>> the subcommittee will come to order. i want to welcome our witness, acting director botacelli, this is the first time he appeared before the appropriations committee and i appreciate you coming to testify and thank you for your service. the office of national drug control policy is charged with extremely different task of coordinating multiple efforts to it address many different drug related issues at home and abroad. in addition, you administer some of the very effective drug prevention and enforcement grant programs. and today the committee will examine the office of national drug control policies fiscal year 2015 budget request along with your efforts to develop and

coordinate our nation's drug policies. the budget request submitted by the president has interesting priorities within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. while the administration is requesting and increase of over $1 billion for the irs, increase over $500 million for the gsa, the administration has recommended a decrease below enacted year fiscal 2014 for the high intensity in drug trafficking areas program and the drug free communities program. both of these are drug prevention enforcement programs there to mobilize communities and increase collaboration among community law enforcement. i can say that specifically they have a really good impact in my district down in jacksonville, florida. so i would typically applaud proposed reductions in federal spending but it makes me wonder why these drug prevention

enforcement programs are being reduced because recently the attorney general announced that heroin overdoses are urgent and growing public health crises. states are telling our children that marijuana use is okay by decriminalizing recreational marijuana. our nation's problems with cocaine, meth and prescription drugs certainly haven't gone down any. and so i find it a little hard to believe that the administration feels that efforts to keep drugs away from our children and out of our communities should be reduced while proposing increases for the bureaucracy of the irs and assigned to these federal buildings. as the agency is charged with developing our nation's drug policies, you have the difficult assignment of ensuring that not only the department of state, department of defense, department of justice, department of homeland security and department of health and human services and numerous

other agencies are all working in coordinated manner to address our highest priority drug concerns. i look forward to your testimony today on how the office of national drug control policy is leading these efforts on this coordinated role. >> more specifically, we have heard concerns that the food and drug administration doesn't always take law enforcement's concerns with prescription drug abuse into account when approving new prescription. pain medication, we've also heard concerns that reductions in military spending could significantly reduce counter narcotics activities in latin america and that increases the availability of illegal drugs in the use and hope to hear in your testimony today what you all are doing about some of these major concerns. our nation continues to fight a drug problem that takes lives, brings about violence and harms our communities and families and i know that you and your staff are working hard to keep our

country safe and healthy. so once again, acting director botacelli, welcome. with that i would like to turn the microphone over to my colleague, ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i would like to join you in welcoming the acting director. i love that name. second baseman for the boston red sox. the mission at the forefront of federal drug policy and intersession of several federal agencies such as department of justice and state and treasury. the fiscal year 2015 budget request for ondcp is $311 million, decrease of 55 million. this will hopefully be targeted towards improved coordination and oversight of interagency

drug control programs and policies, something i continue to be concerned about with regard to the agency. this issue is relevant in light of the attorney general eric holder's recent proposal for reduced drug sentence. i hope we'll be able to discuss this issue so i can better understand your role in these efforts and learn what you're doing to reform some of our criminal justice policies with regard to drugs. i also continue to be interested in the development of a caribbean border counter narcotics strategy. the fiscal year consolidated appropriations act included language requiring your agency to develop a comprehensive caribbean border counter narcotics strategy just as you have done for other u.s. borders. i believe this is not only an issue of parity but extremely critical because of drug trafficking and it is essential

puerto rico is included in the drug strategy. i look forward to discussing these and other issues in detail. thank you for your service and appearing before us. >> thank you. chairman rogers wanted to be here today but he could not shall be here. without objection i'll make his statement part of the record. so now acting director bota botacelli, i think of art -- >> art? >> opera singer for the boston red sox. >> anyway, if you could keep your remarks to about five minutes or so, that will give us time for questions and then your entire statement will be submitted for the record. >> chairman crenshaw and members of the subcommittee, as indicated my name is michael

botbo botticelli, i'm here to discuss the 2015 budget request for ondcp. it was created by statute in 1988 and in november of 2013 marked our office's 25th anniversary. on d.c. p has directives for the drug program to coordinate the federal government's efforts to reduce illicit drug use and including drug manufacturing and trafficking, drug related crime and violence and drug related health consequences. to achieve these goals, they are charged with producing the administration's national drug control strategy and ensuring executive branch agency control supports the strategy. the administration strategy first released in 2010 is based upon input from public health and public safety professionals

across the country and on decades of research from the top si scientists, one that can be prevented and treated and from which one with recover. they also have responsibility for working with our national and international partners to develop the national southwest border counternarcotics strategy, the northern northern border counternarcotics strategy. fy 2014 enacted budget also contained a directive for ondcp to develop a strategy now in progress. our nation faces a number of substance abuse, there's an epidemic of opiate drug abuse, super passes homicide and traffic crashes in the number of injury deaths in america. heroin use remains relatively low in the united states as compared to other drugs but there has been a troubling increase in the number of people using heroin.

evidence suggests some users, will substitute heroin for prescription opioids since it is often cheaper than prescription drugs. a recent report from the mental health services administration found that while only 3.6% of people who had started using prescription drugs nonmedically ever initiated heroin use in the following five-year period, four-fifths of recent initiatives previously used prescription pain relievers nonmedically. these findings demonstrate that we need to take a comprehensive approach to addressing opioid drugs, including more widespread use and emergency oepiate reversal medication and as well as expanded access to medication assisted treatment. multiple studies show young people's attitudes towards marijuana use and nonmedical use of prescription drugs are soften. each day an estimated 4400 young

people under the age of 18 initiate drug use for the first time. this can have a profound effect in the future. since research shows us in earlier a person begins to use drugs, the more likely they are to develop a substance abuse disorder. to enable ondcp to accomplish administrations goals to at a dress these and other numerous challenges from substance use disorders, the perfect is suggesting 311 million for nfy 2015, this represents a decrease of 55 million from ondcp's enacted budget. however it has been developed to ensure we have the resources to meet the goals while reducing spending. ondcp's budget request includes funding for two grant programs that support efforts throughout the nation to reduce drug use and its consequences. the drug free community through dfc support program provides grants to local drug free community coalitions to prevent

and reduce youth substances. the dfc program provides grants to local drug free community coalitions, enabling them to increase collaboration among partners and prevent youth substance abuse. during fy 2013, a total of 643 grants were awarded. the president's request for the grant program is 85.6 million, a decrease from the fy 2014 enacted budget. the program helps improve the efficiency and effectiveness of drug control efforts by facilitating cooperation between federal and state and tribal law enforcement as well as other drug control organizations. the president's request of 193.4 million for the program is a decrease of 45 million from the ny 2014 enacted budget.

however, this request maintains the program focus and mission of reducing drug trafficking and production. core functions will be maintained. in addition to ondcp's administering the grants program, they are responsible for overseeing and evaluating the agencies throughout the federal government as well as overseeing the consolidated national drug control budget to ensure that drug control funding proposed by this agency is adequate to carry out the strategy. the president's fy2015 national drug control budget request is 25.4 billion governmentwide. this represents an increase of 151 million over the fy 2014 enacted level. reflecth need to address public health and safety, the portion of the budget requested for drug treatment and prevention efforts, 43% has grown to its

highest level in over 12 years. i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify and happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. let me start by asking -- you mentioned it was going to be reduced by $45 million and i mentioned in my opening remarks that kind of a strange sense of priorities when you asked for a billion dollars for the irs and half a billion dollars to the general service administration and the last couple of years the funding has been reduced in the proposed budgets but congress each year has restored that funding. again in today's world when states are legalizing marijuana and production is up in afghanistan, cocaine and heroin use all of that is up, what do

you think the impact would be if you were to reduce it by $45 million? >> clearly, chairman, the program is really essential both at the federal and state and local level in terms of being able to enhance efficiency and information sharing among law enforcement entities. we consider that incredibly powerful program. our challenge was within restrained resources. making sure that we will maintain core functions and core services with our program. so to that extent, this will not result in any -- any elimination of our programs and maintain the core mission and core functions. the biggest impact will be on the ability to addressee merging drug threats that we see in the community. it will preserve the core functions and preserve our core inf infrastructu infrastructure. >> in your opinion, it's still effective, the things you're doing, it's just a matter of not

as much money to go around but as you note the last couple of years congress has restored the funding. so you wouldn't be upset if it happened again? >> we see our program is incredibly valuable programs. one of the things over the past year that i've seen with the programs is their ability to be flexible and nim bl at the state and local level in terms of really responding to local threats and local emergencies. >> the other question is briefly that you have this drug free community program and i think there are 600 coalitions across the united states. they work on mobilizing communities and increased collaboration, things like that. how do you measure the progress that's been made by those community groups, those are grants they receive in funds. how do you go about deciding who's effective and how effective and things like that? >> sure, one of the things i think we know, local drug use

patterns are different among localities and what it requires to really reduce substance abuse at the local level is looking at the community factors but also convening all of the local state agencies and schools to really look at implementing evidence based prevention program at the local level. as you indicated, for ny14, we're estimating we're going to have 672 of those local coalitions. they have been nationally evaluated and it's shown that those communities that have community programs are able to substantially reduce drug use in their communities so these are programs that are implementing evidence based prevention programs and also nationally evaluated and have been shown to reduce substance use among youth at the local level. >> those funds are being reduced or proposed to be reduced. how would that impact your ability? would you give less grants or

would the grants be smaller? how would you handle that reduction? >> sure, so at this point it doesn't mean that we would take back any existing grants. those grants would continue through the grant cycle. what it would mean, we would probably be able to award 50 less grants in fy 15 than 2014. >> how much do you think it would take to continue to fund the number of grants you've funded in the past? >> in terms of looking at level funding in terms of fy 14 enacted, that's approximately $92 million for the program and with other it's $92 million. >> got you. thank you. >> mr. serrano. >> mr. chairman, that was going to be my first question also that you asked. let me just -- i don't know if you got the number the right the same way as i see it, it was -- not you about mr. botticelli.

you said 672. that's what it is now. it will reduced to 614, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> you spoke of spreading the money around more. that's a program at a seems to be working. i'm wondering why the administration would propose a cut. i think you're hearing something, unless i heard it wrong, something that usually don't hear from all members of a committee and that is asking the question, how can you continue to function at a level that does credit to a program that obviously works and has the support of many members of this committee. >> you know, clearly our drug free communities program is one of the back bones of our prevention infrastructure in the united states. obviously we had to look at how did we have restraints spending in fy 2015.

again, i think the proposal if enacted would be we didn't eliminate any of the existing grantees but have about 50 less new grants in fy 2015. >> so you don't think it will be a result of reducing 672 to 614. we went by those numbers. there would be a reduction to 614 or not? >> it would be an overall reduction but it does mean we would eliminate any existing grantees. that money would continue. it just means we would have less money about -- we would be able to award 50 less grants, new grants in fy 2015. >> okay. let me ask you about the caribbean border counter narcotics strategy. that was as you mentioned language that was put in the bill at the request of many of us, include gs the resident commissioner from puerto rico. and you know, this issue speaks

to two situations. a lot of florida members can speak to it. that is that first the territories get less attention than the states. most importantly in this case, that we're -- shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing one border, if you will, to be totally open, not only to enter the territory but then make it to the mainland as we say. it's both setting this one up and i want to hear your thoughts on how quickly that can be set up and setting this one up not only helps those two territories from having the drugs come into their area, but then it helps the states especially florida, with the drugs coming into the states. >> right. you know, clearly our ability to -- drugs in the caribbean is core to the strategy. as you indicated, the more drugs we can intercept the more we

have less coming to our local communities. clearly having a caribbean strategy i think that supports the work we're trying to do domestically is particularly important. we have made progress in terms of the development of that caribbean strategy so we've already convened meetings across our interagency looking at how each of these relevant federal interagency partners can support the priority action items of the kr caribbean strategy. we continue to work with them and that strategy is in progress and we hope to have it to you shortly. >> i hope so. i know we have other members, i want to make a statement for the record and that is something that i've said over and over again in my 24 years in congress, that any time drugs enter one of our territories, it has in fact entered the united states and a lot of people see it as it didn't enter into the united states until it gets to florida or texas or new mexico. not true, if it enters any

territory, under the american flag, it enters the united states and should be fought in the same way it's fought when it enters one of the states. i thank you for your reply. >> thank you. i was handed a note, we actually have staff who will meet with your staff on friday to be updating you on our progress to the strategy. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. botticelli for your testimony here today. i want to confine my remarks initially and questions on weed. because there's certainly been a lot of discussion about it from the miracle from the medical side of the equation to the outright legalization for recreational use and i have my own pretty hard core philosophical objections to what's going on around our country. but my question is, as far as

you and ondcp is concerned, help me understand what involvement your office has had with states like colorado that have gone in this direction and helping educate people on what the true effects of this increased use happens to be here? >> i think you know that office of national drug control policy and the administration has remained opposed to drug legalization. and i think we come at this from a public health standpoint particularly as it relates to what we think the impact will be on our youth. you've raised some pretty important concerns. we now have more 12th grader using marijuana than smoking cigarettes and the perception of risk is at the lowest level. we know generally when youth perceive something as less risky, they are more likely to

try a substance. clearly we have been concerned in terms of what the impact will be in colorado. but not only that, what is the message that that sends our youth nationally in terms of what it means to use marijuana. we have been engaged following on the department of justice criteria with both colorado and washington as well as with our federal partners to monitor both the public safety and public health impact that legalization will have in colorado and washington in terms of the transportation of marijuana from one state to another. are we going to see increased pref lance in use among our youth. we've been engaged with governors oofss and health department to see how they are going to implement regular tri schemes to ensure that they are doing everything possible to

mitigate the safety and public health aspects. >> you've weighed in and your office has helped try to educate the country on this particular subject. and do you anticipate that there might be a more -- i bigger or higher response, a larger response, waiting response to what's we see going on around the country? >> again, i think what we generally try to do with our existing resources wf both within the drug free communities and other resources to try to. -- that we need to really counteract some of the messages that youth are getting in terms of what the perceived safety, if you will of marijuana. >> there's no way we can put a crystal ball in front of you to

kind of look into the future. do you -- if there was a crystal ball in front of you, do you anticipate having to reach back to say, colorado as an example as i've already mentioned them and have one of these i told you so moments? >> what the department of justice has laid out in terms of their federal law enforcement priorities was a clear indication that they resolve the right to take subsequent action if colorado and washington haven't demonstrated their ability to meet those criteria as it relates to public health and safety. as public health persons we have every reason to think that we're going to see problems in colorado and washington. and again, usually the data and science suggests that as youth see something as less harmful, there will be a correlational increase in terms of their youth. that's what we're seeing nationally. i do think we have some concerns in terms of colorado and

nationally in terms of looking at the data we have now, but also what that means going forward. >> finally, mr. chairman, if i may, you know, i've -- a subject that's near and dear to my heart we talked about it in previous hearings on this particular subject matter. i experienced this with my own family, so i think i'm not a subject matter expert by any means but i'm a parent and now a grandparent. it scares me, the message we are sending to future generations out here i'm saying the message the country is sending. if we know with i am per cal data are putting our kids on a bad path, that we're now saying, it's really okay, look at what's going on in colorado and washington. legalization, that we are

basically promoting almost by -- in some remarks, in some categories, we're almost promoting the fact that this is something you can do without any known consequences down the road. i'm deeply worried about that as a parent now and grandparent and certainly as a member of congress who's job it is to look out for welfare of this country. doesn't require a response. i wanted to say that and let you know it has my attention. i yield back my time. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thanks for being here, sir. you were very clear about your statement about your concerns of use and expanding the use of marijuana and going to the statement you just mentioned, that message has not only heard in the country but also heard from our allies. you have -- i will get it all

the time. when i travel abroad to latin america, those allies, we're putting resources and blood to try to stop drug production. counselor asking me, why are we doing this in the united states there's a mixed message? your message today was very clear. let me ask you a simple question, isn't marijuana outlawed by federal law? i think it is. >> correct. >> here's the question, have you asked the attorney general or the president to just enforce federal law? in other words, i understand you have serious concerns and your job is to protect people from drugs, including marijuana if you have serious concerns about it. have you asked the administration to ep force federal law? if it is so problematic, which, you have said it is, we all have our opinions, but clearly you're an expert and speak for the

administration. have you asked the president to enforce federal law and asked the attorney general to not just sit back and wait to see what happens in colorado, but to inforce current federal law. >> i think what the department of justice has stated is that given limited federal law enforcement priorities, they are going to preserve their federal actions at the most significant crimes associated with marijuana and not go after people using it for personal use. but again, i think they've reserved the right to go back -- >> have you asked -- have you asked of the attorney general or the president and said this is a big issue and important issue as you can see as a health hazard and sigh it as a problem? you mentioned the namtz -- clearly we're spending a lot of money to make sure kids don't smoke tobacco. and yet, have you asked has that been one of your priorities? have you said to the attorney

general and president, i think this is a bad idea and harmful and i think we should enforce federal law? >> during the kourgs of the development process we had the opportunity to talk to the department of justice in terms of those issues. what we've agreed to going forward, given what the department of justice issued an engagement to monitor the data at the federal, local and state levels to see what the impact is. give that information to the department of justice with their opportunity to look at taking subsequent action should we see enhanced public safety and public health effects as relates to colorado and washington. >> kind of a penned around question. i'm not going to further press you because i don't want to put you add odds with the administration. it seems part of the mixed message is coming not from you, sir, but the administration, because we have you saying this is a bad deal, bad for public

poll and and health and then ears saying it's not that dangerous, it's not that healthy but it's not that bad. i'm para phrasing, it's not a direct or accurate quote. those are the mixed messages that we are give mixed messages to our allies and mixed messages i think to the american people. i would like for once to have -- what is our policy? is marijuana illegal? is it harmful? if it is, what serious country steps and to the point where we should continue to press our allies around the world to do what they are doing in this very painful battle against it. if not, what should the policy be? i think that mixed message is something that you all kind of take back and realize it's there not only for the american people but allies. the second point if i have time,

mr. dharm, going back to mr. se serrano's question, recently for example, i mentioned how our allies are confused at best as to mixed message from the administration and from the states and from the country. then you have others who do not have mixed messages and vuf the head of the ecuador yan government and they kicked out the dea out of the country. inbolivia, clearly their country is better off without the dea. general kelly, commander of the southcom, located in my congressional district that i represent, he was in and testified in front of the senate arms services committee that he was very blunt, that he believes we're currently only stopping -- i know this is not going to shock him, only catching 20 prosecution of the drugs being trafficked into the united

states. and it's an issue there of resources. how much coordination do you have coordination with southcom and as far as on the budget tri aspect, how much coordination is there? are you consulted at all? what's that role here. >> as part of our statutory report in terms of looking at the totality of the budget, clearly we work with d.o. did and coast guard and others in terms of our part of ongoing supply reduction strat by. i have the opportunity to go down and talk to general kelly and see the work that he's been doing and hear some of his concerns. this is obviously, intradid is part of our course. we consider it very important. it has been significant amount of discussion both with general kelly as well as the

intradiction committee to look at available resources and operational efficiencies we can achieve in terms of meeting our goals of interdikting as many drugs as possible. we have been taking a leading role with the military and with all of our interagency partners to look at in light of the fiscal issues that we have here. how do we continue to meet our goals around supply reduction and interdiction. >> you get a big bang for the buck? >> i would agree. when you see large scale removal of drugs that don't come into our country. we know from a prevepgs perspective, the more drugs available in the community, the more likely we have people who are likely to use them. clearly these are complimentary strategies in terms of our supply reduction and demand reduction stralt strategy. >> very briefly, i would also -- if i could again, that mixed message is really intense and

real deep. i'm not -- i don't want to bust your chops but i think weefd heard it here today. you've been clear about the effects and what your concerns are. the other sade, the other side of the same administration there's the lack of willingness to enforce current law. if federal law is wrong and if marijuana is not a big deal, we should have that discussion and the president should be up front, let's debate that. right now we're getting mixed messages and allies here that. and our kids are hearing that. that's probably the most dangerous part. >> to be fair, i think both the president and the department of justice have indicated their significance around the public health impact. i think we would have to clarify law enforcement issues versus public health and safety. thank you for your comments. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. director thanks for being here and thank you for what you do. i couldn't imagine the burdener you carry each day on your shoulders and it's a noble, noble cause. i know we have our questions and concerns and such. i don't really intend to speak on topic that to general -- but i was shocked at the statistic you shared momentarily and in your statement, you said it here as well, more 12th gratders today now smoke marijuana than cigarettes and we were all shocked to hear that. i heard about mixed messages and you suggesting that it's because they sense that marijuana has less consequences, fewer consequences than cigarettes. and it was just list than 60 days ago the president i think sent some confusing messages to the youth across the country. and his quote was well documented and he even says as it's been well documented. i spoked pot as a kid and view

it as a bad habit in a vice. not different from cigarettes i've smoked as a young person. this was in the new yorker. you thought it would stop there. then he said, i don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol. and i mean that probably bothered you would imagine. you tape your job very seriously. does that make your job easier for more difficult? did you just -- was some sort of internal frustration going to the president's office and say, what are you doing here? you're making my job extremely more difficult and challenges. what was your response to that? could you share that with the committee? >> i think if you look at the totality of the president's comments and subsequent comments, what he was referring to is the inaccuracy and inconsistencies in reporting, particularly of people of color, for him and the attorney general's office as well. i think the president has repeated --

>> do you inspect that's how youth is interpreting his comments? maybe you're right in totality that's what he was thinking and suggest,ing bulgt the youth of our country, i don't think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol. almost -- almost just a an odd statement and such. >> again, i go lack to looking at comments he made subsequent to those in terms of really understanding the significant health consequences. both for alcohol and mare marijuana not necessarily endorsing what was happened in colorado and washington and saying we need to be vigilant in terms of keeping this as a public health priority. >> i don't mean too interrupt, i took it as flip pant, off the cuff and maybe he was caught offguard and isn't prepared. he is the president of the united states and i know he gets difficult questions all the time. this one couldn't have been all

that difficult. ha has he since then come forward and with remorse, said i made a mistake. i shouldn't have done that as a youth. all of us have done things we regret. has he ever expressed regret or allow the comments to hang and dangle and everyone hope it was about sentencing. >> >> he made subsequent comments after understanding this is a public safety health issue. the president is not unlike many parents who use substances in their youth to great regret. and i think the best thing we can do is be honest and candid and say we don't support if a for our kids as we talked about in not supporting it for his daughter. i think if you look at again, successful prevention strategies, we need to have those conversations and need to be candid as parents and need to say to our kids, i may have done this and may have done okay. but it's -- i don't -- advise it for my kids. >> i appreciate his candidness

and such. i hope he has taken the statement and not encouraged others to do and not a statement at look at me and what i've been able to accomplish. but if i can change gears real quick, i met with sheriff's last week while i was in the district and we were talking about methamphetamines and it's been a difficult problem in northwest georgia. they were suggesting that with all of the steps we've all taken to try to prevent it that things have changed and ingredients are changing and others are finding easier ways to do it. there's still that lingering problem with drugs coming across the southern border. do you seps that you're border security is adequate when it comes to not only from the immigration perspective, not asking you to speak on that but from a legal drug perspective crossing our borders, what can be done? is it adequate and what more can

be done? >> you raise two criticali is issues, both one in terms of drugs coming in from mexico and domestic production as well as domestic use. and i think we've had significantly enhanced the resources at the border. part of the concern has been both good and bad in the sense they have been able to actually seize a tremendous amount of more drugs at the border. unfortunately we have seen a 45% amount of increase in methamphetamines at the border xgt you're right as mexico has changed in terms of looking at controls on precursor chemicals, as the combat meth act states enacted. we see different patterns in internationally as well as domestically. previously where we saw large laps in the united states, some of the laws have made it harder to get large amounts of

chemicals. we are seeing an increase in terms of these very maul pot labs here in the district. so it's been clear that this is a -- a public safety and public health issue that we have to look at. you know, one of the areas that we're examining is we have made pretty good progress over the past years in terms of reduction in methamphetamine use in the united states, largely through the prevention and local law enfwoks. issues. we have a number of programs through our office that help support reducing the distribution in trafficking and largely through a height of the programs and drug free community. that is an issue that we have to continue look at both internationally swi internationally as well as what we see from the borders and domestic production and domestic trafficking, as well as reducing demand for methamphetamine care

in the united states. >> i know it's outside of your scope, the drug trafficking across the border, are you suggesting it's adequate protections are more in place now? is there any more that can be done? unmatly it i am packs your role. >> i think we've done a significant job in terms of looking at increasing our technology and information sharing as well as increasing our prevention efforts on both sides of the border. i think we have done a really good job in terms of looking at that. there's always more work to be done. my former boss is now the commissioner of customs of border protection. i ensure we'll have a good relationship particular little as it relates to our south west corridor. >> thank you. i share your concern as well as i think everybody on this subcommittee is probably concerned about marijuana and to hear the things that you mentioned xgt, the good news is

we can refer everybody to jerry brown in california who said it succinctly, it's hard to have a great nation when you have too many people getting stoned, which surprised me to hear him say that. but that's the other side of the coin that probably people need to talk about, shouldn't have too many pot heads. so he's trying to spread the message i guess from the other side of the coin. let me ask you, we have time for a couple more questions and i want to ask you on international scale and then more domestic, people have talked about latin america and caribbean and fact that 75% of everything comes through. on the other side of the world in a place called afghanistan where they grow poppies and i remember the first time i went to afghanistan, it was all of the conversation about how are we going to get people to quit growing poppies and grow

something else? that kind of died down and a lot of discussion about that. i was there about six weeks ago and the military was talking about all of the great things that have happened in afghanistan in terms of education and terms of universities decree ited in terms of women's rights. didn't talk about the poppy situation. as we prepared for this hearing, it was called to my attention that poppy production is used ever increasing. now it's 5% of the kbgdp. you see the impact with the drugs whether they are latin america from afghanistan where they hit the ground here, the terrible impact to have. do you work with them and are those things that are still being talked about in terms of maybe how you slow down that production there? do you koocoordinate with the department of defense at all? >> clearly the situation in terms of poppy cultivation has been a significant concern.

you're right we've seen year after year increase in terms of poppy cultivation. and have some significant concern in terms of what that might mean. we're not seeing kind of widespread heroin trafficking to the united states from afghanistan but clearly as it relates to instability within the country and money it generates in terms of insurgency, that is a particular problem. we work with the department of defense as well as the department of state in terms of looking at how do we continue to aid cover in our narcotics efforts in afghanistan. clearly the next few months in terms of the election there as well kind of what are going to be resources after troop pullout has particularly concern in terms of looking at those issues of poppy eradication and alternative development to take place of those poppies. that said, it doesn't diminish

in terms of what we're anticipating for our counternarcotics efforts, we're looking to continue priorities that provide training and technical assist haeance to the counter narcotics police of afghanistan and as well as vetted units within the afghan drug law enforcement. as well as investing institutional sustainability within naturrcotic. through the department state and international law enforcement division. clearly this is an issue that is of significant concern for us. now and going forward. >> thank you. let me now ask you about a more domestic problem and that's methamphetami methamphetamines. as i understand it, you know, it's very addictive and cheap and kind of becoming the drug of choice. and maybe you could tell us what you see the trends are in terms of use and abuse of that, talk

about what you all are doing to try to counter production in the use of that. do you need anything more in terms of tools you can use because as i understand it, that's really one of the most serious things we're facing today. >> great. i thank you and i appreciate the offer. as we indicated, we've seen significant increase in seizures of methamphetamine at our southern border as well as increase in production. some of the programs we have from law enforcement that we talked about previously through our high intensity drug trafficking areas, we also have a national program under our program a national program under that, the national methamphetamine and pharmaceutical initiative. and that provides regional support to look at how do we diminish drug traffics and production issues, particularly for methamphetamine. again, on the prevention side, we see a variety of resources.

our drug free communities to look at doing that. i'd be happy to have subsequent conversation with you in terms of what additional things might we have in place beyond just that combatting meth addict that might hold promise in terms of reducing the availability of some of the precursor chemicals that go into methamphetamine production. as congressman graves pointed out, as we've made changes at both the federal and state level, there's been, i think, an evolution in both chemicals and production that warrant, i think, additional consideration in terms of how do we continue to do everything that we can from both a supply reduction and a demand reduction standpoint to reduce those issues. i also think, too, when we look at methamphetamine, that we have some significant parts of the country that are more affected than others. >> i was going to ask you about that. what are some of the -- these meth labs you read about that come and go.

where are they going? where are they kons traconcentr today? >> the biggest impact we see -- it's not to say we don't see it in rural pockets in other areas. the regional impact, i think that is particularly in the south -- particularly in the south and the west is where we see significant impact for methamphetamine. i came from the northeast where we had a big heroin problem and very little meth problem. so we have different parts of the country that, i think, are differentially impacted by methamphetamine. both in terms of production and use. >> is it hard to set up a meth lab? like, you go to colombia and see it's pretty -- go out in the jungle and make cocaine. i mean, how do you -- is it something somebody can set up? make meth? and if somebody comes, they go somewhere else? how complicated is it? >> in the spirit of full disclosure, i don't think i'm really fluent other than watching "breaking bad." i don't think, you know, i don't

think i really know the keck technical capabilities. my understanding is it not prempr tremendously complicated. that's why we're seeing the one pot labs in terms of chemicals available as well as process. people doing production are not necessarily tremendously skilled at it. think we see some devastating environmental impact. drug endangered children. as it erelates to it. i don't think that it's technically tremendously difficult to do. again, i think as we have put certain controls on certain of the chemicals, precursors that we've seen evolution in terms of -- >> is it -- would you say is it the fastest growing -- i mean it used to be crack cocaine. how does meth rank in terms of abuse and potential for abuse? because i always understood it was just so cheap and so available that it was one of the fastest growing problems you're

facing. >> i think, you know, one of the things -- again, i think we have to continue to monitor the impact of the production. because what we've seen quite honestly over the past several years has been a reduction in meth use. again, that is probably differential in different parts of the country. but we have seen some decline in methamphetamine use. i think we would be well advised in terms of looking at both the production and the interdiction around our meth use as well as indications we're seeing more emergency department mentions, uptick in emergency department mentions for methamphetamine. so i think we have to play close attention on both a regional and a national level in terms of those issues. one of the issues that we talked about before, i think, in terms of magnitude of order has been the prescription drug abuse and the opiate epidemic that we're seeing nationally. so those -- you know, that is clearly an issue that is a high priority for us as well as continuing to monitor what's happening with other drug use trends. >> got you. mr. serrano. >> not doing well today.

either you're asking my questions or he's answering my questions before i ask them. >> i hope it's the latter, congressman. >> it's both. it's both. so i wanted to talk to you about the prescription drug abuse. what are you specifically proposing to do to reduce this use of the drug, of the prescription drugs. and also, how have past efforts -- what have they shown and how do we integrate them into what we want to do now? lastly, i know there are 49 states that have laws authorizing prescription drug monitoring programs. or pdmps. are they all functioning? or just some of them? >> sure. in 2011 ondcp coordinated an interagency effort among our federal partners and released a plan to reduce prescription drug abuse. that has four main pillars. one is education.

educating prescribers. what we've seen is as the number of prescriptions for prescription painkillers has increased, so has the consequence of doing that. it entails proper monitoring, as you alluded to, making sure that we have good prescription drug monitoring programs. it requires and focuses on safe disposal. one of the things that we see is particularly for occasional users, about 70% of people who use those medications occasionally are getting them free from friends and family. so how do we get those drugs out of the supply chain, so we're working on safe disposal. then the third -- the last one is around good laws to make sure that we are eliminating pill mills and doctor shopping. as you talked about, one of the central components of what we've been proposing is making sure that we have good prescription drug monitoring programs. you know, we have 49 states that now have prescription drug monitoring programs. and have been working to make

sure that all of them are implementing best practices in terms of those. i think, you know, there's probably no better example than what happened in florida that had -- a congressman and i were talking about this in terms of implementing strong prescription drug monitoring programs and enacting strong legislation. what we've seen in florida is a significant decrease in the number of prescription painkillers. i think probably most importantly, a significant reduction in drug overdose deaths associated with those. so clearly having vibrant programs are important to us. as well as having programs that share information across state borders to make sure that as florida implements good and sound policies, that people are not just moving to georgia to focus on it. so it's clearly been one of the top priorities of our office in terms of this whole of government effort, across our federal partners, to minimize the impact of prescription drug abuse. >> yeah. i should tell you that on social

media this afternoon, after announcing that i would be attending this hearing, the number one question asked by about six or seven people, which is usually an indication of many others who want to ask the same question, was about the overdose issue. so with that in mind, i'd like to get you on the record just for clarification. when we talk about prescription drug abuse, are we talking about all prescription drugs or are we basically saying that the problem is painkillers? >> we're chiefly talking about prescription pain medication. that's really the issue. >> because, i mean, people who are on, for instance, cholesterol medication or high blood pressure, they're on for the rest of their lives. >> i think we want them to probably stay on those medications. >> exactly. >> i think the concern is, particularly that physicians get very, very little training around the risks associated with these very powerful pain medications. as well as little training on how to identify substance abuse disorders in their population. so that's why prescribing,

particularly mandatory prescribes for physicians, is really important to the work that we do. as you indicated, you know, the magnitude of the drug overdose deaths is really astay tunoundi our office. in 2010 we had over 16,600 prescription pain related overdose deaths in the united states. that's 100 people a day who are dying from prescription pain medication overdoses. and our office has been working with federal, state and local folks to implement naloxzone description programs. naloxone is a safe, effective, nontoxic substance that emergency responders have been using for decades to reduce overdose. we've been very hardened in terms of the number of states that enacted noloxone distribution programs throughout the country. it's really remarkable.

it's a really miraculous drug in terms of its ability to save lives. >> let me ask you one more question. then, mr. chairman, if we don't have another round, i'll submit a couple questions for the record. we don't -- we know we don't have diplomatic relations with the island of cuba. but in the past, we've done immigration work with them. in fact, we do immigration work ongoing. we've done transportation issues in terms of airplanes flying over and our flying certain parts of the caribbean. we've done hurricane issues, preventing tsunamis or warning of tsunamis and so on. do we have any kind of relationship when it comes to drug issues with the cuban government? >> to my knowledge, sir, i don't think that we have any ongoing discussions or work with cuba. i would be happy to discuss with you and your staff kind of what you might be thinking. >> okay. because i know a couple years ago, to my shock, they were willing to accept dea agents on

their turf, if you will. and political pressure from this country stopped that from happening. i said i was shocked because, you know, basically saying send me agents from your country of any kind of agents, you know, to cuba was quite a statement. i know it's not in their best interest to have drugs coming into cuba. and it's not in our best interest to have drugs coming here. so i'd like to know if you know, later on if you can find out, if there's been any talk about that in the near future. it's probably one of the areas where i think both parties could agree would be of benefit to this country. >> happy to look into it, sir. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. botticelli, your predecessor i think was confirmed at cbp earlier this month? is that right? >> correct. >> you've been in your current capacity now as acting director? >> two weeks now. >> for two weeks. okay. is it fair to say you didn't

have a lot of input with the president face to face on this particular budget? >> you know, clearly we work with the administration. >> but you personally. you personally were not face to face with the president on this budget? >> correct. >> okay. have you been invited into the white house, into the oval office to talk about the growing problems with substance abuse and the effects, the cascading effects across society? have you had an opportunity, have you been invited, have you had the opportunity, can you kind of take me inside the white house and tell me how that conversation is going? >> as part of the executive office of the president, we obviously work with the president and the president's advisers in terms of what our policy has been. >> i'm talking about specifically the president. >> i have not, sir. >> have not. have you been invited? >> i have not, sir. >> okay. 311 million is the budget -- the president's budget for your office? >> for our office.

>> down from 370, 360? was it $55 million? was that the difference? >> correct. >> okay. that's about a little less than 20% cut. i'm going to guess about 17.5%, 18% cut in your budget. do you think that's an adequate reflection of the importance of your office, given the fact that you're taking the better part of the 20% cut in the president's proposed budget, do you think that's a reflection of the priorities? >> i think -- i think not just looking at our budget, but if you look at the totality of the national drug control budget, right? so not just ondcp. >> which is 20-some billion. it's a lot of money. >> if you look at kind of the totality of the resources that the federal government has in terms of looking at this issue, we've seen that money increase. and i think what is particularly

important in terms of the overall national drug control budget is that we've seen a significant increase in terms of our drug prevention and drug treatment services. and, again, you know, that if you think about priorities that we're looking at, how do we deal with this as a public health related issue? and so those dollars have continued to increase in terms of our overall federal budget for a priority. so i think, congressman, when you look at the entire national drug control budget, you see that it is a priority within the administration. >> well, i was reading in your statement that -- and these numbers just kind of shocked me to my conscience on the fact that drug overdose deaths now number greater than motor vehicle crashes. and greater than gunshot wounds. and so we are tani pertaining t,

i've sat in a lot of meetings including the state of the union address where the president talks about pulling out his phone or his pen to do things that congress is unwilling to do. and he did spend some time talking about school shootings and large scale casualty operations resulting from guns. and this immediate desire to want to do something about gun violence. and yet we're going to cut this particular budget, even though it's the office's budget, by almost 20%. and the number of deaths related to drug overdoses in this country is greater than the gunshot wounds. so i want to ask again. is this a reflection of the -- of where this fits in the national priority as it concerns the administration? and what are you doing and what do you plan to do, because i'm going to give you a break here. you've been there two weeks.

you've been there since '12. but in your capacity for two weeks. what are you going to say to the president when you have that face to face meeting on the policies of this administration as it concerns something that now outnumbers -- drug overdoses now outnumbers gunshot victims? >> i think, again, when you look at some of the new additions and the proposed 2015 budget items, that there are some additional items included in that budget that are specifically focusing on the opioid abuse and overdose epidemic. our substance abuse and mental health services administration has an additional $15 million to get out to states and local communities to particularly focus on prescription drug abuse issues and opioid and overdose issues. contained is money for the centers for disease control again to support state level actions as it relates to overdose prevention. you know, it's clearly been a priority for our office in terms of -- of promoting overdose

education. we worked with a number of federal partners and nongovernmental partners in terms of continuing to raise awareness around the magnitude of the opioid overdose issue. again, i think one of the areas that we see that leads to overdose is untreated addiction. and one of the biggest causes of why people don't get treatment is lack of insurance. and one of the areas i think that the affordable care act contains is a provision to make sure insurers have to include a benefit for substance use disorder treatment. and that's reflected in the president's budget. so i think if you look at, again, the commitment to not only expanding access to treatment, but specific vehicles to enhance state-level efforts to reduce the magnitude of the burden, i think that we see some promising proposals. >> i thank the gentleman. >> thank you. mr. dias-ballard.

>> i was listening to you before and you were talking about florida. we would be remiss without thanking chairman rogers. remember how he was so aggressive about the pill mills. and florida had, frankly, a huge issue there. and so that was -- we've seen some good results of that. let me just throw out another issue which i know very little about. which is this issue of synthetic marijuana. what's -- i saw some things in newscasts recently. i guess there have been some deaths. and i know that our attorney general in the state of florida has been very aggressive. and as the formulas change, she's constantly looking at just trying to update that legislation which is obviously much quicker eer on the state l than it is here on the federal level. tell me your thoughts about that. how big of an issue is it, and, you know, what's your thoughts on that? and then the second question -- let me just go with that one first. then we'll -- >> sure. so the issue of synthetics has

also been a significant concern for us in terms of a number of different areas. so one is often people don't know what they're taking or what they're getting when they take these chemical substances. there's certainly not a consistency in terms of products, in terms of how they're using it. we've seen some significant issues around those areas. and so it's really been an issue that we've been trying to kind of focus on. and, you know, clearly we've been working with our partners in the dea in terms of how do we -- trying to stay on top of scheduling some of these substances. but congressman, quite honestly, that's been really difficult because as we continue to schedule more and more of these substances, the chemists always seem to be one step ahead of us in terms of making small tweaks to some of these chemicals to elude some of the processes. we've been working with the dea and with the senate drug caucus in terms of are there things that we can continue to do to

stay ahead of some of these scheduling issues as it relates to some of these synthetic drugs. we've also seen and have been having conversations, you know, as states and as federal government has implemented strategies to reduce the sale of these, we see the internet playing a larger and larger role in terms of where people are getting the substances from. so we've been actually engaged with payment processors. some large credit card companies as well as paypal to see to what extent can they share information with us as it relates to some of these internet sites. and they've been to this point, i think, concerned about the issue. and willing to work with us in terms of some of those sites. so it's been an issue, again, that we continue to look at in terms of those priorities. and look at how we can continue to stay on top of some of the emerging issues. >> i'm assuming -- because the states do have, i guess, an advantage as far as at least quickness, right, of dealing

with this. >> yeah. >> so i'm assuming you are -- how good is your cooperation with states? i'm sure that's a general question. some are better than others, i would assume? >> part of one of our components in ondcp is our office of state, local and tribal affairs. and they work pretty closely with our state counterparts both in terms of law enforcement and public health to look at things like model legislation and model work and sharing best practices among states. we actually have, i think, a very good relationship with many of our state counterparts on both the law enforcement and public health side. >> if i may, mr. chairman, you've been very patient with me. i'll be quick on this one. going back to the issue of how the attorney general and the administration began monitoring what's going on in colorado and elsewhere, as far as we know is there a -- is that an informal monitoring? is there a metrics? in other words, is there a system set up so that they can look at, you know, compare data,

et cetera? or is it more informal monitoring. if it is a system set up, metrics, it'd be good -- i'd be interested to see it and how long it's going to be, et cetera. what can you tell me about that? >> sure. our office actually took the lead in convening some of our federal partners. and we looked at each of the eight department of justice criteria as they lay it out. and looked at what are our data sources. most of these are publicly available data sources that speak to things like diversion to youth and treatment admissions. things like drugged driving and arrests. so we will continue to monitor with our federal partners those data to look at the picture of what happens with colorado and washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. well, i have some questions that i will submit for the record. i know mr. serrano does as well. so let me just say in closing to thank you and your staff for what you do.

we talk about this fight against drug. we refer to it often as a war against drugs. and some people say we're winning. some people say we're not winning. but we're certainly fighting the war. and drugs as we all know have such a terrible impact on our country. whether it's destroying lives, breaking up communities and families. so we want to work with you and your staff to try to win this war. to keep america safe. to keep it healthy. and thank you again for being here today. and we look forward to working with you. this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you.