Table Of Content

POSTAL 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 justice 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 comprehensive and involve all levels of government. It involves appropriate 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 alternatives 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 policy 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 control 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 objectives which may be realistically achieved and that are compatible with the long-range goals. Furthermore, we want to ensure an appropriate balance is maintained between resources devoted to supply reduction and demand reduction, and that there is adequate coordination 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 subcommittee, 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 office should be reauthorized and also, if it is reauthorized, what lessons 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 strategies, 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 strategies 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 measures 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 number 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 strategies, 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 office 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 disagreements 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 responsibilities 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 coordination 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 responsibilities 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-