So what is the problem? You see, the first thing that may start off is that this is not the right place to do this. Why don't you just reauthorize the Office, and we will start looking at this for next year? I mean, this is October. We would like to get out of here next month. We do have a couple of items called health care and North American Free Trade Agreement, not to mention some government appropriations. So that is my job, not yours. You just try to give us a few pointers. So where do we get a handle on this? Let's assume that everybody is essentially correct and that we are essentially in agreement. Who should we send back down the other end of Pennsylvania to tell them that this is all wrong, we have to start all over again, and there are some big problems here, that this nonattention to drugs-I mean, how do we figure out why the President, who has been very sensitive to all issues, has almost forgotten about the drug problem? He may have mentioned it a few times. I am going to ask the staff to pull together all of his Presidential comments about drugs. It shouldn't take more than a couple of pages. What do you make of that? I mean, here is the biggest epidemic in our system. It has been here for decades. And it is almost going by the boards. I mean, if a less socially conscious administration had done this, you would say, well, see that. But here is an administration that is tackling health care, the biggest unfinished item on the social agenda since Roosevelt thought about it in 1934 and Truman mentioned it in 1948 or a little later than that, and here we are tackling that. And within health care is the most outrageous problem of all, the drug problem. No wonder we can't turn the plan into any more than speeches right now. Because what are you-are we going to do with a drug problem this large sticking out from under a health-care revision? So we are just thinking out loud now about how we begin to tackle all of this business. This maybe should be the first item of reinventing government is to go back and rereinvent the Drug Czar's office. What do you think? Mr. MCCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, the first page of the first chapter of the health-care delivery system that would ultimately come out-because from these habits and the others that were mentioned in their presentations stems the major share of the problems, other than just growing old. Mr. CONYERS. Well, can you all come back-can you do part-time work in the Government Operations Committee? This was supposed to have been a simple hearing last week, and now we are into the third hearing for GAO, and now I have to ask the private sector to give me some help. What I would propose, and this will get us out of here quickly, is that Peter can come back. He is Washington-based. It is his turn to come on up on the Hill. And all of you, we are all friends and neighbors. So if we were all together when we go through GAO one more time, that would give you and you could be thinking about some of the problems your chairman has, and then we can begin to move toward this. I have to look at your book. I have to read or at least make a stab at a lot of good material here. And then we will all be prepared to see how we are going to send the news to the White House. I guess that this is where this is going to end up. Mr. MCCANDLESS. I hope that that gentleman's name isn't Garcia. Mr. Garcia had a problem with sending news, and he got there and found himself a statistic. Mr. CONYERS. Well, if you promise to come back, we can conclude this hearing. I mean it is voluntary, of course. Dr. CURTIS. I certainly would. And I would just in 30 seconds, in response to what you said, I certainly wouldn't give up on the new Drug Czar, to have the former police chief of New York who says Mr. CONYERS. He is not a-who is that minister? He is not a Billy Graham type of dude. You know what I mean? That is not Lee Brown's role. I mean, if Jessie Jackson-there is a guy. He doesn't even need the office. But Lee Brown, I don't see that. I don't see him leading the charge rhetorically. Dr. CURTIS. How about the notion that if they are successful with national health care reform that that might give them some momentum to deal with these issues? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, but what year do you contemplate? That is the problem. Ms. FALCO. The need is definitely now. Governor Clinton as candidate pledged to provide treatment on demand if he were elected. I believe he is deeply sincere in that commitment, and his wife is as well. In the health care reform package, the drug benefit doesn't go as far as many people would like. But it is a solid start, assuming it is finally adopted. But we cannot afford to wait until 1997, 1998, whenever this thing finally gets rolling. Even if health care reform would solve the treatment problem by the year 2000, we need to do something right now. What nobody talked about in the previous panel is that treatment is now available to fewer than a third of the Nation's addicts unless they can afford to pay for private care. It is those addicts who are driving the criminal justice system and creating so many burdens on our health care system. We have to address it. Mr. CONYERS. I understand that. Ms. FALCO. Now. Mr. CONYERS. OK. We will send you a notice for the next meeting. Ms. FALCO. Yes, we will help. Mr. CONYERS. I appreciate your spirit of volunteerism. It is very moving because, unless we all do this together, it is going to be hard to be done. You have given us-I think these hearings will be carefully examined, especially by my friends in the White House, because there is a leadership issue involved here. This isn't really going to come out of a subcommittee on Government Operations. So I bet you if I abolish the Czar's office, that will get some attention. I mean, we have to use attention-getting devices. Of course, we don't want to create an injury in the process of getting attention. So we are trying to do this as reasonable ladies and gentlemen. But you know. You have been up here. You sometimes have to resort to some theatrical activity before anybody pays attention. There are 1,000 things happening in Washington every day. I think this drug issue is going to have to be dealt with. I am prepared to do whatever is necessary-be reasonable, be active, be dramatic, be quiet, anything. But it is not going to continue on like it is if I have any impact on this subject. Mr. MCCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting an amendment to one of the appropriation bills-and you are asking me to cosign legislation that would do away with the office in question as a beginning point? The 2 by 4? Mr. CONYERS. Look, we are either-it is as serious as we all agree it is and we are prepared to do something about it or we are just more actors on the stage with very important views, feelings and this thing keeps chugging along. I am fortunate to have a bipartisan committee that works very closely on these kinds of matters so it doesn't degenerate into the usual political kinds of squabbles that too often come out of, even surround, an important subject. So we may be in a unique position in Government Operations to be helpful. And certainly your testimony has been very important. And I thank you for trying to assist us in the future when we all come back together again. The reason we are going to look at government-the GAO again-is because we are going to go over everything we have said and see if we can keep them moving forward. As a matter of fact, we ought to invite the Comptroller General. We were supposed to have met today anyway. Why don't we bring him in on this subject? His people are doing a very good job. Let's invite him to join us as well. We thank you very much, and the subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20513 October 1, 1993 Lee P. Brown Director Office of National Drug Control Policy Dear Director Brown: Thank you for your letter of August 30, 1993, soliciting Republican recommendations for developing an anti-drug strategy. Republicans have consistently made drug control through educational campaigns, rigorous enforcement of drug-free workplaces, and tough law enforcement measures our highest priority, and we commend you for approaching your strategy formation in a bi-partisan manner. At the outset, we feel compelled to offer some constructive criticism of this Administration's drug control efforts thus far. The most important thing this Administration can do in arriving at a drug control strategy is to put a stop to actions that create the perception that you have raised a white flag in the war on drugs. Announcements and trial balloons floated over the past few months have created the impression that this Administration is not committed to pursuing the tough drug control policies advocated by the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Specifically, we are disturbed by press reports that the Attorney General has successfully argued against including the death penalty for drug kingpins and mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related crimes in recently introduced Democrat crime bills. These disturbing developments occur in the context of this Administration's reducing staff at the Office of National Drug Control Policy by more than 80 percent and slashing the International Narcotics Matters budget of the State Department. In addition, we are concerned that proposals to shift drug interdiction resources to eradication in the source country may result in overall funding cuts, rather than mere reallocation of resources. We are also concerned that not all government agencies are fully complying with requirements to certify that they are maintaining drug-free workplaces. (265) |