanted them faxed down to you in
    your office in Florida. We delivered them on September 16th. As
    you know, it is a stack that high.
        You asked for the next series of information on September
    29th. We delivered it on October 7th.
        Basically, I have five guys, three lawyers. That's it.
    Sooner or later we are going to get you every bit of
    information you want. We are happy to show it to you, a
    successful campaign.
        I guess I am just asking from you, Mr. Chairman, an
    understanding that having groups show up unannounced to fish
    through the files, we can't do business that way.
        Mr. Mica. First of all, Mr. Director--and I will submit to
    the record a request February 24, 1999. ``Please provide a list
    of all the contracts that have been signed related to this
    campaign. Indicate the name of the contractor. Describe the
    work provided and the terms of the contract.'' February 24,
    1999.
        So, again, we are requesting----
        General McCaffrey. I think we have the same----
        Mr. Mica. I have in March another request, March 31st. I
    would be glad to put that in the record.
        All we would like is some basic information about how the
    money has been spent, copies of the contracts.
        General McCaffrey. You have that now, right?
        Mr. Mica. We also----
        General McCaffrey. You have all the contracts and you have
    12,000 documents relating to expenditures.
        Mr. Mica. Well, we have found that. Now we have the problem
    that we found that the contracts lead to subcontracts.
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica. And we would also like----
        General McCaffrey. Glad to give you that, too.
        Mr. Mica. Because there are huge amounts of money here, and
    then they go on down----
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. To other folks or to agencies.
        Then the other thing that we would like to see, for
    example, we have the--one of the contracts is with the National
    Institute of Drug Abuse [NIDA]. HHS awarded a $34.8 million
    contract to Westat to provide evaluation of phase three of the
    campaign.
        Our subcommittee requested from NIDA and Westat the
    required monthly reports of activities. Our staff was informed
    that, while Westat does submit monthly financial documents,
    they have not submitted monthly activity reports.
        This is in direct violation of the deliveries and reporting
    requirements, as stated in the RFP--and I have a copy of that
    attachment.
        So what we would like this is see what we can figure out is
    required by these RFPs, by the way things were supposed to be,
    and then the evaluations of the report.
        We are told in some cases ONDCP has not gotten copies of
    some of these reports.
        So this is another concern. It is a sizable chunk of money.
        General McCaffrey. Sure. Now, that Westat Corp. evaluation
    is extremely important to us, and I would be happy to share it
    with you either in raw data form or periodically, as we have a
    more informed and thoughtful analysis. But I absolutely look
    forward to providing you with Westat information.
        Mr. Mica. Then we have another contract. I try to take them
    in size. Fleishman-Hillard has a $48.7 million contract over 5
    years, and they are supposed to do the non-media-type campaign.
    Fleishman-Hillard was required to report and provide report to
    ONDCP on September 4, 1999, a report on basically what they had
    done as far as their annual report.
        At our last inquiry, it hadn't been provided to ONDCP, and
    neither could our subcommittee staff get a copy of that.
        Can we get a copy of that, and have you gotten that yet?
        General McCaffrey. Well, you know, the day before yesterday
    your staff asked. I have been informed about it. This is their
    requirement, which is a superb briefing by about 35 people with
    charts, slides, et cetera, and I would be glad to give you a
    copy of the slides.
        There will be a subsequent written evaluation we will get
    in the coming weeks, which I would be glad to provide you, too.
    But they are right on target. They are absolutely focused on
    this mission. My guess is I am getting damn near more than I
    can absorb from these superb people.
        But this is the presentation right here. It is in slide
    form.
        Mr. Mica. One of my concerns is, again, we have identified
    19 different contracts and agreements, and, I mean, this is a
    huge program----
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. With an incredible amount of money.
    What we don't have is a complete list, and we have been unable
    to get a complete list of how many contracts and subcontractors
    the campaign has, who is in charge of these, and who monitors
    the deliverables. Each of these have deliverables.
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica. Would it be possible to provide this subcommittee
    with a complete list of the contracts, the subcontracts, and
    also something on the deliverables, and then a little chart as
    to who is in charge of----
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. Making sure that X, Y, and Z----
        General McCaffrey. Well, let me work through this with your
    staff.
        Let me, if I can, I am going to come over here and sit down
    and listen very carefully for a good bit of time to what you
    want me to do, and then I will go make it happen. All those
    deliverables are in that stack of contracts your staff got.
    That is where they are. They are defined in the law.
        Mr. Mica. Yes. But that is not the question. The question
    is whether you are monitoring this, ONDCP, because we see
    that--and I have cited a couple----
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. Of deliverables, and your staff
    says, ``Well, they aren't delivered,'' or, ``We don't know,''
    or ``We don't know who is in charge.''
        General McCaffrey. Must have been confusing, because we do
    know what we are doing, and I am in charge. I am accountable
    for this stuff.
        Mr. Mica. Well, do you have on one paper all the contracts
    and subcontracts?
        General McCaffrey. That is a very complicated thing. It
    might be a good idea to do this, put it on a computer program,
    let you all have access to it.
        Mr. Mica. Another thing, too, even with smaller agencies
    and smaller amounts of money, we have someone who conducts the
    oversight. Now, we are conducting oversight from a
    congressional standpoint.
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica. But within agencies they have IGs and others who
    do go in to look at has this been done, has that been done.
        General McCaffrey. Well, I am using the department IGs all
    throughout government, by the way----
        Mr. Mica. All right.
        General McCaffrey [continuing]. To check expenditures.
        Mr. Mica. Well, that would be great, and if we can get any
    communications or agreements----
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. For them to conduct that, just so--
    --
        General McCaffrey. Fortunately, you also let me hire a
    contractor, so I have an accounting firm that actually watches
    every piece of paper. So we have $175 million in requests. We
    have, on delay, $4.6 million. We will require each contractor
    to come back and answer to us. So we are doing just that kind
    of thing. It is very important we do that.
        Mr. Mica. And that is part of what we need to conduct our
    responsibility, which is oversight.
        Well, I have taken more than my time. I have additional
    questions and requests. We will submit them to you.
        Again, we aren't trying to be hard-nosed about this. We do
    have an oversight responsibility----
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. And we want to do it in a proper
    fashion, and we do need to make certain that these huge amounts
    of money are accounted for.
        I have some questions, too, about the largest amount of
    money, which is $684 million over 5 years to Ogilvy & Mather,
    and we want to find out a little bit more about the structure
    of the contract and expenses, et cetera, and how that money is
    flowed through, and percentages of money spent on actual hard
    media buys. But we will get into that at a later point.
        At this time, I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland,
    Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        General McCaffrey. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I will give
    each of your committee members--this is the easiest way, it is
    dated, that I found to follow it. It talks about, both in
    dollars and percent, the amount we use on advertising versus
    other things--advertising, $191 million, for example, fiscal
    year 1999. Then it shows you, when you get into the advertising
    piece of it, how much goes on production media time.
        So it is a good way to follow it, and we can take these pie
    charts and follow them back into line item layout.
        Mr. Mica. Well, just in quick response, we do have the
    general numbers, the large numbers.
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        Mr. Mica. What we are trying to do is look beyond that. And
    there are other elements in there. We have questions about
    commissions, about subcontracting, about production costs. But,
    again, we won't get into them at this point until we get all of
    that information in hand.
        General McCaffrey. Well, I am going to have the
    contractor--I will come over, make sure I understand what you
    want, and then I am going to task my contractors to respond
    specifically to any question you have, and we will be
    responsive to your information.
        Mr. Mica. That would be great, and we look forward to
    receiving that information and cooperation.
        Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to make it clear that I do agree that this is an
    oversight committee and we should have oversight. I don't want
    anybody to be under the misconception that that is what I
    believe. I certainly do.
        But I want to--you know, there have been a lot of questions
    here, General, and the chairman said something that I am just
    kind of concerned about just a few moments ago. He talked about
    making sure that he received these documents that you all just
    discussed, and he would do whatever was necessary to get them,
    and I certainly understand that. But I would feel--I would be
    more than remiss if I didn't ask you this question. I think it
    would bother me.
        You don't have any problem providing documents to this
    committee, do you?
        General McCaffrey. Not at all.
        Mr. Cummings. I mean, it----
        General McCaffrey. We are proud of what we are doing.
        Mr. Cummings. So it is not a thing of trying to hide any
    information. You know, so often, I guess, when I come here--I
    keep saying I am a new Member, but I guess I am feeling kind of
    old at this now, but it just seems like so often, you know, we
    subpoena this and we subpoena that, and we have somebody here
    who wants to cooperate, has a limited staff, as I understand
    it, and just want some kind of structure in trying to get the
    information and some understanding. Is that--I mean, is that a
    fair statement?
        General McCaffrey. I think so. We would be glad to respond.
    As a matter of fact, I think I ought to remind myself that I
    have learned a tremendous amount from these congressional
    staffs. I think there are some real experts over here, and some
    of the Congressmen have been involved in this longer than I
    have. So I am glad to come over here and respond and learn from
    congressional leadership.
        Mr. Cummings. Now, some concerns have been expressed about
    using a paid media campaign instead of a donated air time and
    commercials. Can you tell the subcommittee why the
    administration embarked upon a paid media campaign?
        General McCaffrey. Well, a lot of what I initially knew
    about the issue and continuing huge influence on my own
    thinking comes from Jim Burke and the Partnership for Drug-Free
    America. These people have been at it for a decade and know
    what they are talking about.
        Their efforts were coming down year after year in support.
    We used to have three major networks, 85 percent of the media
    time. Now there are seven major networks, and they got under
    half the attention of the American people.
        So the thing is changing, and we need to respond with it.
    Our kids went to the Internet. We have to go there with them.
        It is a very sophisticated industry, and we wanted to
    influence youth attitudes, so PFA and ONDCP really have put
    this effort together, along with the Ad Council, which has been
    a huge impact on us, too.
        Mr. Cummings. The media campaign seems to be targeted to
    deterring first-time drug use and casual drug use. Is that a
    fair statement?
        General McCaffrey. No question. The biggest payoff, we
    think, in America is to save $2 million a head by not having
    kids get involved in extensive gateway drug-using behavior. If
    you don't get addicted, that is your savings to me as a
    taxpayer. So this is a prevention/education program aimed at
    children and their mentors. Quite correct.
        Mr. Cummings. So if we have someone who has already
    started, and not necessarily hard core, but just kind of
    experimenting, I mean, is there any of this aimed at that
    youngster, too?
        General McCaffrey. No, sir. We do have a series of measures
    that we are enormously proud of. Secretary Shalala, Attorney
    General Reno, and I have put together now more than a $3
    billion program which involves treatment interventions through
    a variety of systems that are linked to the criminal justice
    system, health system, and welfare system. That is where we get
    at a young person who is encountering chronic drug abuse.
        Mr. Cummings. Now, there have been some questions this
    morning about Ogilvy & Mather and Fleishman-Hillard. What kind
    of oversight controls do you all have in house to control what
    they do, because I think the committee is--I think all of us
    have said this in one way or another. We want to make sure--and
    I think you share this concern--we want to make sure that our
    tax dollars and our constituents' tax dollars are spent in a
    cost-efficient and effective way, and so I am just wondering
    what kind of in-house oversight do you have over these folks
    who are being paid so handsomely?
        General McCaffrey. Well, probably the best thing we did is
    we took about 6 months and had a contractor write our RFP, so I
    have contracting authority that--by analogy, I tell them I am
    going to act as if I was a CEO of a corporation and I am going
    to demand results out of these people. I have performance
    measures of effectiveness, and if they don't produce, each year
    that contract is redoable, and I expect them to produce
    results.
        We do have measures in place to chronicle whether they are
    achieving their goals.
        Now, having said that, let me hasten to add I think I am
    getting a lot more than I am paying for. I am proud of what
    both these corporations are doing, and the results are starting
    to show up.
        Mr. Cummings. Why do you say that, what you just said? I
    mean, that is a very interesting statement. So often the public
    gets the impression that we are not getting our dollars' worth.
        General McCaffrey. Well, one of the things we did is we
    wrote a cost-plus contract. I mean, there is really no one--you
    would say no incentive for any waste, fraud, and abuse here.
        Having said that, Fleishman-Hillard, just as an example, is
    under allocated cost.
        I also look at the kind of work hours. These people are
    working 18-hour days on these issues. I know I am getting lots
    of corporate support out of Ogilvy & Mather and Fleishman-
    Hillard and their worldwide organizations. These are two
    industry giants. These are some of the best people in the
    global community on these issues, and they are really going to
    the wall for us.
        Mr. Cummings. I am about to run out of time, but just one
    question about the minority teen use of drugs going up. Can you
    comment on that for me?
        General McCaffrey. I think we ought to be really concerned
    about it. I have been holding a mirror up to America for the
    last 4 years reminding Americans that everyone is involved in
    drug abuse.
        One of the talking points was to say, ``Look, lifetime
    exposure rates to drugs go white, black, Hispanic.'' And if you
    look at young people 30 and under, African Americans have lower
    rates of drug abuse than any other segment of American society.
        The kids are going in the wrong direction. Now we are
    seeing--to include cigarette smoking. We are seeing African
    American youth moving up to get in the same statistical threat
    group that other Americans are, and I think it is a concern.
        We have some wonderful subcontractors with ethnic
    advertising focus.
        The African American/Hispanic piece gets about 78 percent
    of the $33 million focus on ethnic outreach, but we have an
    evaluational loop in place.
        The new material you will see coming out this year we hope
    will better respond to the needs of these diverse communities.
        Mr. Cummings. I noticed in the ads that you just showed us,
    if I remember correctly, all of them dealt with parents; is
    that right, all four of them?
        General McCaffrey. We were flighting these ads so that
    there will be periods where the central component will be
    parent effectiveness.
        Mr. Cummings. Right.
        General McCaffrey. But there is also a teen-to-teen
    component.
        Mr. Cummings. Yes.
        General McCaffrey. So it depends on which medium we are in.
        Mr. Cummings. Yes.
        General McCaffrey. When they briefed me--when Partners for
    a Drug-Free America comes in, they will tell me, ``Here is who
    the target is. It's the 14-year-old age group, and this one is
    aimed at Asian American.'' So they will show me the copy with
    who they are targeting, and it is a very sophisticated
    approach. It then gets tested before we go to production.
        Mr. Cummings. This is my last question. I guess we will get
    somebody on another panel maybe to tell us this, but when you
    have an ad like the one where these people--like the guy was
    doing the e-mail, and it is the end of the day, and they are
    talking about, ``You need to get a hold of your kid,'' that is
    supposed to affect a parent and a kid?
        General McCaffrey. Well, parent effectiveness. Part of the
    message is to make sure parents are aware that when they talk
    to their kids with a no drug use message, children actually are
    listening to it and are affected by it. We know that from
    National Institute of Drug Abuse studies. But we have to make
    sure parents understand that, because you will hear
    conversationally, ``Well, we shouldn't talk about it. It just
    piques their curiosity, and more will use drugs if you mention
    that.'' That is a silly argument. If you applied the same thing
    to drunk driving or shoplifting or unprotected premarital sex,
    it is just a--but those ads right there are after parent
    effectiveness.
        Mr. Cummings. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
    Souder.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        Thank you for being here today, General McCaffrey. We
    appreciate your continued efforts.
        I have a couple of different questions, and a few very
    specific questions.
        We are working through the Drug-Free Schools and Safe
    Schools Act, which hopefully will get done this fall, but it
    may spill into next spring. And one of the things we are trying
    to do is tighten up that program to where it has more direct
    anti-drug and safe messages. Sometimes it gets pretty
    fragmented. In addition, our juvenile crime task force is
    proceeding ahead.
        I applaud, in going through the details of your statement,
    your interactiveness, and I hope that, particularly with the
    continued concerns about juvenile crime and what some have
    focused on coming from that are the character counts programs
    and a lot of the basic social fabric breakdown.
        I hope, in the mix of what you are doing with the direct
    anti-drug groups, as well as the YMCA, and so on, we are seeing
    a big revival of concern right now in this country about the
    general character, and to see, in as many of those programs as
    we can, that we get it slipped in the anti-drug, anti-alcohol,
    tobacco, marijuana messages, too.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Souder. And I just wanted to say we are pursuing that,
    and, as we see this, it is likely to blossom in the next year
    as far as where Congress is focused. I wanted to emphasize
    that.
        I am intrigued and am unclear a little from your statement
    and also, as comparing it to the statement that Dr. Johnston
    has presented later about what the free media program is
    working.
        He states in his testimony that it has dropped from 1991 to
    1997 from $365 million to $220. In your statement, I believe
    you said it is 109 percent, which you had at, like, $145
    million, and had the in-kind from the industry basically
    agreeing with his $220.
        General McCaffrey. His figure was dropped on pro bono?
        Mr. Souder. From $365 to $220 from 1991 to 1997.
        General McCaffrey. That is $365 million?
        Mr. Souder. Yes.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Souder. To $220. And your figure----
        General McCaffrey. But that is PDFA data, isn't it? That is
    Partners for Drug-Free America data?
        Mr. Souder. I don't know.
        General McCaffrey. Yes. That is Jim Burke's number. It is a
    good number. That is what happened. That was the problem that
    caused us to come ask you all for help.
        Mr. Souder. And in his testimony he mentions things like
    the Gulf war, and we have had a proliferation of other social
    problems that they are focused. At the same time, when we put
    this amount of media in, in effect we are getting back to where
    we were in 1991 figures, if you take the ad buy plus the pro
    bono.
        Do you believe that can be leveraged more, or do you
    think--how can we continue to push back to 1991 levels?
        General McCaffrey. Well, I----
        Mr. Souder. I don't want to seem ungrateful for what they
    are giving.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Souder. But the fact is it is a substantial drop, and,
    if necessary, Congress can take actions to force mandatory
    time.
        General McCaffrey. Yes. Well, Mr. Congressman, thanks for
    your work on safe, drug-free schools. It does need a re-look.
    Secretary Dick Riley and I did as best we could, put together a
    package. Those were good hearings you all had.
        I don't have a fixed view. I do think it needs to be re-
    looked. We need accountability. Governors ought to be in
    charge, not Secretary Riley and I, and we need reports. And I
    think we need prioritization.
        So your leadership on that--I will look forward to hearing
    how Congress comes out on the bill.
        Your comments on matching character ads, alcohol is a good
    one. That 109 percent match includes 33 different
    organizations. Three of them are anti-alcohol in nature. We got
    $12 million worth of anti-alcohol underage drinking ads on
    already. This is a huge contribution from the Advertising
    Council.
        They have a Creative Review Committee, too, so these ads
    have to pass muster as being scientifically accurate. They are
    tested, and then they go out to media markets all over the
    country, and they are getting used.
        Unlike 10 years ago, they are stimulating, because, by law,
    we tell them, ``If you want a matching credit, you can't put it
    on at 2 a.m. There are some rules here.'' The media is
    responding magnificently.
        So we are moving in that direction. When you see their work
    that will come out shortly, you are going to be thrilled with
    it.
        The question on whether or not we are getting--do we spend
    $195 million and get back where we were in 1991? No, sir. This
    is enormously different. This is not just TV ads on national
    media. This isn't throwing things to the wind and seeing if
    they get used. This is a very carefully planned, calibrated
    campaign with 102 different strategies where the media buy--
    when you talk to our leader, Shona Seifert here, you ought to
    ask her how do we go about planning these media buys so we know
    where the target audience is and we are going there with a
    message that they are going to hear and shape their thinking.
        I might also add that when we buy this stuff and we do it
    18 months in advance, we get huge increases in coverage. That's
    another thing that doesn't come out in some of these briefing
    charts. We essentially, if I remember, it was more than a 30
    percent reduction in cost because of our buying plan.
        Mr. Souder. Perhaps we will be able to followup some later
    in this meeting, but I have a couple of specific questions
    that, if you can't respond here, if you can get back to me on.
    One is--and this is a real fast one--the Partnership for Drug-
    Free America commercials were developed pro bono. I can't tell,
    from looking through your detail. It looks like a lot of what
    you are contracting out at this point are placement, research,
    and so on. Are the actual creative development things--are we
    paying for that, or is that still pro bono? And do you feel
    that, if we are paying for it, that the qualitative difference
    beyond--there is some targeting, but could that not have been
    done pro bono?
        I know we have had extensive discussions here about
    particular media subcontracts, but I am concerned in some of
    the dollars that are showing up on Media Scope, in particular,
    and, without knowing a lot of the detail, the reports here are,
    on the surface, disturbing, because I can see that they have
    been challenged to some degree internally, and that's one of
    the specifics that I, too, am concerned about as you proceed.
        I have no idea. And let me just say, as a general rule--and
    I would like to say this clearly for the record--I am most
    concerned that the dollars get maximized. And I understand that
    that takes research, auditing, placement costs, and all that
    kind of stuff, but the particular sales that we made in going
    around the Authorizing Committee and putting it in an
    appropriations bill, which is the way this program was done,
    and the way Congress accepted it was that this was going to
    actually be media time.
        Now, I understand that media time spent unwisely is wasted,
    and you have had to try to balance some of those, and I
    understand the development of the Internet and so on. I also
    understand the importance of internal accounting and auditing,
    and I don't want to have the questions that we are asking
    become such a drain that we are not accomplishing our first
    goal.
        At the same time--and I have nothing but complete respect
    for you, and I understand the frustration, but you also have to
    understand some of our concerns in this committee.
        I tell you, in category after category, as we've looked at
    Interior Department, as we've looked at the Justice department,
    as we've looked at different things, there have been
    questionable contracts.
        I don't know how to balance this. I absolutely am not
    making a single accusation. I am concerned that we are going to
    bog you down for 2 weeks in paperwork instead of being out
    doing. But there is one that the Media Scope comes under
    entertainment. It's $30,000 a month. We couldn't get an
    explanation for it. We'd like to have some kind of explanation.
    It may be a very logical explanation.
        General McCaffrey. Well, Mr. Congressman, I think your
    concerns are appropriate. We should be able to answer all these
    questions.
        I don't think there is any--I don't think we really have
    many questions, that we see clearly what we are doing. We can
    identify the various subcomponents. They are based on studies.
    There is a very specific oversight responsibility.
        That Media Scope, for example, we wanted to go get
    scientifically valid data about the nature of drug abuse in
    music, movies, television, and we did it. We are doing it.
        So it is important to us really to have a handle on--when I
    go out to the Entertainment Industry Council and try to
    influence the actual production of TV series--and we are doing
    that. We are not violating first amendment rights, but we've
    gone out there. Fleishman-Hillard is doing a lot of this for
    us. We are conducting seminars so that writers, directors, and
    actors get a good insight into the nature of drug abuse among
    adolescents.
        We told them, ``Put anything you want into this stuff, but
    make it look like it really does in real life.''
        That's a lot of what is going on with those kinds of
    programs.
        But I would be glad to respond.
        Let me make one statement categorically, though. We are not
    buying ads. We are paying production costs, particularly when
    you talk about 11 languages and going after the Hispanic market
    in Spanish. By the way, we did that more than four times a week
    last week. If your native language was Spanish, we talked to
    you four times last week in Spanish.
        And so we got to do production costs, particularly the
    struggling minority advertising firms, but this is pennies on
    the dollar. We get a huge impact for going about it this way.
        By and large, though, the huge chunk of the dollars is
    still advertising media buy. Shona Seifert is the quarterback,
    and they do know what they are doing, and I spend hours
    listening to her team tell me until 11 p.m., where this stuff
    is going. We are following it real closely.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        General McCaffrey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Kucinich from Ohio.
        Mr. Kucinich. If Mr. Barr wants to go first, it is OK with
    me.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    gentleman from Ohio.
        As I mentioned to you, General McCaffrey, I remain very
    concerned, as I know you are, about the drug legalization
    initiative in the District of Columbia. It is these sorts of
    things, when the President issues a public statement that is
    very properly and accurately read as supportive of that
    initiative in D.C. when he cites the efforts here in the
    Congress to block that as one of the reasons why he vetoes the
    spending bill, that can undo tremendous gains that are made
    through programs such as those that we are discussing here
    today.
        Have you, since the President's veto message on the D.C.
    appropriations bill, had any discussions with the President or
    the White House about that? Have you voiced your concern or
    opposition to it?
        General McCaffrey. Absolutely. I mean, it was very closely
    followed by us.
        I sent my Deputy to testify in Congress for the committee.
    I was glad to be able to do that. And I asked Dr. Don Vereen to
    come over because it really made the point. He is a nationally
    known drug research expert, a former NITA research scholar. He
    is a psychiatrist, a physician, a public health guy. And we
    wanted to unmistakably communicate--and we provided our
    briefing charts to Congress. We want medical drugs decided by
    the National Institute of Health and the Food and Drug
    Administration, not by political referendum. This is not the
    way to go. This is a mistake.
        We got a good study out of the American Academy of
    Sciences. That's what we support, not these referendum.
        To be honest, in the short run it is sort of a crock. I
    hate to be rude about it, but we got synthetic PAC, marinol,
    available in pharmacies right now with a doctor's prescription.
    We'd be glad to study other canabanoids and see if they have
    symptom management capability, but smoked pot, a blunt stuck in
    your face in an ICU, is unlikely to be medicine. That's what
    the American Academy of Sciences said.
        Now, on the other hand, Mr. Congressman, with your
    permission, I would rush to avoid getting involved in a
    legitimate debate between Congress and the administration over
    home rule, et cetera. I've tried to stay out of that and focus
    on the medical marijuana issue.
        Secretary Shalala and I and others are on the record and
    our position is unwavering.
        Mr. Barr. I agree with your perspective. It is an issue
    about the drugs and not about home rule. But it is just very
    disappointing that the tremendous gains that can be made,
    whether it is through a just say no or just say no type program
    or some of the ad campaigns that I think are effective that
    we've talked about here this morning can be undone by the
    position the President has taken on this particular issue.
        I also think that it would be a tremendous benefit to the
    education effort in which you and those with you here today and
    those of us here in the Congress who believe in the anti-drug
    message are trying to engage in if the President would take up
    this ball and run with it, which he will not do, apparently.
        I think the number of major speeches that this President
    has given on addressing the issue of mind-altering drugs is
    less than six in 7 years.
        If the President would take to the airwaves, use the bully
    pulpit of the White House, rather than indicating his support
    for a drug legalization effort in the District of Columbia to
    get the message out there that you are trying to get out and
    that these ads are trying to get out, it would help
    tremendously, I think.
        I know or at least I presume that you've talked to him
    about this and encouraged him to speak out on this issue, and I
    hope others have, as well. It just doesn't seem to be getting
    through, and I think it is unfortunate, because it really could
    aid our effort, and I would certainly encourage you to continue
    in those efforts to get the President to speak out against
    mind-altering drugs with greater frequency and much more
    loudly.
        Down in my District in Georgia, which is included in the
    Atlanta media market--while I don't have the opportunity to
    watch much TV, I do listen to the radio occasionally when I am
    driving the District, and I have heard the ONDCP ads, and I
    think they are very, very good. I hope we can do more of them.
        As many of us in politics know, radio can be a very, very
    cost-effective means of getting a message out. Is radio being
    utilized in these efforts that we are talking about here today
    to the fullest extent?
        While the TV ads I think are very effective in their own
    right, you can get a tremendously larger bang for the buck in
    radio advertising. And is radio advertising, in your view,
    through this campaign, being utilized to the fullest extent?
    And if you could give me some idea--it may be in some of the
    materials here--some idea of the dollar amounts that are being
    spent on radio versus TV advertising.
        And, by the way, one thing I would--and I don't know
    whether you have done this, but I would like to hear you on
    some of those radio ads. I think the prestige that you would
    bring to it, being identified as who you are and what you are
    doing, would be very, very effective.
        I know that other private groups use celebrities to do
    that. I'd like to hear you on some of those ads. Is this
    something that you would consider, or is it being done in some
    markets?
        General McCaffrey. Well, Mr. Congressman, I thank you for
    those remarks.
        Let me, if I can, briefly talk about the President's role
    in this. And, again, I tell you bluntly I am a nonpartisan
    officer of government.
        In 4 years, the President has supported me on this issue
    without stint, and at times when it was politically tough on
    him to do it--needle exchange, medical pot, et cetera.
        Mostly, what I tell people is, ``Look, at the end of the
    day in a balanced budget environment, we went from $13.5
    billion to $17.8 billion.'' I know congressional leadership was
    vitally important to that, but I got that out of OMB and the
    President.
        I am appreciative of his support, and he has also allowed
    me the leadership responsibility of getting Janet Reno, Dick
    Riley, Donna Shalala, the police, et cetera, involved in this.
    And he has spoken out on medical pot, and we've got an
    administration position. This isn't mine, this is ours. Now----
        Mr. Barr. Yes, but when he speaks out on it 2 weeks ago and
    giving as one of his reasons explicitly for vetoing the D.C.
    appropriations bill the fact that Congress, on behalf of the
    people of this country, included a measure against the
    legalization of marijuana in D.C., it, at best, presents a
    contradictory or muddled message, and I think it presents the
    wrong message.
        General McCaffrey. There were these other issues, and it is
    unfortunate they all got cluged together, but I hear you, I
    recognize what you are saying. I do want to, in all fairness,
    say the President and his OMB Director have stood with me for 4
    years and I am appreciative of it.
        Now, let me, if I can, go on to your other two comments.
        Is radio effective? Absolutely. Huge leverage, targeted
    market, local radio--they know who is listening to various
    kinds of shows. They are on the air in Cantonese in San
    Francisco. If you want to talk to moms and dads of first-
    generation families, you've got to go on Chinese-language
    radio. Same thing in some Native American dialects. So it is a
    huge tool.
        Mr. Barr. Does that include southern in Georgia?
        General McCaffrey. Well, that's even different dialect,
    right. It's a nice dialect. But I will give you a breakout.
        We are using that tool and it is very flexible, and the
    Advertising Association has been a huge help in that, too.
        On me being on ads, I am--we will take that into account.
    That may be a good idea. I've done some pro bono with Montel
    Williams, with a lot of the gold medal athletes. What a thrill
    to be with Frank Shorter and some of these other national
    heros, Donna Verona. So we can look at that.
        But, by and large, what we are doing is we are going to
    this behavioral science expert panel. We are saying, ``How do
    you influence a 12-year-old kid?''
        For example, you want to talk to a 12-year-old, go get a
    14-year-old actor. That's who they want to be like, not like
    the drug policy director.
        And we are pretty sophisticated in our thinking.
        Mr. Barr. They might surprise you. Maybe we ought to be
    doing something very subtly to make them want to be more like
    you than some of these other folks.
        General McCaffrey. Well, I clearly talk to kids all the
    time. A couple weeks ago, one of the high points of my life,
    17,000 kids, L.A. Coliseum, the DARE Convention. So I talk
    routinely to groups of as many as 10,000 children--pride
    organizations, any group of kids that show up here, we are
    engaged with them. We are on video. We do videos all the time.
    If you are having a conference, I will talk to the conference
    over video if I can't get there.
        So your point is a good one. And Donna Shalala has been a
    tremendous partner doing the same thing with me.
        Mr. Barr. Did you say, General--and I apologize and I
    appreciate the indulgence--that you would get me--do you have
    the figures on the breakdown on how much is being allocated to
    radio as opposed to television?
        General McCaffrey. Well, one of the problems is we've got
    102 different media buying strategies, and essentially the note
    I got is 15 to 20 percent of the budget, depending on the
    State.
        So, for example, in Congressman Mica's District in south-
    central Florida we go after heroin abuse at a very high rate.
    It's a huge problem to young people in that State. So the
    nature of the ads, the very ads you are hearing or seeing, are
    different than the ads you might see in Georgia. But 15 to 20
    percent of the budget, depending on the State.
        And it is very important--and our African American audience
    is an example. That's the way to talk to African American
    adolescents.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, General.
        Mr. Mica. If I may, I am going to yield 2 minutes to Mr.
    Kucinich, and then we will get the balance before the vote to
    you.
        Mr. Kucinich.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, and thank you, General McCaffrey,
    for the work that you've been doing. I've worked with you on
    the high-intensity drug trafficking matter, and I appreciate
    your help there.
        I saw the commercials when you ran them, and I've seen some
    of them on TV in the market that I live in Cleveland. You know,
    I think that this kind of an undertaking is so enormous that it
    has to be regarded, the kind of effort that goes into it, so I
    wanted to thank you and all those who are part of it.
        You can understand, though, the chairman's concern. There
    has to be accountability on this, there's so much money
    involved, so that's what we are here for, to ask questions.
        I have a very brief question, and that is: the amount of
    money that is being spent, the hundreds of millions of dollars
    in buying this time, who is buying the time, and are they
    commissioned when they buy the time or do they buy the time pro
    bono?
        General McCaffrey. I am sorry, Mr. Congressman, would you
    repeat that question?
        Mr. Kucinich. Somebody buys the time.
        General McCaffrey. Right.
        Mr. Kucinich. Do they get a commission on the time that
    they buy?
        General McCaffrey. No. I think we ought to give you a
    detailed layout on how the media buy is done, both mechanically
    and over time.
        Mr. Kucinich. That would be nice. I used to do that. That's
    why I am curious about that.
        General McCaffrey. I see.
        Mr. Kucinich. Because usually there is a 15 percent
    commission involved.
        Mr. Mica. Could you answer or somebody tell us if there is
    any commission involved, because that is a $684 million----
        General McCaffrey. Well, let me give you a detailed answer.
        Ogilvy & Mather gets a fixed fee on the contract.
        Mr. Kucinich. Does that include--is that exclusive of or
    does it include the commission on the time that they buy? For
    example, if someone buys $1 million worth of TV time, there are
    contracts where they get 15 percent or $150,000.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Is this already included in their contract,
    or do they get something over and above it, just out of
    curiosity.
        General McCaffrey. Yes. Let me give you an answer for the
    record on exactly how the fees are allocated.
        Mr. Kucinich. That would be fine. I appreciate it.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Again, thanks. This is very interesting. Keep
    up the good work.
        Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, may I add one subpoint, because I
    think it is what the Congressman was trying to get to.
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Souder. For example, as somebody who also placed media
    buys--and I am sure this is a fairly easy thing to answer--but
    the commission is usually around 15 percent. Sometimes they
    will kick it down to 7 or 5. And, in fact, if you don't take
    the commission, they will lower your rates 15 percent, and
    that's the difference in the amount of contribution that you
    could----
        Mr. Mica. Yes. Well, we also want to know if the $40
    million was paid to them and then subcontracts and then
    commissions on top of that. It could mount up with a $684
    million contract, a sizable amount. But those are some of the
    questions we are trying to get answered to Mr. Director.
        Mr. Ose.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, and I
    will submit these for the record, given the time.
        My concern has to do with the nicheing of the ads. That is,
    who is taking, for instance, the 12 to 14-year-old Hispanic
    market, who is taking the 14 to 16-year-old white market as it
    relates to these contracts over here? I will submit that
    question for the record.
        The second question has to do with the actual measurements
    of effectiveness of the different ads and how to quantify that.
        It would seem to me that the bottom line is: do the ads
    reduce use of drugs?
        General McCaffrey. Right.
        Mr. Ose. And I am trying--I see the empirical evidence on
    the charts as they exist, but I am trying to figure out how we
    could get a quantification----
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Ose [continuing]. Of the impact.
        Mr. Chairman, if you will, I will submit that for the
    record, also.
        General McCaffrey. Yes. Well, that is a question. You are
    right. One is do they hear the ad, is it credible, does it
    influence their attitudes, does it then influence their
    behavior, and that's exactly what we owe you over time, but not
    just from a macro level. We have to see inside the target
    evidence.
        Mr. Ose. You bring up an interesting point, because the
    graph you showed us is a compilation of different, if you will,
    markets.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Ose. And we might be very effective in one market----
        General McCaffrey. Absolutely. Good point.
        Mr. Ose [continuing]. But not effective in another.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Ose. And I'd like to correlate the relative
    effectiveness of those markets to these different contracts.
        General McCaffrey. Yes. That's a good point.
        Mr. Ose. For instance, Bates Advertising might have this
    market and it is doing very well, and CSR might have that
    market and it's not doing very well at all.
        General McCaffrey. That's a good point.
        Mr. Ose. That would be informative to me.
        General McCaffrey. I think next year we will have a fight
    going on over who gets credit for reducing youth drug abuse.
    That's what is going to happen, and trying to disentangle to
    what extent is this community coalitions, is this the ad
    campaign, is this good law enforcement, is this the Rotary
    Club, YMCA. That's what's going to happen.
        At that point, we are going to have some tough--that's why
    Westat Corp.'s evaluation contract is important to us, to try
    and understand that process.
        By the way, Mr. Chairman, if I can, although I encourage
    you to ask Ms. Seifert of Ogilvy & Mather--the note they passed
    me was, ``No commission on any buys.''
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Ose.
        Mr. Director, we do have additional questions, and we will
    be submitting them both from the minority and majority to you,
    but, again, we are not trying to be tough guys or mean guys in
    this process; merely just sort through how some of these very
    substantial expenditures have been made, and some others that
    raise questions.
        I didn't get into it, but we had one instance here where
    our staff talked to Mr. Richard Pleffner--is it Pleffner, your
    ONDCP contracting officer?
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. About an aspect of a Fleishman-
    Hillard contract in the amount of $186,000-plus, which then, I
    guess, they subcontracted to Media Scope in the amount of--and
    there were expenditures in the amount of $156,000 for
    entertainment, and we asked for some documentation on
    description of the services that were provided. Mr. Pleffner
    could not tell us exactly what that was for.
        These are just basic questions on, in some cases, very
    significant amounts of money. The questions I also raised about
    the subcontract for Porter Novelli, what happened to the
    $50,000, the difference in that contract, and some of the other
    questions that we've raised, particularly the NITA contract and
    the funds that went back and forth through that agency.
        So, again, we are not trying to be mean or ornery or
    overreaching our bounds, but merely trying to find out how
    these funds are expended.
        General McCaffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. So we look forward to receiving answers and
    replies and working with you and, again, seeing that this
    program is effective and has effective oversight.
        General McCaffrey. Sure.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.061

        Mr. Mica. So we thank you for your cooperation and we thank
    you for your efforts in getting this campaign kicked off and
    working with us to date.
        Without objection, the record will be left open for 30 days
    to submit additional questions to this witness by both the
    minority and the majority. So ordered.
        I thank you, Mr. Director. We are going to excuse you at
    this time.
        We have a vote, and the subcommittee will stand in recess
    for approximately 15 minutes and we will reconvene with the
    panel at that time.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Mica. For our second panel--and we welcome them--this
    afternoon we are going to hear on our second panel from Ms.
    Tinker Cooper, who is with Families Against Drugs from Orlando,
    FL. We are also going to hear from Mr. Harry Frazier. Mr.
    Frazier is senior vice president of Fleishman-Hillard, Inc.,
    Washington, DC. And then we are going to also hear from Ms.
    Shona Seifert of Ogilvy & Mather of New York City.
        You are all standing. You know that you are sworn. This is
    an investigative panel of Congress.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        I would like to welcome all three of you here. We have, I
    think, the two major firms that have been contracted to provide
    assistance with our paid media campaign, and we also have one
    individual who is from central Florida who I have had the
    opportunity to know. Unfortunately, she is the mother of a
    victim of an overdose of heroin. Her son, Joe Stevens Cooper,
    died 2 years ago from a heroin overdose. She has taken that
    particular personal tragedy and turned her efforts toward
    trying to make positive progress in our war on drugs and her
    own effort, and she has combined her efforts with other parents
    of those who have lost loved ones in this tragic problem we
    face of illegal narcotics and its ravages. She is not only
    working with other parents and others in the community such as
    our sheriff, Kevin Berry, but also with Governor George Bush
    and others to bring the message to our community and across the
    State of Florida from the private sector and private individual
    efforts how we can bring attention to our young people and
    others in our community about the ravages and potential fatal
    damage that can be done by illegal narcotics.
        So we are going to hear several different perspectives, and
    the first individual we will call on will be Ms. Tinker Cooper,
    and, again, she represents today before our subcommittee
    Families Against Drugs, and she is from Orlando.
        Welcome, Ms. Cooper. You are recognized.

     STATEMENTS OF TINKER COOPER, FAMILIES AGAINST DRUGS, ORLANDO,
      FL; SHONA SEIFERT, OGILVY & MATHER, NEW YORK CITY, NY; AND
    HARRY FRAZIER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FLEISHMAN-HILLARD, INC.,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Cooper. Thank you.
        I am a mother of one of the many young people that have
    died in recent years in central Florida from drug overdose.
        After Joe died, I started doing drug education, and that's
    when I realized I really didn't know too much about the drugs
    of today. So I teamed up with Captain Ernie Scott of the Orange
    County Sheriff's Office narcotics unit, and I got myself
    educated. Together we have since formed the nonprofit
    organization Families Against Drugs, which initially was a
    support group for families of overdose victims, because society
    views the death of our kids as somehow less significant then a
    death of a child from any other means.
        We have since turned into an action group. We didn't want
    to sit around crying and feeling sorry for ourselves. We wanted
    to do something about this drug epidemic. So we turned into an
    action group, and we do education, legislation and
    rehabilitation. At the moment we are currently working on
    developing an overdose hotline that is routed not through law
    enforcement but directly to fire/rescue so that the kids can
    feel comfortable in calling for help in an overdose situation
    without worrying about the law.
        We have been concerned about the type ads that we are
    seeing on TV for anti-drug messages. The kids today are very
    sophisticated. They live in a high-tech world with the Internet
    and everything. These ads with pretty young women smashing up
    kitchens with a frying pan and dancing ballerinas on top of a
    jewelry box, have no meaning to them. They need to see reality.
        We are under the impression--and hearing here today from
    Mr. Mica the amount of money that has been allocated for these
    ads and to the donated time and money, the figure is close to
    half a billion. That's a lot of money. We need to start putting
    that money into something that is really going to work with
    these kids. If anything is going to help, it has got to stop
    these kids now.
        I, along with two other parents in central Florida, helped
    the Orange County Sheriff's Office make a video called,
    ``Overdose: End of the Party.'' We used actual crime scene
    photos of young people as they were found in death, because we
    felt they needed to see the reality of drug overdose. It is not
    a pleasant video, but it really wasn't meant to be pleasant. It
    was to be a hard-hitting, in-your-face type thing to get their
    attention. And it is working.
        These are not actors. They have real kids in them, real
    blood, and they are really dead. But we know of several young
    people that have gone into detox from heroin after seeing the
    video.
        Every single time we show it in schools, rehabs, jails,
    anywhere that we show it, kids always come up to us and say,
    ``If I had seen something like this before I got involved with
    drugs, I never would have started using.''
        We have three different versions of this. We have a youth
    version, an adult version, and a Spanish version to reach the
    Hispanic community, and we are currently working on another
    video that we hope will be equally as effective showing all
    aspects of drug use.
        We have parents that have lost their kids to overdoses. We
    have parents that have their kids in rehab now, or still on the
    street using. We have parents that have lost children in car
    wrecks because they were drinking and drugging. We have parents
    who have lost kids to suicide because of alcohol and drug use.
    We even have a family that right now is living the nightmare of
    caring for their 20-year-old son, who has been a vegetable
    since April 11th from a drug overdose. And we have people in
    the group who have lost a sibling or a spouse or a friend. We
    also have kids that have successfully completed treatment.
        So we are putting together a video of this nature so that
    the kids can see reality. We feel that they need to see this.
    These are the things they need to see--reality of drug use, not
    fantasy. They need to know what each drug is going to do to
    their bodies and their minds. They need to know what their drug
    use is going to do to their personal life, their families,
    their friends. They need to know their options.
        Their options are: death, coma, jail, rehab, wasted lives.
    They need to know that the drugs of today are so much more
    potent and dangerous than they were in the 1960's and the
    1970's, and the chance of addiction is very high with these
    drugs.
        The drug addicts of today are not people with shady pasts
    and no hope for a future. The drug addicts of today are my kids
    and your kids, and we need to do a better job of educating them
    and their parents, because I will tell you those parents don't
    have a clue what's going on out there. I thought I was pretty
    up on drugs, but after Joe died I didn't know anything.
        We need to educate the parents as well as the kids.
        Congressman Mica has asked me to show a 2\1/2\ minute
    excerpt from the video, ``Overdose,'' and when we get enough
    funds to finish the one we are working on, I will see to it
    that he gets a copy of that to share with you, too.
        I thank you for the opportunity to speak here before you.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.062

        Mr. Mica. We will have questions, but at this time we will
    go ahead and show that 2\1/2\ minute segment.
        [Videotape presentation.]
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you for that segment and also
    for your personal and private sector efforts to get this
    message out.
        Now we will hear from--I guess we will do this in order of
    magnitude of expenditures. Ms. Shona Seifert with Ogilvy &
    Mather from New York City, you are recognized.
        Ms. Seifert. Good afternoon, Chairman Mica, representatives
    of the subcommittee. I am honored to be here today and I
    welcome the opportunity to share our insights with you and
    answer your questions on the national youth anti-drug media
    campaign.
        As a context for discussing the campaign, I'd like to
    summarize my own background and the credentials of Ogilvy New
    York, the company I represent.
        I have 16 years experience in the advertising industry,
    spanning three continents and every consumer product category.
    I've led and implemented campaigns for products as diverse as
    BMW automobiles, American Express charge cards, SmithKlein
    Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Huggies diapers, Gillette shaving
    systems. Almost every client I have worked for has been a
    Fortune 500 company, and I've consulted with several of the
    world's most respected pro bono organizations, including the
    World Wildlife Fund.
        I spent 4 years with Ogilvy in London, 5 years working for
    Ogilvy across the Asia Pacific Rim, and the past 7 years in New
    York.
        I have been personally involved in developing advertising
    in many of the world's languages--Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog,
    Malay, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese,
    and, obviously, English.
        Ogilvy was appointed as the advertising contractor for the
    National youth anti-drug media campaign in January 1999. We
    were awarded the contract after an extensive 8-month review
    process involving hundreds of other communication companies.
        Ogilvy was selected because of its unique credentials and
    market clout. Our media buying organization purchases more
    national broadcast media than any other advertising agency in
    this Nation. In fact, we buy more than $2 billion of air time
    every year.
        This gives us unique access to the lowest possible pricing,
    and Ogilvy has generated broadcast media savings for ONDCP of
    over $25.6 million in this year, alone. And those are only the
    broadcast buy savings. There are more savings beyond those.
        We know that such cost efficiencies are important to you,
    Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee and to the
    constituents and taxpayers that you so ably represent.
        Our global media buying organization buys more media than
    any other communications company in the world. This gives us
    unparalleled negotiating leverage in our dealings with global
    media vendors such as Time Warner and ABC Disney.
        We are also the largest buyer of interactive media in the
    country. This allows us to maximize the efficiency and the
    reach of every taxpayer dollar.
        In addition to negotiating and buying the paid media
    component of the campaign, Ogilvy is also responsible for
    negotiating and implementing the media match. This is pro bono
    time, space, and programs donated by media vendors.
        We've already negotiated $167 million in media match for
    phase three of the national youth anti-drug media campaign,
    which, as you know, began in September 1999. That's $167
    million of free media. Nobody in the advertising industry does
    that for any other advertiser.
        And I want to just point out, there was a question in one
    of the previous panels about commission. Ogilvy earns no
    commission on any of the media buying and planning. Our
    contract prohibits it. Our contract is a cost-plus fixed fee
    contract. And we earn a fixed fee which is equivalent to 1
    percent of the contract. And, to give you a context, typically
    media commissions, when they are paid to advertising agencies
    in this country are between 12 and 15 percent of a contract,
    and we are earning 1 percent. And that's regardless of how much
    media we buy. So even if the media budget increases, our fee
    does not.
        The national youth anti-drug media campaign is without
    precedent. It is truly the gold standard in leveraging private
    sector best practice and the world's leading behavioral
    science. No other client of Ogilvy anywhere in the world goes
    to the lengths that ONDCP does to make sure their campaign is
    science-based, measurable, totally integrated, and continuously
    improved.
        For example, the process for advertising development
    ensures every advertisement is based on facts from behavioral
    science, insights from target audience specialists, feedback
    from our target audience, and the expertise of the best minds
    in the advertising industry through our partnership with the
    Partnership for Drug-Free America.
        Ogilvy is extremely proud of our accomplishments to date
    for the national youth anti-drug media campaign. We are
    constantly searching for opportunities to make this campaign
    more effective. For example, we are deploying leading edge
    econometric modeling to develop optimal media plans, and a new
    tracking study to measure the success of every message against
    its target audience, as it airs.
        In accordance with the goals of the national drug control
    strategy, we will make a difference in reducing drug use in
    this country. We have the resources and we have the know-how,
    and our entire company is committed to the success of this
    unprecedented landmark campaign.
        Before I close, I would just like to make a few comments in
    response to the statement by Ms. Cooper.
        And I wanted to say, Ms. Cooper, I am very sorry for your
    loss. I am even more sorry that the national youth anti-drug
    media campaign wasn't airing when Joe Cooper died, because
    maybe if it had been, this wouldn't have happened.
        Ms. Cooper is totally right--we need to get kids'
    attention. She is totally right--we need the facts about drugs
    and we need to get those facts out to our kids. That's why we
    have an advertising development process that is incredibly
    rigorous.
        Agencies are briefed by the Partnership for Drug-Free
    America with pages and pages of strategy and consumer insights.
    Those agencies present back to the Creative Review Council of
    the Partnership for Drug-Free America. They then have to
    present their work to a panel of behavioral change experts and
    target audience specialists who comment on the advertising and
    make changes. It is then presented to General McCaffrey, and
    then those ads that are seen to be suitable to move forward
    with are tested with a target audience, whether it is kids or
    adults or specific ethnicities, and we look to see whether
    those ads change kids' minds.
        The advertising that Ms. Cooper has described, which we
    call ``negative consequence'' advertising, showing kids the
    consequences of drug use, is a very important message platform
    within our campaign, but it is only one of four platforms that
    we use to talk to kids, because all the behavioral science
    indicates you can't just show them what happens when you do
    drugs. And if we just show them that drugs may result in death,
    these kids--the kids that are primarily the target of this
    campaign are ``tweens,'' they are 11 to 13-year-olds. They
    think they are invincible. They do not believe they will die if
    they do drugs, so we need other messages, too.
        I will leave for the records this chart here, which shows
    the message platforms and the 360-degree approach that General
    McCaffrey was describing earlier. One of these message
    platforms--it will actually be airing in November of this
    year--is negative consequences. It's exactly the kind of ads
    Ms. Cooper was describing. And there are other platforms on
    here, too.
        So I am so sorry for your loss, and I really hope that
    other kids will be prevented from using drugs by this campaign.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Seifert follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.064

        Mr. Mica. We will withhold questions until we've heard from
    all three witnesses.
        The next panelist is Harry Frazier, and he is a senior vice
    president with Fleishman-Hillard from Washington.
        You are recognized, sir.
        Mr. Frazier. Thank you.
        On behalf of Fleishman-Hillard, thank you, Chairman Mica,
    and the subcommittee for this opportunity to discuss our role
    in the national youth anti-drug media campaign.
        We are the campaign's non-advertising or communications
    contractor. That means we manage all program and outreach
    initiatives that fall outside of paid advertising. We began
    work in December 1998, and are 10 months into building a
    landmark integrated communications program of which we are
    extremely proud.
        We aggressively pursued this contract and greatly reduced
    our fee in order to ensure our bid was competitive. We did so
    because we recognized the national importance of the program,
    we believed in the campaign design, and we knew we would be
    effective.
        The Fleishman-Hillard account team continually coordinates
    with advertising and other campaign contractors and partners.
    We share information, identify opportunities, and work together
    to deliver the same messages and same platforms to the same
    audiences.
        I am co-director of our team, with primary responsibilities
    for account management, and Beverly Schwartz, a nationally
    recognized behavioral scientist, is our other co-director.
        Although our contract only represents about 5 percent of
    the campaign's annul budget, it is an essential part of the
    overall communications strategy. Our contract and funding are
    totally separate from yet fully integrated with the advertising
    contract and other media campaign expenditures. Our goal is to
    complement the advertising with strategic communications that
    most effectively influence youth and parents. This is the same
    approach the Nation's top marketers use to promote products,
    services, and ideas. It is also the method behavior change
    experts prefer for public education.
        By reaching beyond advertising to where youth and parents
    live, work, and play, the campaign literally surrounds them
    with anti-drug messages.
        To be clear, Fleishman-Hillard does not do advertising for
    the campaign. We build sustainable programs and partnerships
    that motivate audiences to talk about and act on the campaign
    messages they see and hear through the advertising.
        Our behavior change approach encourages audiences to adopt
    campaign messages into their daily lives and extend them into
    their own communities.
        We also maximize the opportunities generated by the pro
    bono match requirement of the advertising contract. Every
    activity must be on message and on strategy. We strive to
    maximize the Federal Government's investment by developing the
    products, relationships, and advocates that will continue to
    deliver campaign messages well beyond our involvement and well
    after the media campaign's advertising program ends.
        Our areas of work are outlined in ONDCP's testimony and in
    our written testimony; however, to briefly recap, we conduct
    outreach in four primary areas: public information,
    partnerships, entertainment, and interactive.
        First, public information activities use the news media,
    direct outreach, and special events to generate a steady flow
    of campaign messages to youth and adult audiences. In 1999
    alone, we've generated more than 124 million media impressions
    of these messages.
        Second, we've enlisted thousands of partners who make it
    possible for a wide variety of public and private organizations
    to participate in and extend the reach of the campaign. A blast
    e-mail system regularly advises more than 45,000 stakeholders
    of campaign activities, and they, in turn, reach millions of
    their constituents.
        We are having success partnering with national
    organizations such as the YMCA, which serves 18 million people
    and 9 million kids and has incorporated media campaign messages
    into their publications and curriculum and training materials.
        Third, we work with the entertainment industry, both to
    help deliver messages through celebrity involvement and to
    deglamorize drug use through script suggestions.
        Fourth, we take full advantage of the power of the
    Internet, in part by developing and maintaining multiple drug
    prevention websites where millions are visiting to learn and
    interact with others. Our sites link to hundreds of other
    parenting, education, sports, and health sites on the web.
        We are very pleased to see, Chairman Mica, that the
    campaign's teen site, FREEVIBE.COM, is linked to the drug
    prevention area on your own website. We encourage other Members
    of Congress to follow your lead.
        Finally, our activities reach diverse audiences, thanks to
    a team of minority-owned communications and social marketing
    agencies that know exactly how to communicate with African
    American, Hispanic, and Asian audiences.
        Our ongoing relationship with ONDCP involves a greater
    level of technical and finance review, approvals, and reporting
    than any other Fleishman-Hillard client. We individually detail
    and budget our programs for approval prior to execution and
    have daily interaction with ONDCP staff, who review our
    projects in progress and participate in our internal and
    external meetings and activities.
        In addition, we submit weekly and monthly written reports
    and conduct regular activity briefings for Director McCaffrey
    and his staff. These briefings include comprehensive progress
    reviews, program updates, reports on initiatives, and results,
    budget, and expenditure briefings.
        In closing, we believe in working for a drug-free America
    and are committed to this campaign. We are proud of our
    accomplishments and are happy to answer your questions or
    further elaborate on our activities.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Frazier follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.070

        Mr. Mica. I'd thank all of our witnesses for their
    testimony.
        First of all, Ms. Cooper, this is a pretty big program
    we've undertaken at the Federal level, $1 billion. It's not
    quite in the expenditure category of your local effort. But
    this is public money, it is a public trust, and we want to make
    certain that it is spent effectively.
        You've seen some of the ads that have been played to date.
    You've heard Ms. Seifert talk about your particular situation.
    What is your candid evaluation of what we've done to date?
    Would it have made any difference, in your estimation, in your
    son's case? Just tell us what you think about the campaign. And
    we spent several hundreds of millions of dollars so far, plus
    the donated component, probably a half a billion to date. Can
    you give us your candid assessment?
        Ms. Cooper. Those of us that have already lost our kids and
    the families that I deal with whose kids are in rehab now or
    still on the streets firmly believe that they are just not
    strong enough. These ads, the information has to be pretty much
    in your face and reality, and we just feel very strongly that
    the ads to date are not strong enough to get to the kids.
        Mr. Mica. Ms. Seifert said that part of their message,
    rightly, is geared at parents. And General McCaffrey also said
    they targeted Orlando. You must have seen some of those. You
    are a parent. What do you think of that effort in your setting
    with our problem with heroin there?
        Ms. Cooper. Again, not strong enough. I think the parents
    definitely need to be educated.
        Mr. Mica. Have you seen those ads geared at parents in
    Orlando?
        Ms. Cooper. Not these particular ones, but I have seen and
    I did like a couple of them, one being a little girl being
    asked by somebody, ``What has your mother told you about
    playing with matches? What has your mother told you about
    strangers? What has your mother told you about drugs?'' And
    each time the little girl responded appropriately about matches
    and strangers, and when asked----
        Mr. Mica. What about, again, directed toward parents and
    making a difference yet? If you had seen those ads that you
    have seen now, do you think they could have helped you with
    your son's situation?
        Ms. Cooper. Well, not really. I did educate my kids about
    drugs, but I didn't educate them properly because I didn't know
    about the drugs today. I didn't know what was going on in the
    clubs downtown.
        I think you may have seen the video on the undercover video
    of the raves downtown. I was blown away by this.
        If I had seen that before Joe died, there's no way that boy
    would have been going to raves downtown. I don't think the
    parents have any idea.
        I know we have parents in our group that actually paid,
    gave them the money to go to some of these zen festivals and
    the raves, not having any clue what was going on at them.
        I think parents need to be educated about the drugs today
    and about what is going on, what their kids are actually
    exposed to, not just, ``Hey, you need to talk to them.''
        Yes, they do need to talk to them, but they need to get
    educated what is out there, what are their kids exposed to.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Frazier or Ms. Seifert, before today have
    either of you talked to a mother who has lost a child to heroin
    overdose?
        Ms. Seifert. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. You have?
        Mr. Frazier. Yes, we have. Interestingly enough, Ms.
    Cooper's--when I was listening to her testimony, it is the
    exact type of thing that we are doing.
        A lot of people hear the term ``PR'' and think of something
    corporate or political, but what she is doing is classic,
    traditional PR. She's getting out to a community. She's trying
    to inform people. She's trying to give them real-life examples
    to make messages real for them and give them direction and some
    incentive to do something.
        Mr. Mica. One other question about your experiences. Did
    you know the individual who lost a child or a relative to drug
    overdose?
        Ms. Seifert. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. You did?
        Mr. Frazier. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. Well, what I think is absolutely startling is we
    have three people, one who has lost a son in this and we have
    two of our witnesses who are participating in this, and each of
    you know and have talked to families that have losses. This is
    an incredibly widespread problem.
        The problem we have in central Florida is we have been
    losing almost one or two a week to heroin. We have had this
    campaign, and on the floor last week I cited several heroin
    overdoses, drug overdose deaths just in that past weekend, and
    it is not abating, even with the ad campaign. That's the scary
    part of it.
        Let me, if I may, ask our two contractors a couple of
    questions.
        First of all, Ogilvy & Mather have the largest share of
    this contract. It will be $684 million, I think, total, with a
    fixed fee of about $8 million over that period of the
    expenditure, and you said----
        Ms. Seifert. Actually, Chairman Mica, it is an annual
    contract.
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Ms. Seifert. So the contract is currently valued at $152
    million, of which about $1.5 is the fixed fee, so it is almost
    exactly 1 percent.
        Mr. Mica. And you said it is cost plus the fixed fee. Is
    the cost only the cost for airing, or are there other costs
    like production and subtracted----
        Ms. Seifert. The contract is for $152 million. The great
    majority of that expenditure is for the paid media, but out of
    our $152 million contract we also pay $3 million for production
    of the advertising.
        But, as General McCaffrey explained----
        Mr. Mica. Are there any----
        Ms. Seifert [continuing]. It is not labor.
        Mr. Mica. Right. Are there any other subcontracts or--what
    I am trying to do is look at the big picture, how much money is
    spent. We commend you for offering your services in this
    fashion with a fixed fee, but we also want to find out exactly
    how the dollars are expended.
        So there's $3 million, you said, in production,
    approximately?
        Ms. Seifert. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. And are there any subcontracts let on your
    contract?
        Ms. Seifert. Yes. There are five subcontracts which--these
    are all mandated by the RFP that we were awarded by the
    contract. We have to have a----
        Mr. Mica. And do we have copies of all of those
    subcontracts? Could you provide us with copies of the
    subcontracts?
        Ms. Seifert. I can certainly provide copies of all the
    contracts to ONDCP so that--because we are contractually
    obligated to ONDCP, and I think they will forward them to you.
        Mr. Mica. Right. And we will ask for copies of them.
        Again, it is a little bit different client. It's the people
    of the United States. Our job is merely, when we appropriate a
    program of this magnitude--and it wasn't a rush fashion, but it
    was in an expedited fashion. We now want to see how the funds
    are expended. So if you could--and we will also ask the general
    for that.
        And that's one of the problems we've had to date is just
    trying to get that information.
        There are no other fees or commissions or costs other than
    those subcontracts and the production amount; is that correct?
        Ms. Seifert. Anything that is not media would be production
    of the advertising, which is not labor. As I said before----
        Mr. Mica. Right.
        Ms. Seifert [continuing]. It is purely the actual third
    party production cost.
        The cost of subcontractors is one subcontractor for each of
    the ethnic audiences that we need to reach with the campaign,
    so there would be one for African American audiences, for
    Asian, for Native Americans, and so forth.
        Mr. Mica. What I am trying to get to really is I want to
    get to the rock bottom--and maybe you could provide the
    subcommittee with this--of how many dollars actually go on
    television or radio. You are doing television. Are you doing
    radio?
        Ms. Seifert. Every single medium, because this is a
    surround campaign.
        Mr. Mica. All right. What we want to find out is how many
    hard dollars are going into that and what other expenses there
    are. So if we have $195 million and we take $127, we have $40
    over here next to you, or whatever is expended. I don't want to
    be exact here. But then we take out so much for production and
    so much for other expenses. We are trying to find out the
    bottom line of dollars going into that, so if you could
    provide----
        Ms. Seifert. We can certainly provide that.
        Mr. Mica. We would appreciate that.
        Mr. Frazier, one of our concerns was, in talking with the
    ONDCP subcontractor, all of these contracts have reporting
    requirements. One of the major reports was the September 4th
    evaluation report, which we weren't able to get up until just
    before this hearing.
        Did Fleishman-Hillard deliver a written evaluation report
    to ONDCP on or before September 4th, as required?
        Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir, we have delivered dozens of
    reports----
        Mr. Mica. No.
        Mr. Frazier [continuing]. Including----
        Mr. Mica. Did you provide an evaluation report on or before
    September 4th, as required under the terms of the RFP? Do you
    know?
        Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. We did that in two ways. We did a
    full review of our activities in June to date, and we did
    another one in September. That one was, indeed, a week after
    the September 4th date.
        Mr. Mica. OK.
        Mr. Frazier. It was a comprehensive review.
        Mr. Mica. It was delivered. But it was delivered
    afterwards. OK.
        And one of the problems we've had--and we'd like to get
    copies of it, too--are, again, some of the subcontracts here.
    How many subcontracts do you have?
        Mr. Frazier. We have six subcontractors.
        Mr. Mica. Do we have copies of all of those now?
        Mr. Frazier. I don't know what you do or don't have, but we
    are happy for you to have them if ONDCP----
        Mr. Mica. I am seeing your head go in one direction, my
    staff going in another direction, and people in the audience
    going in two directions.
        Do we have copies of all of those six subcontracts? My
    staff says no, we do not.
        Could you provide us, through ONDCP, those six contracts?
        Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. And let me just state----
        Mr. Mica. The reason, we have parts of the information.
    And, again, we are not trying to be hard guys, but you have
    categories of expenditures. For example, in a request--and I
    cited this to the drug czar, Mr. McCaffrey--we asked Richard
    Pleffner, who is the ONDCP contracting officer, for an
    explanation of a subcontract that went to Rogers and
    Associates, who went and, in turn, subcontracted to Media
    Scope. Media Scope submitted vouchers for entertainment in
    January for $27,000, approximately, for entertainment, in
    February for $29,000, approximately, and March for
    entertainment--I got two in March for entertainment for
    $33,000-plus. I've got, in May 1999, another $33,000.
        What we are trying to find out is if, you know, was this a
    party, was this--it must have been a hell of a bash. But maybe
    it wasn't. Maybe, in fact, it was a very legitimate
    expenditure. But our job is to conduct some oversight.
        And the problem we have is that your subcontractor, Rogers
    and Associates, has, in turn, subcontracted to Media Scope, and
    these things get further away from us. And these people may
    have done an incredible job that should be announced to the
    public. On the other hand, when we have these entertainment
    expenditures just in this short period for $156,000, we want an
    explanation.
        Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. I am happy to address. I know----
        Mr. Mica. That's a specific request, so----
        Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. We are happy to fulfill that in
    writing.
        Mr. Mica. You don't even have to submit that one to ONDCP.
    You can tell us directly. And we are leaving the record open
    for 30 days.
        But you see our dilemma in this.
        Let me ask you another question. You have offered----
        Mr. Frazier. Do you mind if I just respond to that real
    quick?
        Mr. Mica. Go ahead.
        Mr. Frazier. To be clear--and I think this is kind of
    symptomatic of you perhaps not having all the information you
    need to understand what we do. Very simply, that was
    entertainment industry outreach they are doing. They are
    holding creative briefings for people like the Writers Guild.
    They held a workshop for children's television writers that was
    convened at the Disney Studios at no cost to the government.
    They are doing entertainment industry outreach, and perhaps it
    wasn't clear in the documentation that you saw, but that's what
    that is for.
        Mr. Mica. Again, we'd like to get this.
        And let me say that you, in particular--I haven't dealt
    with Ms. Seifert. We will get to know her better as this
    progresses. But you and your firm have been most forthcoming
    and open, and we appreciate that.
        Now, let me ask you this. One of the problems we had is
    getting the information you submitted to ONDCP, and you say you
    have provided all of that information. Has ONDCP directed you
    not to provide us with any information?
        Mr. Frazier. Not specifically, sir. In this process--and
    we've never been through a formal review process like this with
    a congressional committee--it was our understanding that
    contractually the way the process works is that you have to
    request those documents from ONDCP. They did not tell us not to
    give anything directly to you.
        I was looking for clarification on what the exact rules
    were in that case, but let me state unequivocally we are happy
    for this committee to see anything that we have done and any of
    our records. We would prefer and request that any proprietary
    information about the salaries of our employees and that type
    of thing that obviously would pose competitive challenges for
    us not become public, but if your staff would like to see them
    we are happy to open our books behind closed doors.
        Mr. Mica. We just would like explanations. I've got another
    example: entertainment, March 31, 1999, celebrity involvement,
    $5,682. It may be a legitimate expense, but what we want is
    some detail on how----
        Mr. Frazier. We are happy to provide that.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. These funds were expended.
        Now, you tell me there are six contracts.
        Mr. Frazier. Subcontracts. yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Subcontracts. Do you have any idea how many
    subcontracts there are to the subcontracts?
        Mr. Frazier. Only one that we are aware of.
        Mr. Mica. The Media Scope one?
        Mr. Frazier. That's the Media Scope one.
        Mr. Mica. All right. And we'd also, Ms. Seifert, like to
    know about any subcontracting that is done through any of your
    contracts.
        Ms. Seifert. There are none, sir.
        Mr. Mica. There are none? OK. All right. Thank you.
        There are detailed reporting requirements in these RFPs.
    Again, other than the September 4th report, the evaluation that
    was due then, do you know of any other reports that have not
    been submitted on time?
        Mr. Frazier. No, sir.
        Mr. Mica. OK. And, again, this is a little bit different
    situation in the private sector, but we do have detailed
    reporting that is required. Do you find that overly cumbersome,
    or you are able to comply with that?
        Mr. Frazier. Well, as I referenced before, the level of
    reporting in this particular contract is more extensive than
    anything we've ever experienced as an agency.
        We do, by the course of our business, keep track of our
    time for every hour, every minute that our staff works, and I
    personally go through those records at the end of every month,
    before we send an invoice, and look at every single hour that
    our 30-plus people have spent on this at Fleishman-Hillard, and
    we ask our subcontractors to do the same.
        We keep all of that. What's different in this contract is
    the level of detail that we are required to submit to the
    government. We are used to doing activity reports. In this
    case, we do them weekly and monthly, as well as regular
    briefings. Director McCaffrey, himself, has shown an incredible
    interest in this. He has given us a no fail mission, and I
    think I can politely say that he is a demanding client, which I
    think is his responsibility in this case. I've never had a
    client give us more scrutiny. He gets his staff to sit down,
    and when we do things we have to prove to him and his staff
    that they are going to work. We have to outline what the
    activity is, why we are going to do it, how much it is going to
    cost. His staff reviews it and they come back and ask us tough
    questions.
        Sometimes we hope almost always--we have good answers for
    those, and sometimes we've adjusted our activities due to their
    oversight.
        Mr. Mica. All right. Other than General McCaffrey and the
    contracting officer, who are the other individuals you've dealt
    with?
        Mr. Frazier. Alan Levitt is the director of the media
    campaign. I would say that people on our staff, between Bev and
    I, we talk to him--including e-mails and phone calls probably
    in double digits each day. We interface with him and his staff
    everyday on some level or another. I think I'd probably be
    accurate in saying there is not a day since we won this
    contract that we haven't spoken with him or his staff.
        We actually function as a team with them and we work
    together with them every day, as I referenced before.
        Mr. Mica. And yours is the non-media----
        Mr. Frazier. Non-advertising, yes.
        Mr. Mica. And that would cover all of those aspects.
        And who do you deal with as far as oversight? General
    McCaffrey and then a contracting officer, Ms. Seifert?
        Ms. Seifert. Yes. It would be----
        Mr. Mica. Could you tell us just who?
        Ms. Seifert. The key contacts would be General McCaffrey--
    and we've met, since we were appointed, which was January 4th
    of this year, we've had 18 meetings with General McCaffrey.
    But, to give you some context, he talked earlier about being
    the CEO of his campaign. There isn't a CEO that Ogilvy & Mather
    works for anywhere in the globe that meets with his advertising
    agency every 2 weeks, and 18 meetings in 2 months is about once
    every 2 weeks, so that's the level of contact we've had with
    General McCaffrey. And that isn't, ``Hello, how are you'' in
    the hallway. That's often 6, 7, 8-hour briefings on what we are
    doing. And he wasn't kidding when he said they go to 11 p.m.
        So it is General McCaffrey. We are dealing on----
        Mr. Mica. Contracting officer?
        Ms. Seifert. The contracting officer, Rick Pleffner.
        Mr. Mica. OK.
        Ms. Seifert. Alan Levitt, the director of the media
    campaign; and Alan's staff, so Joe Bartholomew and Judy
    Costerman. And Janet Chris, the chief of staff; and Poncho
    Kinney, and many others, as needed, depending on the issues.
    Also Don Vereen, the deputy director.
        Mr. Mica. All right. Well, again, we appreciate your coming
    in today. I am sure you never expected this level of scrutiny
    when you got involved in this, but it is important that we make
    this campaign as effective as possible, that we ensure that
    every taxpayer dollar is expended as efficiently and
    economically, that we do review these expenditures.
        I am sure that both of your firms have tried to do an
    exemplary job in this most important national campaign. It is
    the first of its type. But we will continue to monitor these
    activities very closely, because it is not a small-ticket item.
    It is $1 billion of our money and we want it spent right, and
    it is combined with private sector donations.
        Ms. Cooper, thank you so much. You have been incredible,
    again, turning tragedy into a public campaign, a private
    campaign to get the word out not only in central Florida,
    across our State, and the Nation today, and we thank you for
    your efforts, which were just invaluable.
        I don't have any further questions at this time. I am sure
    you are pleased to hear that. But we will be submitting
    additional written questions to our witnesses and the record
    will be open for 30 days.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.079

        Mr. Mica. With that, I thank you all for being with us.
        We will excuse this panel and I will call our third and
    last panel.
        Our third and last panel today is Doctor Lloyd Johnston,
    who is the program director and university distinguished
    research scientist with the Institute for Social Research at
    the University of Michigan.
        We also have Dr. S. Shyam Sundar, and Dr. Sundar is
    director of Media Effects Research Laboratory with the College
    of Communications at Pennsylvania State University.
        I am pleased that we have both of these distinguished
    panelists with us today.
        As you may have heard, gentlemen, this is an investigations
    and oversight panel of Congress. We do ask that our witnesses
    be sworn. If you would stand, please, and be sworn.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Again, we are pleased to have such distinguished panelists
    to give us their perspective on this unprecedented national
    media campaign.
        I will recognize first Dr. Lloyd Johnston, who is with the
    Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.
    You are recognized, sir, and welcome.

     STATEMENTS OF LLOYD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR AND UNIVERSITY
        DISTINGUISHED RESEARCH SCIENTIST, INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL
    RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; AND S. SHYAM SUNDAR, DIRECTOR
     MEDIA EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY, COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATIONS,
                     PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

        Mr. Johnston. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
    afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to testify.
        I am going to be speaking from some of the figures that are
    attached to my testimony. I've just handed some to counsel, and
    there are more on that desk.
        Mr. Mica. What we would like to do, if it is OK, Dr.
    Johnston, is, without objection, this information will be made
    part of the record.
        Mr. Johnston. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mica. So ordered.
        Mr. Johnston. Well, I've been at the University of Michigan
    for a long time, and for 25 years have directed the ongoing
    Monitoring the Future studies of American adolescents and young
    adults, in which we've tracked and tried to explain trends in
    drug use of all kinds, as well as related beliefs and
    attitudes.
        We have now done surveys of every graduating high school
    class since 1975, and in the 1990's we've also done surveys of
    8th and 10th grade students, who go down in age to 13. So today
    we survey about 50,000 young people a year in some 420
    secondary schools.
        In the short time available, I'd like to try to make
    several points, and these are best illustrated in the handouts
    that I've given you, or that are attached to my testimony.
        The first is that we have found that drug use is malleable.
    It can be influenced. It can change quite dramatically over
    time. Indeed, it has over the last 25 or 30 years.
        We sometimes hear that this is a hopeless cause, the drug
    war is lost, and so forth, and that's so much hogwash.
        Second, we have found--and I think this is one of the more
    important findings from our study--that the attitudes and
    beliefs that young people have about these drugs have played a
    major role in influencing the changes that have occurred, both
    the changes for the good and the changes for the worse.
        And if you look at figure 1, for example, it shows that the
    changes in marijuana use are inversely related to changes in
    the perceived risk of using marijuana.
        So, as young people become more concerned about the dangers
    of the drug, they become less likely to use. Or, in the 1990's,
    as they become less concerned, they become more likely to use.
        We see a similar relationship, by the way, with
    disapproval, which in the aggregate reflects peer norms about
    use.
        These two variables have had a lot of explanatory power,
    and sometimes have been leading indicators of change in use.
        I should also mention in figures 1 and 2 that the trend
    lines on perceived availability of these drugs suggest that
    availability has not been a very good explanator of the changes
    that we've seen, and I think that's mostly because it is so
    very difficult to influence availability when, in fact, there
    is a major and highly profitable market constantly drawing
    suppliers in.
        Now, I wanted to go to figure 3, which was referred to in
    testimony given earlier today, and it shows the PDFA estimates
    of amount of resources that the media have contributed pro bono
    over the years. We see there was a big increase in 1990, when
    there was a major effort, and then a gradual decline over the
    1990's. As General McCaffrey said, competition in the media
    industry became more severe. There was less pro bono support.
        And you notice there is some correlation there over time
    between the amount of advertising and the perceived risk that
    young people reported--in this case, 12th grade students.
        Now, to turn to a set of data that we have about ad
    campaigns, specifically. We added these questions in 1987. We
    know, of course, that the ad campaigns are aimed largely at
    affecting these very attitudes and beliefs that were shown to
    be important, and if you look at figure 4 you can see that,
    based on data from 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, recalled
    exposure to the ads can reach quite high levels. When the media
    weight was heaviest, at the beginning of the 1990's, large
    proportions of these youngsters said that they had at least
    weekly exposure, and a substantial number had daily exposure to
    the ads.
        Note that, as the weight of the ad effort declined in the
    1990's, so did the reported exposure to the ads, helping to
    indicate that these, indeed, are valid measures.
        The point is it is possible to reach high levels of
    exposure, and I should mention that a preliminary look at our
    1999 data, which are not yet ready for release, suggests that
    in the spring of 1999 we saw a sharp increase in reports of
    exposure, consistent with the fact that the new campaign was
    getting underway.
        Finally, in figure 5 I want to show that you can not only
    achieve high rates of exposure, but high rates of impact as
    reported by the youngsters. And here we've asked them to say to
    what extent they think such commercials have made them less
    likely to use drugs, personally.
        You can see that large proportions of them say that they
    feel the commercials have, at least to some degree. In the
    early 1990's, over 80 percent of the 8th graders said that. But
    the proportions who reported such positive impact declined
    during the 1990's, and this, of course, was when the amount of
    media weight was, itself, declining. So, again, this is
    consistent with the notion that you have more impact when you
    have more media coverage.
        I want to conclude by saying that it is very important that
    we institutionalize prevention of drug use for the long term in
    our society, and the media campaign is one way to do that. I
    think the primary other way is through prevention programs in
    the school.
        The reason I say that is that when this country has gotten
    into the most trouble is when we've taken our eye off the ball,
    and the early 1990's I think constituted an example of that.
        Many institutions in society looked elsewhere. Drug use
    fell off the television screen. I think a new generation of
    youngsters came along who simply knew less about the
    consequences of drugs, either because they were exposed to less
    drug use around them or because they heard less through the
    media and through tragedies that were occurring to public
    figures.
        So we, in a sense, got a more naive generation in the early
    1990's because we weren't dealing with the issues directly, and
    the Gulf war I think was probably a precipitating event there,
    which knocked everything off of the television screen in 1991
    other than the war. The drug issue didn't come back for some
    years.
        So I think that it is important that we institutionalize
    these forms of education, socialization, and persuasion and
    keep them, even in times when we've made substantial progress
    in reducing drug use, because at precisely those times the
    seeds of a new epidemic can be sown. It is precisely those
    times, when the youngsters know the least about drugs from
    first-hand observation, that they need to know the most through
    formal learning.
        I also have some comments on Dr. Sundar's study, which he
    is about to present, but I will leave those for questions.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnston follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.097

        Mr. Mica. We will now recognize Dr. Shyam Sundar, who is
    with the College of Communications at Pennsylvania State
    University.
        Welcome. You are recognized, sir.
        Dr. Sundar. I thank you for inviting me here this morning,
    this afternoon, to give testimony regarding the potential
    psychological effects of anti-drug messages in the media.
        My comments today will center around the findings of the
    study that was conducted with my Master's student, Carson B.
    Wagner, in spring of 1998. This preceded ONDCP's campaign, but
    we believe our findings have some implications for current and
    future media campaigns, in general.
        Research has shown in the past that anti-drug ads and
    public service announcements [PSAs], as they are called, are
    enormously successful in reaching the intended target
    audiences. Research has also shown that they promote anti-drug
    attitudes among our youth. But it is in the area of behaviors
    that we see a lot of controversy in the literature, especially
    some researchers saying that behaviors do not automatically
    follow from attitudes, and so forth.
        So we decided to look at behavioral indicators in our
    research. In particular, we looked at behavioral intention, or
    what is sometimes called ``conation.''
        The variable that we found most intriguing in our research
    is the variable that is called conative curiosity. We conducted
    a very simple experiment involving 65 high school seniors as
    participants in one of two conditions. Participants in the
    control condition saw an unaltered version of a prime time
    television program, complete with commercial breaks, while
    those in the experimental condition saw the same program but
    with four anti-drug PSAs edited into the commercial breaks.
        Following the program, participants in both conditions
    filled out an identical questionnaire containing, among other
    things, five items that elicited their level of curiosity
    toward illicit drugs, items like it might be interesting to try
    marijuana, using marijuana might be fun, and so forth. We found
    that the participants in the condition where they were exposed
    to PSAs expressed significantly greater curiosity than their
    counterparts in the control condition. But these results should
    be viewed with extreme caution and skepticism; and one of the
    main reasons I am here is because this particular piece of
    research is getting more attention in the media than it perhaps
    deserves, simply because of its counterintuitive results.
        I have to mention a number of caveats that go with studies
    of this sort. It is a study that uses a small sample in a
    controlled setting. And, while these kinds of experiments are
    similar to test tube experiments in chemistry and can
    demonstrate causation between variables, it would be premature
    to generalize their findings to the real world without
    extensive further study.
        My co-investigator, Carson Wagner, replicated this
    experiment in a different State using different participants
    and a different sample of PSAs and found similar results, but,
    really, other researchers with different samples in different
    locations need to replicate the study before we can even begin
    to think of this as a robust effect of anti-drug PSAs.
        So our research really raises more questions than it
    answers, and this is an exploratory piece of research which has
    brought to the fore an unintended consequence of PSAs--namely,
    that of arousing curiosity--and our data are not able to
    specify exactly why.
        We do discuss a number of possibilities in the paper that
    we presented in a peer forum earlier this year, but these are
    all merely speculative at this point. Others have suggested
    that this might be an example of the forbidden fruit effect,
    that is the tendency among adolescents to be drawn toward that
    which is forbidden or taboo. But only future research can
    explore these possibilities.
        So by presenting our findings we are not claiming that
    curiosity is the only outcome of anti-drug PSAs. This just
    happens to be the variable we examined. There could be many
    other variables that indicate positive outcomes, as other
    researchers have shown, and they may have far greater
    beneficial effects on our youth than the potential negative
    consequences of arousing curiosity.
        We are certainly not recommending that national anti-drug
    media campaigns be abandoned, as has been incorrectly implied
    in certain media reports of our study. If anything, we are very
    interested in ensuring that such campaigns achieve the intended
    pro-social effects by minimizing the potential, if any, to have
    unintended negative consequences.
        In conclusion, our research has implications, I think, in
    two broad areas of anti-drug media campaigns, and those would
    be message design and evaluation.
        Since our findings raise the possibility that a mere
    mention of drugs can serve to prime audience members to think
    about drugs when it wasn't there before, an immediate
    suggestion would be to perhaps design PSAs that provide our
    youngsters with examples of alternative activities that are
    healthy and can take the place of drugs in their lives, but
    without mentioning the word ``drugs'' anywhere.
        Another implication might be perhaps a move away from the
    fear appeal kind of ads, the frying pan or the brain-on-drugs
    kind of messages, which are powerful in their attention-getting
    abilities and their recall rates, but which might trigger
    curiosity, because those are the kinds of ads we primarily used
    in our experiments; and we don't know if the curiosity effect
    is specific to that kind of an appeal.
        There are certainly other health communication models, like
    the health belief model and so forth, which can result in
    message designs that are very different from the fear appeal
    design, and they can result in different types of message
    elaboration in the minds of viewers, leading perhaps to more
    desirable behaviors.
        Our study also, I think, has some implications for
    evaluation research. In particular, it demonstrates the need
    for controlled laboratory and field experimentation in order to
    isolate outcome variables, such as curiosity, because the
    larger implication is that it calls for more research on the
    effects of PSAs in particular, not just PSA campaigns in
    general. Of course, there are lots of studies, including the
    one that was presented just before mine, that look at the whole
    campaign, in general, and these are large sample surveys and
    have very useful correlational data to present.
        Small sample experiments, on the other hand, can ensure
    exposure and measure effects in a controlled fashion, but, of
    course, they lack generalizability.
        So both have their pros and cons. Ideally, I would like to
    see a combination of surveys and experiments used to evaluate
    the overall effectiveness of anti-drug media campaigns.
        I thank you again for inviting me to testify here, and I
    really appreciate this opportunity to discuss some of the
    theoretical and methodological issues concerning media effects
    of anti-drug campaign information.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Sundar follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.105

        Mr. Mica. I have several questions.
        First of all, Dr. Johnston, I guess you have been--the
    University of Michigan has been conducting this monitoring work
    since--is it 1987?
        Mr. Johnston. Since 1975.
        Mr. Mica. Since 1975?
        Mr. Johnston. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. Oh, yes, 1975 I see on one of these charts. You
    do not have a specific subcontract with ONDCP or with NIDA to
    deal with this current campaign, do you?
        Mr. Johnston. No, not at all. Actually, we, ourselves,
    chose to put in the questions about the media campaign when we
    learned that the partnership effort was being launched in 1987.
    And, as we've done with other historical developments that we
    thought might influence young people's drug use, we wanted to
    see what we could learn about that.
        Frankly, the results came out much more favorably than I
    ever expected, given that I think youngsters probably have a
    bias against admitting that anybody influences them, most
    particularly those who are trying to. And so I thought the
    results were really quite impressive.
        In any case, to answer your question directly, we have no
    contract. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is the sponsor
    of our work.
        Mr. Mica. Right.
        Mr. Johnston. Its a competing, investigator-initiated
    research grant that competes with all the other NIH
    applications that go to NIDA.
        Mr. Mica. I think NIDA has contracted specifically with
    Westat. Are you aware of their work?
        Mr. Johnston. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. Have you seen what they have produced?
        Mr. Johnston. Well, I think they are still in the early
    stages, but I have seen some of the thinking that has gone into
    it, and it seems to me it is being well done.
        Mr. Mica. And it will take some time before we can see what
    they've produced, and also compare it with what you produced.
        Mr. Johnston. Right.
        Mr. Mica. Do you think there's any overlap, or have they
    consulted with you at all in what you----
        Mr. Johnston. I served on their Advisory Committee. I don't
    know if it is an ongoing committee or not, but we met once, in
    any case, and they probably had 15 or 20 people.
        They are going into considerably more detail. This is a
    study which is aimed directly at assessing the impact of the
    media campaign, and also trying to measure some of the other
    cultural influences, partly at my suggestion, actually, such as
    media portrayals in entertainment content that might also be
    important determinants that could be confused with what is
    going on in terms of the ad campaign.
        And they are also looking in much more detail at specific
    ads, recall of specific ads, and so forth.
        Our measurement is really quite limited on this specific
    question, but, of course, we can tie it to a lot of other
    things, as I've indicated.
        Mr. Mica. Your charts and your submissions are most
    interesting, detailing some of the trends. In the first figure
    you show the 12th graders' perceived risk of regular use and
    prevalence of use in the past 30 days--pretty dramatic figures
    from 1992.
        I guess we closed down basically the drug czar's office,
    cut the staff dramatically. We had a Surgeon General who sort
    of sent a, ``Just say maybe,'' marijuana message out and
    slashed a number of the other programs, and we see a dramatic
    increase in use and a decrease in the perception of risk. So
    all of those things sort of collided.
        Mr. Johnston. Yes. And, if I may, between 1991 and 1992--
    and these are taken in the spring--there was a decline in
    perceived risk, and that actually preceded the turn around in
    use by a year, so in that case it was a leading indicator of
    things to come.
        It's not too often in social science that we get leading
    indicators like that, and it corresponds pretty well to what I
    was mentioning about the Gulf war, which was in 1991.
        Mr. Mica. I notice you have marijuana here and we have
    cocaine.
        Mr. Johnston. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. Is there also a--do you produce a chart on
    heroin?
        Mr. Johnston. We have charts on virtually all the drugs. I
    just didn't----
        Mr. Mica. I wonder if you could provide us one with heroin.
        Mr. Johnston. Certainly.
        Mr. Mica. I think that that would be--I'd like to have that
    as part of the record.
        Mr. Johnston. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mica. Are you now into methamphetamine, ecstacy, or any
    other drugs?
        Mr. Johnston. Yes. We have data on crystal methamphetamine,
    and I think we have something like 32 classes and subclasses of
    drugs, altogether.
        Mr. Mica. Well, we could get into too many.
        Mr. Johnston. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. But in the major problem categories, if there is
    anything else you could provide us with as far as these charts,
    I think it would be helpful.
        We also heard--I don't want to say some controversial
    testimony, but some testimony from Mr. Sundar that, in
    preventing drug use, his study may indicate that--and I think
    he says we may raise curiosity in there by increased possible
    drug use or abuse.
        What is your assessment of his preliminary study?
        Mr. Johnston. Well, I was glad that he put it as
    preliminary and suggestive. One of the advantages of master's
    dissertations is that they can generate some very interesting
    hypotheses that can lead to some important findings, but they
    often don't have the resources to do a very appropriate design,
    and I think the research design wasn't really up to testing
    these hypotheses.
        I did, however, have some runs done yesterday on a large
    sample and tested one of the two hypotheses, that increased ad
    exposure increases the perception of a number of youngsters in
    the surrounding environment who use drugs.
        That would be an important finding, if true, and I ran that
    correlation in our 1998 eighth grade sample, which is about
    2,500 cases on that particular questionaire form. I then
    replicated it on the 10th grade sample, and in both cases it
    yielded a 0.00 correlation.
        So, when put to a high-powered test, the one hypothesis
    failed. And I would be very cautious about concluding that the
    other hypothesis is true, as well, unless, as you suggest,
    further research supports that.
        The problem with the design was that there were only three
    classrooms of kids. One of them got the treatment and two
    didn't. But we don't know whether that one classroom was
    different to begin with because there was never a pre-measure
    of these variables. It was only an after-the-fact measure. And
    so you have what we call very, very low analytic power in that
    condition, and it is very easy to confuse what was really a
    preselection bias with some kind of an outcome.
        Dr. Sundar. The only thing I would add to that is, in the
    replication, we did a better job of random assignment, which we
    could not do in the initial study. But I agree with you. I
    mean, really, we need to replicate this in very many different
    locations and larger samples for us to even begin to conclude
    about the curiosity effect.
        But this is something for which we haven't come up with an
    alternative explanation, so we put it out there in an
    international conference, which then got picked up by the
    media. So far, nobody has suggested why there might be these
    higher scores on curiosity as a function of watching this.
        Mr. Mica. I have one final question, and we have a vote
    that is pending, so we may have additional questions to submit
    to you, but Congress embarked on this aggressive campaign. We
    also, as you heard, put a number of dos and don'ts in the
    legislative mandate. But one thing that we did--and wisely, I
    think--was to require evaluation. We are spending, I think,
    $40-some million, about $10 million a year for evaluation. That
    is being subcontracted now through NIDA, I believe, most of it,
    and Westat, another subcontract.
        But we set in motion this program, and then an evaluation,
    and then it has now filtered its way down.
        One, do you feel that it is adequate? Two, do you feel--I
    mean, whether you are limited or extensive knowledge, I am not
    sure, of what we are doing. Would you advise Congress that this
    is the way to proceed and we are on target or off base, or
    what? Dr. Johnson, and then Dr. Sundar.
        Mr. Johnston. Well, as I said, I think it is a very well-
    designed piece of work and being very thoughtfully done with
    very broad input.
        This is tough stuff because we are trying to look at
    something that is happening in the natural environment when all
    sorts of other things are happening, but I think that the
    people doing the research are aware of that complexity and of
    course, the first step to solving a problem is to be aware of
    it.
        If I had my 'druthers, it would have been nice if the
    survey could have had the first iteration before any national
    campaign at the Federal level was launched, but that's
    hindsight, because now you have the limitation that you are
    already midway and you already have a measurement, so you keep
    going.
        But I think, given the limitations of reality, that a good
    job is being done, and I don't really have any suggestions for
    change.
        Mr. Mica. Dr. Sundar.
        Dr. Sundar. In general, we are--at least my co-author and I
    are very interested in making sure that any type of campaign,
    be it this one or any anti-drug or any other health
    communication campaign, has the desired consequences. And, to
    the extent this media campaign comes up with evaluation
    research or data to indicate that it has the desired
    consequences and not so many of the unintended ones, one of
    which came out in our study quite accidentally, then I would be
    able to make a better statement on that.
        But at this time, as far as the PSAs go, we are seeing much
    better diversity of PSAs. It's not so much fear appeals, as was
    in earlier years. We are seeing different types of target of
    PSAs.
        We have been studying some of the recent crop of ads, and
    they all seem to fall into some of the other models other than
    fear appeals, and we are pleased to see that. But we would be
    very, very interested in seeing what consequences occur as a
    result, and how the research turns out, how the evaluation
    turns out.
        Mr. Mica. One of the other interesting phenomena--and my
    time is about up because we have this vote--is Mr. Cummings,
    maybe you heard him earlier, talked about the increase in use
    of illegal narcotics among minorities--African Americans, and
    Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the Hispanics, and we've seen that increase.
        You don't have time to respond now, because I am going to
    have to run, but I'd be interested in any of your observations
    about that and how we might approach that and how we could
    monitor that and evaluate success in that area, particularly
    reaching those targeted constituencies.
        I thank both of you for coming before us today.
    Unfortunately, our time has expired for the committee hearing.
        There being no further business to come before this
    subcommittee, this meeting is adjourned.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 1:49 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] T6224.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.109

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.110

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.111

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.112