|
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Confirmation Hearing of John P. Walters
to be Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
October 10, 2001
As all of you know, this hearing was originally scheduled for the
morning of September 11, and was, of course, postponed as a result of the
terrorist attacks in New York and near Washington. I wanted to make sure
we rescheduled this hearing as soon as possible, as drug abuse remains a
vital problem for this nation and we need to continue to pay attention to
our domestic priorities even as we engage in our necessary response to
terrorism. I thank Senator Biden for working with me to find a new date
for this hearing, and I look forward to a comprehensive examination of
this nomination.
I come to this hearing with many concerns. I do not doubt that John
Walters has thought seriously about our nation’s drug problems, but I do
doubt the conclusions he has reached and forcefully expressed on issues
ranging from drug treatment to interdiction to sentencing issues. In
short, I am not yet convinced that he is the right person to head the
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
We have worked hard on this committee to ensure a speedy and fair
hearing for the Bush Administration’s executive branch nominees. Within
days of the Senate’s reorganization and my becoming Chairman, I noticed
a hearing on Asa Hutchinson’s nomination to head the Drug Enforcement
Administration. After we had the hearing, I expedited the process to
provide a quick committee vote, and then worked to secure a vote on the
floor so that Mr. Hutchinson’s nomination could be approved before the
August recess. I similarly expedited the process for the nominations of
Robert Mueller to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation and of James
Ziglar to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others.
The voluminous and opinionated record that Mr. Walters has developed
requires a thorough examination. I have four areas of concern about his
record that I would like to see addressed in this hearing.
First, there is a growing and bipartisan consensus that we need to do
much more to improve drug treatment and take other steps to reduce the
demand for drugs. President Bush has said that "[t]he most effective
way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for
drugs in America" and has promised that his Administration will
concentrate "unprecedented attention" on the demand for drugs.
In the Senate, I have joined with Senator Hatch, Senator Biden and others
to introduce S.304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment
Act. That legislation would increase the federal focus on treatment
programs, with targeted programs to improve treatment opportunities and
effectiveness in rural areas, programs devoted to drug-addicted mothers,
and more.
I am curious to find out whether Mr. Walters believes the approach
taken by S.304 is a helpful and appropriate one, and whether he shares in
this growing pro-treatment consensus. Mr. Walters has faulted the concept
that addiction is a disease, referring to that concept as an
"ideology" even though it is held widely – if not universally
– by government and private experts. He has written that "the
culture of victimhood lies at the core of the therapeutic worldview,"
a statement I hope he can explain today. He has said that he supports
"good" treatment but sharply criticized existing treatment
providers, aside from faith-based providers. In short, although Mr.
Walters has not developed a lengthy record on treatment questions, some of
his statements have caused great concern among those who care about
treating drug addiction. I look forward to hearing a further explanation
of his views today.
Second, I am concerned about the nominee’s position on issues related
to criminal punishment. We all agree – on both sides of the aisle –
that people who break our laws must be punished, and that those who
traffic in and sell drugs deserve to be incarcerated for substantial
periods of time. At the same time, many of us – Democrats and
Republicans – have come to question our reliance on mandatory minimum
sentences for a wide variety of drug offenses, as well as the 100 to 1
disparity under current law between sentences for crack and powder
cocaine. In his writings and statements, Mr. Walters has been hostile to
reconsideration of these issues. For example, he wrote as recently as
March 2001 that the idea that we are imprisoning too many people for
merely possessing illegal drugs or that criminal sentences are too long or
harsh were "among the great urban myths of our time." This
statement flies in the face of the widespread dissatisfaction with
mandatory minimum sentences among policymakers and federal judges. Indeed,
Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conferences made up of
representatives from all 12 U.S. circuits have called for the repeal of
federal mandatory minimum sentences.
The disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine has been a
significant contributing factor to the disproportionate imprisonment of
African-Americans. Under current law, it takes only 1 percent as much
crack cocaine to trigger equal mandatory minimum penalties with powder
cocaine. This disparity has a severe racial impact as African-Americans
are much more likely to be sentenced for crack offenses. For example, in
FY 1999, blacks accounted for 84.7 percent of those sentenced for crack
offenses and whites just 5.4 percent. There is also reason to doubt the
logic of the crack-powder distinction on law enforcement grounds. Since
cocaine is imported and distributed in powder form, and only manufactured
into crack at the retail level, those persons at the highest end of the
drug distribution chain are rarely affected by the increased crack
penalties. In other words, the harshest sentences are reserved for less
culpable offenders.
Despite these troubling facts, Mr. Walters has referred to the racial
impact of the sentencing disparity as a "perceived racial
injustice" and urged Congress in 1996 testimony to "[b]lock
lower crack sentences" and to strip the U.S. Sentencing Commission of
authority even to propose changes in criminal penalties where
Congress has adopted mandatory minimums.
Third, Mr. Walters’ reaction to popular and legislative judgments by
various States to allow limited use of marijuana for medical purposes also
causes me concern. Numerous states have considered and passed medical
marijuana initiatives, some by substantial majorities. Mr. Walters has
responded to this trend by advocating that the federal Government use the
Controlled Substances Act to take away the federal licenses from any
physician who prescribes marijuana to a patient in states that permit the
practice. Such a step would prevent these doctors from prescribing or
possessing any medication that is federally controlled, basically making
the practice of medicine impossible. In addition to running roughshod over
any federalism concerns whatsoever, Mr. Walters’ draconian response
raises questions about his sense of proportion. Although shutting down the
process as he has suggested may be effective in rendering these
State-passed initiatives meaningless, his proposal is a very blunt
instrument, to say the least.
Fourth, I am concerned that Mr. Walters will seek to have the United
States overextend its anti-drug role in Latin America. Throughout his
career, he has been a prominent spokesman for the cause of drug
interdiction. Prior to the development of Plan Colombia, he said that
"we need to do more in Latin America" in "[f]ighting drugs
at the source." He has also been a consistent supporter of increasing
the U.S. military’s role in preventing drugs from entering the United
States. I do not disagree that reducing the supply of drugs would have
tremendous benefits for our nation. At the same time, I agree with
President Bush that the reason that so many drugs find their way to our
shores is because there is substantial demand for them. The costs – both
financial and political – of our involvement in the internal affairs of
Latin American nations require close scrutiny. I have been skeptical about
Plan Colombia, and I would be skeptical of additional proposals of that
nature. I am curious to find out whether Mr. Walters would recommend that
such proposals be offered.
My fear is that for Mr. Walters, there is no question about drugs to
which a hard-line law enforcement response is not the answer, even to
complicated issues on which there is diverse opinion. I am not sure this
is what American needs in its new drug czar. What we may need is a greater
reliance on data and pragmatism and less of an ideological focus.
Clearly, I have numerous concerns and questions about the positions
this nominee has expressed. In making this statement today, I am
attempting to put my concerns on the record so that Mr. Walters will have
ample opportunity to respond. Despite my numerous disagreements with Mr.
Walters’ past statements, I believe him to be an intelligent and
accomplished man, and I will give his testimony and his responses to the
committee’s questions the close attention they deserve.
# # # # #
|
