Table Of ContentPOSTAL AND GENERAL
TREASURY, SERVICE,
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1994
^
Y 4.AP 6/1: T 71/4
o
Treasuryi Postal Service; and Gener. . . T"^/^
BEFORE A
^COMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS
STENY H. HOVER, Maryland, Chairman
PETERJ.VISCLOSKY, Indiana JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
GEORGE(BUDDY)DARDEN,Georgia FRANKR. WOLF,Virginia
JOHNW.OLVER.Massachusetts ERNESTJ. ISTOOK,Jr.,Oklahoma
TOMBEVILL,Alabama
MARTINOLAVSABO.Minnesota
C. William Smith, Elizabeth A. Phillips. Robyn C. Bason, and Jennifer Mummert,
StaffAssistants
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POUCY
MAR 6
t f99^
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
POSTAL AND GENERAL
TREASURY, SERVICE,
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR
nSCAL YEAR 1994
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland, Chairman
PETERJ. VISCLOSKY, Indiana JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
GEORGE(BUDDY)DARDEN,Georgia FRANKR. WOLF,Virginia
JTOOHMNBWE.VIOLLLV.EARl,abMaamssaachusetts ERNESTJ. ISTOOK,Jr., Oklahoma
MARTINOLAVSABO, Minnesota
C. William Smith, Elizabeth A. Phillips, Robyn C. Bason, and Jennifer Mummert,
StaffAssistants
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-^05 WASHINGTON 1994
:
horsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPnntingOftlce
SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOfrice.Washington.DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-0A3499-8
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky. Chairman
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi, JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
NEAL SMITH, Iowa C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
SIDNEY R. YATES, IlUnois RALPH REGULA Ohio
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JERRY LEWIS, California
TOM BEVILL, Alabama JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois
JOHN P. MURTHA Pennsylvania HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
CHARLES WILSON, Texas JOE SKEEN. New Mexico
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota TOM Delay, Texas
JULIAN C. DIXON, Cahfomia JIM KOLBE, Arizona
VIC FAZIO. CaUfomia DEAN A GALLO, NewJersey
W. G. (BILL) HEFNER. North Carolina BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada
STENY H. HOYER. Maryland JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
BOB CARR, Michigan RON PACKARD, Cahfomia
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SONNY CALLAHAN. Alabama
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, WestVirginia JAMES T. WALSH, New York
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North CaroUna
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma
DAVID E. PRICE, North CaroUna HENRY BONILLA, Texas
NANCY PELOSI, California
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA Pennsylvania
ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, CaUfomia
GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JOSE E. SERRANO, New Yorit
ROSA L. DeLAURO. Connecticut
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
ED PASTOR, Arizona
CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
Frederick G. Mohrman, Clerk and StaffDirector
(II)
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRLVTIONS FOR
1994
Monday, November 15, 1993.
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
gag witnesses
henry r. wray, director, administration of justice issues,
generalgovernment division
weldon mcphail, assistant director, administration of jus-
tice issues, generalgovernmentdivision
Introduction
Mr. HOYER. I would like to welcome you today to a hearing on
this country's National Drug Control policy. It would be very easy
for a hearing such as this to become de-focused because there are
so many aspects ofthe illegal drug problem.
It doesn't just deal with supply reduction or demand reduction.
It does not just deal with national. Federal State, or local govern-
ments. In a very real sense, it deals with individuals making deci-
sions about how we as a society can persuade individuals to make
the right decision.
We
are going to focus this hearing on the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. I view that Office as the one which is responsible,
and I believe the Congress perceived that as well when it handed
down the legislation, for assisting the President in development of
a National Drug Control Policy and for the implementation of that
policy after it has been approved.
The development and implementation ofthat policy must be com-
prehensive and involve all levels of government. It involves appro-
priate law enforcement response to those individuals who do not
conform their behavior to our laws, who supply illegal drugs. It
also involves the creation of appropriate economic and other alter-
natives to those individuals who use those drugs, which is demand
reduction.
This policy must also take into account the roles which the pri-
vate sector, social institutions, and families have in helping solve
this problem.
It is interesting to note a recent change in the basic drug control
strategy. The January 1993 National Drug Control Strategy states
that, and I quote, "The essence of the drug problem is drug use.
Our ultimate goal, and the measure of our success, must be to re-
duce the number ofAmericans who use drugs." Nine months later,
the September 1993 Interim National Drug Control Strategy states
(1)
that: "We begin this new course by recognizing that the principal
drug problem today lies with hard-core use."
This shift in emphasis from the reduction in general use to the
reduction of hard-core drug use may be a significant change in pol-
icy which we will be reviewing during the course ofthese hearings.
In the series of hearings which we will be holding over the next
two days, we will be reviewing the process by which our drug con-
trol strategy is developed and implemented. We will review the ex-
tent to which the strategy includes realistic, comprehensive, re-
search-based, long-range goals for reducing both general and hard-
core drug use in tne United States.
In addition, we will be reviewing short-term measurable objec-
tives which may be realistically achieved and that are compatible
with the long-range goals. Furthermore, we want to ensure an ap-
propriate balance is maintained between resources devoted to sup-
ply reduction and demand reduction, and that there is adequate co-
ordination between Federal, State and local drug control activities
to ensure that the United States pursues well-coordinated and ef-
fective drug control at all levels ofthe government.
I expect this hearing to give us a better perspective on both what
the ONDCP does and how the overall drug control program can be
more efficiently and effectively controlled and coordinated. Mr.
Lightfoot is not here, but I would be glad to recognize Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. No.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Wolfhas no statement.
Mr. Visclosky, do you have any opening statement.
Mr. Visclosky. I am fine, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Hover. I recognize Mr. Wray. You might want to introduce
your colleagues who are here with you.
Summary Statement of Mr. Wray
Mr. Wray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the sub-
committee, I would like to introduce Weldon McPhail, Assistant Di-
rector in our Government Division, who is primarily responsible for
much of the work GAO has done in the drug area in recent years.
With your permission, I would like to summarize my statement
and ask that the full statement be submitted for the record.
Mr. HOYER. Fine. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Wray. We are pleased to be here today to discuss the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. My testimony is based primarily
on our September 1993 report to the House Committee on Govern-
ment Operations entitled Drug Control Reauthorization of the Of-
fice ofNational Drug Control Policy.
As the title suggests, this report focuses on first whether the of-
fice should be reauthorized and also, if it is reauthorized, what les-
sons have been learned from ONDCP's past operations that could
enhance its performance in the future.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 created ONDCP with an initial
life of five years. The act requires it to first develop and issue to
Congress a National Drug Control strategy with long-term and
short-term objectives, and Federal budget estimates for reducing
drug supply and demand.
Second, to coordinate and oversee implementation ofthe strategy
by Federal drug control agencies; and third, to annually assess and
reissue the strategy to take into account what progress has been
made and what lessons have been learned during the previous
year.
As articulated in ONDCP's past National Drug Control strate-
gies, the war on drugs consisted of two fronts. The first is against
intermittent or so-called casual drug use, and the second front is
against chronic and addictive or so-called hard-core drug use.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, from its inception, ONDCP
chose to measure the success of the National Drug Control strate-
gies in terms of progress toward actual drug reduction. While the
reported progress in reducing casual drug use has been encourag-
ing, hard core drug use is largely unchecked.
In short, the Nation still faces a very serious drug problem. As
the preface to ONDCP's 1993 National Drug Control strategy ob-
serves: "America is still in the midst ofa drug epidemic."
Given the severity of the problem and the large number of Fed-
eral, State and local agencies working on the problem, we believe
that there is a continuing need for a central planning agency, such
as ONDCP, to provide leadership and coordination to the Nation's
drug control efforts.
If ONDCP is reauthorized, however, we believe that it needs to
develop program evaluation measures for assessing progress
through the annual drug control strategies. While goals and meas-
ures focusing on reducing actual drug use are important, we see
two fundamental problems with relying so heavily on such bottom-
line indicators.
First, measuring actual drug use is extremely difficult for a num-
ber of reasons. My written statement goes into some detail on that
point. Second, measures of actual drug use will not alone provide
decision makers with the information they need to assess and as
necessary adjust or redirect the components of the drug control ef-
fort.
The drug control efforts have many components and involve
many different agencies. The complex array of programs, activities,
and agencies obviously presents a number of alternatives and
trade-offs. The annual strategies contain few goals or performance
indicators and little information on which to judge the respective
contributions made by these major components or their constituent
activities. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate which components of
the strategies are working, which are not, and how any particular
component directly contributes to the overall goal of reducing drug
use.
Clearly the better measures of success established by the strate-
gies, the better the decision making can be on directing and
redirecting drug policies, budgets, and operations. Therefore, we
recommended in our report that Congress include in any legislation
ONDCP
reauthorizing a direction that the office, in consultation
with drug control agencies, develop additional measures to assess
the progress in reducing drug use, particularly hard-core drug use,
develop performance measures to evaluate the contributions made
by major components of current anti-drug efforts and significant
new initiatives, and incorporate these measures into future drug
control strategies.
In this regard I might mention, while not discussed in our report,
that the recently enacted Government Performance and Results
Act, S. 20, reinforces in general the importance of performance
measures in looking at Federal programs across the board.
In addition to indicating a fundamental need for enhanced and
refined performance measures, our work concerning ONDCP's past
efforts provides some lessons learned that might be useful ifthe of-
fice were reauthorized.
We believe that ONDCP and the Federal drug control agencies
need to work more cooperatively to develop assess and coordinate
National Drug Control policy. Frequent disagreements and conflict
have strained working relationships between ONDCP and the De-
partments ofEducation and Justice and HHS.
In particular, in the past, ONDCP and HHS have had major dis-
agreements over the selection and reporting of drug data. Also, in
some instances, ONDCP's past oversight efforts were viewed as
micromanagement by the three departments.
Better working relationships will be particularly important to
ONDCP's future success. We believe if it is downsized as has been
proposed with fewer resources, ONDCP will have to rely more on
the cooperation of Federal agencies to accomplish its responsibil-
ities and oversee the coordination ofdrug policies.
One of ONDCPs responsibilities is to oversee and coordinate
Federal agencies' implementation of the National Drug Control
strategies. With approximately 50 Federal agencies involved in
anti-drug programs, the task is a formidable one. While ONDCP
has established numerous interagency working groups and commit-
tees as coordinating mechanisms, some duplication and coordina-
tion problems persist.
For example, earlier this year, we reported that Federal organi-
zations operate 19 different counter narcotics intelligence centers,
many of which seem to have overlapping responsibilities. We be-
ONDCP
lieve strong leadership by is the key to addressing such
fragmentation and duplication.
Finally, the 1988 act required ONDCP to review and certify in
writing that ginnual drug control budget submissions from each
program manager or agency and department with drug control re-
sponsibilities are adequate to implement the objectives of the Na-
tional Drug Control strategy.
The three-tier drug review and certification process envisioned by
the 1988 act has proven to be impractical. ONDCP has limited its
reviews primarily to agency and departmental budgets. Since its
inception, it has only been able to selectively review the hundreds
ofprogram budgets involved in the process.
If ONDCP is reauthorized, we recommend that Congress replace
the current statutory language requiring reviews and certification
of budget submissions from each program manager, agency head
and department head with a simple mandate that ONDCP review
and certify drug control budgets at such stages and times as it con-
siders appropriate.
We believe that this approach of affording ONDCP more flexibil-
ity in its budget reviews again is particularly important if the
agency is downsized as has been proposed by the administration.
This completes my summary, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement ofHenry R. Wray follows:]
UnitedStates(GeneralAccounlineOffice
GAO
Testimony
BeforetheSubcommitteeonTreasury,PostalService,and
GeneralGovernment
CommitteeonAppropriations
HouseofRepresentatives
DRUG CONTROL
ForReleaseonDelivery
Expectedai
NovemberIS.1993
2:00pjn.
The Office ofN—ational Drug
Control
Policy Strategies
Need Performance Measures
Stateinentof
HenryR.Wray
Director
AdministrationofJusticeIssues
GeneralGovernmentDivision
GA0/T-GGD-*M9 GAOFonBlM(12/91)
OPR.-OIMC/KX-
