National Drug Control Strategy: Combating Narcoterrorism

       I want to first thank the center and thank Director John Walters for inviting me to be here today to launch the Spanish version of the national drug control strategy, and especially the anti-drug act.

       According to the U.S. census, there's about -- in the year 2000, there are an estimated 35 million Hispanics in the U.S. That's about 12 percent of the U.S. population. These are mostly of Latino origin. And more than 70 million Americans speak Spanish. So I think it is very important to see today and I really applaud what Director Walters is doing in taking this campaign to the Latino community.

       And as you all know, Spanish is widely used in key states, the larger states, like Florida, California and Texas, which are really on the front line of the U.S. drug war. And with the diversity of culture that the United States has, thanks to many of these immigrants who've come to this country from Mexico, from Central America, from South America and the Caribbean, I think they are a great unifying force for our language.

       I think one of the most important things that happened after September 11 is the message that came to people all around the world, and certainly to Americans and basically to the Spanish, and that is, the link that exists between drugs and terror. This is a link that we have seen in Colombia firsthand for a very long time. There's about, according to the drug control office, there's about 1.2 million consumers of cocaine in the United States.

       These 1.2 million consumers are putting at risk Colombian democracy. These 1.2 million consumers are not only making damage to their health and their well-being and their family life, and destroying really their families, but they're destroying a larger family. And that is the family of Colombians, which is about 40 million people, which today see terror in the streets. They see kidnappings. They see all forms of violence.

       And I think -- and I welcome this campaign. We in Colombia welcome it. And the reaction that these ads were -- produced in Colombia, once they were launched in the Super Bowl, was really a relief to understand that the United States cared and understood that there is a very clear connection between drugs and terror.

       So it's a -- I really consider this a cutting-edge campaign, and it's really bold and impactful, and I congratulate Director Walters, who not only I consider a good friend, but he's doing a fantastic job in front of this war. Thank you very much.

       MR. WALTERS: Thank you, Ambassador Moreno. We could not have a better representative of Colombia here, as a long-time partner through several administrations now, working with us in cooperation against a common threat to our societies and to the hemisphere and indeed globally.

       I'm very pleased to be here to release the Spanish translation of our national drug control strategy and to mark the release of some Spanish-language ads as a part of our prevention campaign.

       The drug control strategy that the president released in February sets forth our commitment, as a government and this administration, to reduce drug use, because we know consumption fuels not only destruction here at home -- individual, community and national -- but throughout the world. The president boldly committed us to reducing our drug use by 10 percent in two years, for -- by both teenagers and by adults, and 25 percent in five years.

       The release of the Spanish translation of our strategy also marks our understanding of the partnership that is necessary to carry out these efforts.

       We want the understanding of what we're doing to be clear not only to Spanish-speaking Americans but to people throughout the world who are our partners in this effort. We want this to be transparent. We want this to be understood. We intend to have a ongoing discussion to refine and improve what we're doing. Our goal in accountability for ourselves, for the programs we support is to improve their performance and support those that work and to move money from those programs that don't work, because we want to be responsible on the effort and resources that not only we but others are putting behind this campaign.

       Today we know the United States remains the principal consumption market for cocaine, even though more than half, by international estimates, now seems to be going to other places, in Europe and Latin America. We know that no country, including our own, that has been a source or transit country for drugs has failed to develop over time substantial consumption problem. In working with allies in this hemisphere and throughout the world, we are sharing both demand- reduction information and prevention and treatment information and program resources, as well as efforts to control supply.

       We also know that the criminal gangs here in the United States and throughout the world that finance themselves through the marketing of drugs are involved in using terror to attack democratic institutions, individuals and societies. The FARC, AUC -- the paramilitaries in Colombia -- the Ariano Felix organization in Mexico, drug gangs, crews and communities through the United States that we prosecute and identify with our own law enforcement have one common direction: to attack the well being of individuals by selling substances that cause dependency, particularly dependency to young people, children and using the means of terror to carry out that business through intimidating community leaders, political leaders, law enforcement, judges and innocent citizens.

       If you want to see the results of drugs in the United States, go to an open-air drug market, which, unfortunately, we still have in too many cities and we need to close. They are places of addiction. They are places of economic poverty; that's been accelerated by the drug problem. They are places of hopelessness, particularly for the young and the least fortunate. This is not a legitimate business. This is not acceptable behavior. And we know we need to do a better job here, and we know we can't do that without the cooperation of allies in our own country.

       Our goal in this strategy is clear and has three principal parts, as we explained in the strategy. The first is prevention. We know if we can keep young people from initiating drug use during their teenage years, they're unlikely to go on to use later on, and therefore they're unlikely to become -- go down the path that all too frequently leads to addiction.

       Drug use is not about adults deciding, whatever wisdom of it, to use drugs for their own recreational entertainment. Drug use is about taking susceptible children, exposing them to the pattern of drug use, frequently damaging developing brains during the teen years that causes the pathology of addiction. And it's about funding and providing money to people who are dependent on drugs. It's about maintaining the slavery of addiction and welcoming children into that slavery. That's unacceptable for any civilized society. And we intend to do a better job in stopping it here at home.

       The second part of that is the second phase of our drug strategy, which is treatment of those who are dependent. The president has committed in this strategy -- includes the first segment of that commitment, to increase federal spending for drug treatment by $1.6 billion over five years. We want to treat and more effectively treat more people that have a dependency problem. We intend to meet the need where it -- as effectively as we can in places where treatment is needed. We also intend to improve the system so that we get more effective results from treatment. We are working with other countries in this hemisphere on the methodologies and research on treatment to optimize the success of what we do.

       Finally, our strategy is directed toward attacking the market which is the drug trade. We frequently hear discussions that the drug problem is a market phenomenon. That is true. It's fueled by demand and supply. We intend to drive down demand. But we know to keep that demand down we also have to reduce the supply, because if we don't, the very market forces that are the underlying foundation of this problem will undermine our progress on demand. Cheap, plentiful, available drugs is an important factor in use. Attitudes are the most critical factor in our prevention programs, and our treatment programs try to remove the attitudes of proclivities to use drugs and reduce them dramatically. But availability, as we know, is another and very important factor in consumption and addiction. We intend to -- we see all three parts of our efforts -- prevention, treatment, and attack on the market -- as crucial to driving down drug use and keeping it down here and abroad.

       We also, as Ambassador Moreno mentioned, believe the larger dimension of the drug problem in attacking fundamental democratic institutions and economic structures has to be addressed here and with our allies abroad. We have done a series of ads that follow on the past prevention advertising effort to talk to young people and to make them aware, and to make parents aware, because we know when parents engage in this effort, it has the most powerful effect on young people.

       I know many times parents feel young people don't listen to them. But we know from years of research that parents are the most important factor in young people's attitudes about drug use, as well as other things. We are encouraging them with our advertising campaign to become more involved and to send the right messages.

       But we also know that in order to, in addition, make people aware of the damage to themselves and their communities, we've added another dimension appealing to the idealism of young people. We're making them aware of what many in this hemisphere, outside of the United States, have known for all too long: Drugs fund anti-democratic terror throughout the hemisphere that is a threat to the democratic and stable and just regimes that we all want in our countries, and we have made that clear.

       In addition, we have increasingly tried to make clear the threat that drugs pose to the environment throughout our hemisphere, and we also know that drugs are a source of twisting the economies of countries away from solid economic growth and stability and toward corruption and undermining sound economic progress.

       We are working, as you probably know, in Congress to pass the extension and growth -- or expansion of the Andean Trade Preferences Act as a way of supporting legal products in this hemisphere to move people to constructive economic futures as well as democracy.

       Now, with that -- all that said, our goal, again, is to allow both Americans who are Spanish-speaking to be fully aware of what we're doing. We've expanded our website. We have learned from past criticism to hopefully make these more accessible. We intend to continue that dialogue. We have tried to make the strategy available as much as we can in a variety of languages, and our prevention program is now directed in multiple languages, Spanish, of course, being the largest non-English language that we are presenting.

       The ads that we're going to show you -- and believe me, it's short; I know everybody loves their videotape. But this will show you the -- both the drugs and terror ads and the -- some of the new prevention ads involving both parents and young people. So I'll let that run, and then I'll take your questions.

       (NOTE: Public Service Announcements are shown.)

       We'll take your questions.  Questions?   Sir?

       Q Jesus Esquivel from the Mexican News Agency. Sir, I have a question regarding a situation that just happened in Mexico yesterday. The governor of Chihuahua, Patricio Martinez, has said that it's necessary to legalize marijuana in Mexico to combat the drug trafficking from Mexico to your country. What is your reaction to that?

       MR. WALTERS: Well, I hadn't heard that. We have had extensive discussions with national officials in Mexico, who have been outstanding in their cooperation on this issue. I think they understand and we certainly understand that legalizing drugs is not the answer to the problem.

       Legalizing drugs, normalizing drug use, creates greater use and greater addiction. Our countries -- I was just at an OAS meeting, beginning of this of this week, that discussed this problem and also the context of tobacco and alcohol. Many countries face serious -- already serious problems from alcohol and tobacco consumption, despite efforts at prevention, and yet those remain the most serious forms of addiction they now are suffering from. Legalizing drugs, marijuana and others, would magnify that.

       Again, our goal in this effort is both to inform people about the dangers but also to remind them that this is not about primarily adults deciding to use drugs, it's about teenagers being introduced to drugs. And also it's about the effect that particularly early use has, that we now know from research, on the brain, in changing brain chemistry. That is the pathology we call addiction. There's been a lack of understanding of how this works. There's been a lack of understanding that this is not adults maybe choosing -- maybe making unwise decisions, but they're adults, and we -- they have a right to have a certain amount of freedom. This is a pathology that's targeted at children. No civilized society can accept that kind of harm and let it go unchallenged.

       In addition, I think it's important for us to face the fact that marijuana is a much more serious problem in this country and in other countries throughout the world than people have been willing to accept. There's been well-financed international campaigns to try to legalize drugs, and they have been largely devoted to providing misinformation.

       Today in the United States we have an estimated 4.5 million dependent individuals on illegal drugs. Two-thirds of them are dependent on marijuana. So if you want to talk about the addiction problem in the United States today, you have to face the fact that two-thirds of that problem is dependency on marijuana, even though most people in the United States, informed Americans -- I spend time traveling, I talk to editorial boards around the country when I travel, people who not only read the news, they write the news, like yourselves -- they don't understand these facts.

       We're trying to make them more prominent. You can help us in that regard, in making people understand.

       Of the 4.5 million Americans that are now dependent, that we have to face trying to provide treatment resources to, 23 percent are teenagers. We've never had as high a portion of the dependent population that were that young. And two-thirds of that problem is marijuana. Marijuana is more important as a source of dependency by more than two times the next most critical drug, which is cocaine. So legalizing marijuana is to take a problem which -- here and growing in other countries -- and I know Mexico is also concerned about this -- and making it a bigger problem. That is not what responsible government is about. Responsible government is about solving problems, not magnifying them and getting them out of control.

       Q A follow-up. Sir, we have been listening to this administration the last few months saying that Mexico has been successful so far with this new government on fighting narcotraffickers. If that is true, why the DEA is telling us that in the last year there has been a real increase on drugs coming to the United States from Mexico? Where is the contradiction? Who's telling us the truth, the White House or the DEA?

       MR. WALTERS: Well, I'm not aware of a contradiction. I mean, my job is to partly coordinate all federal agencies and to work with state and local officials as well. There is -- and I think Mexico and we recognize -- too much of the flow of illegal drugs that are coming into the country coming through Mexico, and we have been working extensively with the government in Mexico to do a better job. And we've had unprecedented successes. Part of this is the result -- in conjunction with the war on terrorism and working with the Mexican government as well as the Canadian government and others to make sure that we allow the legal movement of people and goods but we do a better job on the dangerous and illicit goods and the people who traffic them.

       We've had -- Mexico's had remarkable successes going after major traffickers, as you know. Mexico's also had remarkable successes in rebuilding institutions that have been particularly hard-hit by trafficking. This is a longer-term task. This is not going to happen overnight. We understand that. Our drug strategy, while we think it has responsible goals for two years and five years, those two-year and five-year goals recognize, even in the United States with our wealth here, it will take time to make progress using the institutions and the hard work of people every day.

       So I'm not aware that there's been a great growth in what's happened in Mexico. In fact, one of the areas of growth has actually been through Canada as a result of threats from both methamphetamine and particularly potent forms of marijuana that are coming from the Northwest. I was just in our Northwest and talked to people on both -- Canadian and U.S. officials on the border in Washington, and we're trying to develop ways of being more effective there for both homeland security and for drug control.

       Q Jorge Banales from the Spanish News Agency, EFE. I will use a broader historical perspective than Jesus did. And over -- let's say over the last 20 years, we have seen this drug problem growing

       It used to be just a criminal activity; now there are organizations threatening governments and countries. Now the U.S. administration is requesting more money to send to Colombia for the Andean region and so on. Can you give us some specific measures, standards that -- all this has been effective? And has there been any reduction in the profit of the drug traffickers, a reduction in the amount of drugs coming to United States, a reduction in the overall area of plantation in the past two decades? Is all this money going to this having any impact at all?

       MR. WALTERS: Yeah. I think that's -- it's an important question, because our goal in both working in our own country and with our partners is to be accountable for programs that produce results. I would characterize the last 20 years quite differently from you -- particularly from, say, the late '80s and early '90s. I served in government last in President Bush's father's administration. I was in the drug policy office, and it was created in 1989 through the early 1990s. I think it's important -- let me just say briefly about the consumption side and about the supply side.

       On the consumption side, we have had enormous progress at points in time in reducing drug use. And even today, it is well below its peak. Drug use peaked overall, largely driven by extensive marijuana use in older people, in college-age people to later teens in 1979. It's down dramatically. It's less than half those rates. Even though it was at a lower rate in 1992 and came up and it's been plateaued for the last several years, it still is less than half of what it was at its peak in the early '80s and late '70s.

       In regard to cocaine, cocaine peaked roughly in the mid-'80s with the first advent of crack, as well as the spread of cocaine, and is now at less than a quarter what it was at its peak in the '80s. And cocaine use continues to seem to go down in most measures that we see throughout the United States. We have a large number of people who are dependent as a result of the previous rates of use, but those people are -- cocaine is now much more widely recognized for its danger. Every single drug that has become a major problem began with the understanding in the youth population that this was harmless, that it was a form of entertainment that was not dangerous. And it took us too long to explain the dangers. We have another series of ads to try to talk about ecstasy, some of the club drugs, to prevent this from happening with regard to those drugs. But the facts are, when we push back against this problem -- prevention, treatment and supply reduction -- it shrinks.

       In regard to the international situation, I think that's important. And I also think that sometimes the day-to-day attention to this and the frustrations and some of the difficulties can blind you from a longer perspective. When I was in government in 1989, the Colombian-based cocaine organizations had created such an enormously concentrated source of power and wealth that the leaders of those organizations were listed as the most wealth -- some of the most wealthy people in the world.

       They were in Forbes magazine. They were said to be able to buy or to kill anyone anywhere on the globe in order to carry out their business. They had expanded their realm of operation extensively into Bolivia and into Peru as well as in transit routes from South America to the United States.

       Today, after years of hard work, many people risking and, indeed, losing their lives on both sides, the supercriminals of the cocaine business are gone. They are in jail, or they are dead. The extension of the cocaine trade into Peru and Bolivia has been radically curtailed. Now, those organizations have collapsed back into Colombia. They have used the illicit trade to seek protection from extreme right and extreme left groups. But we have a historic opportunity -- and that's what we are trying to do with our partnership with Colombia -- not only to help preserve democracy and democratic institutions there, but to change the face of cocaine in the world by reducing and attacking this trade effectively. We believe we are going to be successful. We believe, though, that success depends on a partnership, not only with Colombia, but with key neighbors. But it's in the -- it's for the future of democracy for all of our peoples in the hemisphere.

       And I want to say one other thing about that. The same is true, actually, in terms of unique historic opportunity with regard to opium. When I was last in government, we had no hope of significantly influencing worldwide opium, basically because the breadbasket of opium was in Asia and could not be reached. It is a difficult task today. Part of my job involves working with people to try to work in Afghanistan more effectively to help grow institutions that are needed to help both in economic development but in law enforcement.

       But for the first time we have an opportunity to change the face of worldwide opium production, which will save millions of lives of people who are addicted or will be victims of addiction in the future if we're unsuccessful. So we have a unique time to act and to act in partnership at a time when I also believe after the terrible events of September 11th Americans are more acutely aware -- you must see this in your own work -- of their need to work with other nations, the importance of friends and allies in the world, and we intend to do our best to capitalize on those opportunities.

       MODERATOR: Maria.

       Q Maria Luisa Rossel, Radio Programas de Peru. Regarding the products that we are cultivating, that have been cultivated in the Andean region, particularly in Peru, instead of coca leaves, do you believe that those programs were successful? Because there have been some critics recently in the U.S. media, National Public Radio, and in other media like the Economist regarding those programs. What do you have to say?

       MR. WALTERS: I think some of them have been, in my experience, (I was actually coming back from ?) government, some have been quite successful, but I think that we ought to have -- we ought to remember proportion. I believe the long-term success of the economic development that our country and the hemisphere needs depends on free trade and developing markets that allow us to exchange goods in a rapidly expanding fashion.

       The Andean Trade Practices Act, as I don't need to tell this audience, had enormous consequences in developing trade that was good for both the United States and the countries in the Andes that we were trading with. The exchange of goods, the commerce that it fostered, the jobs, the employment, the wealth and the development opportunities that it fostered were unprecedented. We need to continue to -- we need to reaffirm that trade, we need to expand free trade.

       In regard to the particular development programs, I think where those can be wisely in partnership focused in areas that have been under cultivation, they can work well. Frequently in these areas, though, it's necessary to face the fact that probably licit activities are going to be difficult to be cost effective because some of these areas are in very remote areas; there's not real infrastructure, and even if you try to put the infrastructure in, it's cheaper to produce similar goods closer to current populated and production areas for both agricultural goods and manufactured goods. So we're trying to work as effectively as we can.

       Some projects are -- look, most small businesses in the United States fail. So economic development and the trying of economic enterprise is competitive and it involves risk. But we have had enormous growth. Some of those programs are going to be quite effective. We need to look at also programs that we can put closer to areas where there is security now, in areas where there's danger, to help foster investment. That's what we're trying to do is a package of development that allows our hemisphere to develop and give stable, growing economies the chance to bloom.

             Q This is Mr. Nikeda. I'm an Associated Press reporter for Latin America. And I would like you to focus your mind for a while in the ATPA outcome in the Senate. As you know, President Bush has extended the preferential treatment for those Andean products until May 16th. Because the outcome of the current debate in the Senate is unpredictable, my question is, what do you think about the linkage of the ATPA to other programs, other proposals, in the Senate, and if the administration is considering a new extension for this preferential treatment?

       MR. WALTERS: Well, the president, as you know, has repeatedly, and will again seek action by the Senate and the House to provide an expansion of ATPA on his desk before the 16th. That's what we want, that's what we're pursuing. I'm making phone calls; other administration officials are, and the White House is negotiating with members of the Senate to get this done.

       As you know, ATPA is now the underlying bill in the Senate, and they are -- they're looking at some of the broader trade authorities.

       We believe free trade, in the broadest terms, is in the national security interest of not only our country but all the countries of the world. And so we're trying to expand these in systematic ways and effectively.

       It's hard for me to predict -- and I think it's hard for anybody to predict, from what I've seen -- exactly how this is going to play out in the Senate. We would like to have trade move effectively. The Andean Trade Preferences Act -- and the timing on the lapsing of the legislation and the need to renew it -- obviously is the most critical item on our agenda with regard to drug control in this hemisphere and the economic side.

       So we are still hopeful -- I mean, I've been in contact with the White House several times a day the last several days on this, through my office -- we are still hopeful that the Senate can act, the bill can be brought to conference and conferenced quickly -- the House and Senate are making -- taking steps to do that -- and that the president will get a renewal of ATPA before the 16th.

       We don't think, therefore, other kinds of measures that might have to be interim would be necessary. They're more -- they can be more difficult and tricky, but also we need to get this done. The time for haggling, we hope, is coming to a close. Let's get it done. It's good for the economic interests of all the parties involved. It's good for drug control interest. We cannot continue to operate and have stable investment in the areas that have been growth (sic) if it's problematic whether or not the rules of the game are going to be as they were, or they're going to lapse into something that's more disadvantageous for the people producing both here and in the Andes.

       So let's fix it. Let's get it right. Let's get it renewed and expanded. Let's go on. There's massive support, as I'm sure you know, for this legislation. And we hope we're not going to get bogged down in other things. But -- we're not there yet, but I'm still optimistic.

       MODERATOR: Further questions? Sir?

       Q Sergio Gomez from El Tiempo of Colombia. Just a clarification about the ads. I this intended to be shared by other countries? Is there other countries that had expressed a desire to use this type of campaign in their countries? Or this is only intended for U.S. audiences?

       MR. WALTERS: Both. We're both making them available to U.S. audiences and will over the coming months, but also there was some interest in foreign governments in having versions of the ads either for their own use or for explaining what's being done here. I think there is a concern that the understanding of how directly and aggressively we're going after consumption is not as widely known.

       It will help to indicate to others who we know are making sacrifices every day that no one is asking them to bear a burden for United States inaction. We are -- intend to be aggressive, the president has been aggressive, and we will continue to be aggressive -- not only in what we do in the media, but I am traveling to organize and help to revitalize community-based prevention efforts in communities throughout the United States and in regions, but also in terms of our own law enforcement in focusing the markets at home.

       We know, as I said, there are too many cities in this country that have open-air drug market. They are the normalization of drug use and drug trafficking. We intend to force a closure of those markets. We intend to force a recession and a depression in the business that is the drug trade in this country, using the regulatory and criminal power of the United States government. We are not saying this is a foreign problem. You are our partners, those that work with us abroad, but we intend to be reliable partners here at home, where we have to take care of business, and we intend to do that.

       Q New material?

       MR. WALTERS: I've personally talked to people in both Colombia and Mexico. I think others, in the State Department and in my office, have talked to some of the other countries in both the Andean region and in the hemisphere.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. WALTERS: Sure.

       AMB. MORENO: Well, clearly, in Colombia there's an interest from the government of Colombia to look at this -- (inaudible) -- to explain them to the Colombian people what we're doing. And there is no doubt, as we all know in Colombia, that there is a clear linkage between a drug consumption and terrorism. We see it every day in Colombia. So I think, at the end of the day, we want to send a message to those people who are consuming drugs what's it doing to our country. And that's why we welcome very much this campaign.

       MODERATOR: We have a question in the back. We don't. Okay. Jose.

       Q Yes, Jose Carreno with El Universal of Mexico.

       Just wondering: The U.S. government has said that the number of political organizations mostly in Colombia have dealings with traffickers and narcoterrorists. Is the U.S. government ready to consider that the groups that distribute the drug outside and inside the United States are also terrorists?

       MR. WALTERS: Some of them are linked to groups that have been identified by the State Department as global terrorist groups. Of the 26 designated global terrorist groups by the State Department, our international terrorist groups, 12 have documented ties to drug trafficking. And we've made that clear. So we have identified some of the, that the actual -- you know, whether they're all kind of command and controlled, rather than subcontractors with some autonomy varies from drug to drug and from organization to organization. But yeah, the criteria that is used for these technical designations are in our law. And the State Department makes those designations on the basis of foreign organizations.

       Our FBI handles domestic terrorism, as I'm sure you know, and identifies groups on the basis of those. We're not automatically saying that drug trafficking is terror. We are saying the drug trafficking is part of the support for terror in specific groups and specific activities. We also know that terror is a tool of both our domestic trafficking organizations, some of which have no global reach and no necessary political ambition, but just an ambition to sell drugs and to sell the consequences of drugs.

       Q So, in that criteria, only the groups that might have the political ambition might be considered as terrorists?

       MR. WALTERS: Well, I wouldn't say that it's political ambition. What we try to do with the campaign is to bring home to the American people what I think people, especially in Colombia but throughout the hemisphere, have known for all too long: groups that are engaged in the use of terror for political purposes get substantial resources from drug trafficking. That's a fact that people have known not enough in the United States, and our goal is to make people aware they have to be responsible on a broader scale for the decisions they make with regard to buying and using drugs.

       We know that hundreds of millions of dollars from the United States fund terror right and left in this hemisphere. We know that the United States consumption of drugs is now the single biggest funder of anti-democratic forces in our hemisphere. We intend to do a better job against that problem. It's intolerable, we're going to stop it. And we're going to reduce it as rapidly as we can.

       On the larger scale, though, we want to also make Americans understand that whatever they may think about the nice guy pictured in some media that's the drug dealer, or handing them marijuana, that underneath all these businesses, even if they're not politically directed toward global terrorism, even those that aren't, there is the use of violence and terror to intimidate innocent individuals, witnesses, judges, attack law enforcement, destroy communities, and undermine the economic well-being of children and adults throughout this country as well as throughout the world. So we want people to understand what they're doing when they buy and use drugs, and we want them to tell those who may be tempted to use drugs what the consequences are in the broadest terms. And we want those who have a dependency problem, and who have friends that have a dependency problem, that this is another reason to help those people get treatment, get into recovery, and stay in recovery.

       MODERATOR: We have time for one more question.

       MR. WALTERS: Yeah, sure.

       Q There's something that caught my attention when you answered my question. You said you are not aware of the reports that there has been an increase in the flow of drugs from Mexico to United States. If you are not aware, you are not in contact with the DEA, or -- what's the problem?

       MR. WALTERS: No, no. I am in contact with the DEA. What I meant is that your characterization of DEA information is not consistent with what I understand from DEA and other sources, that -- I mean, in the short term, I mean, you talk about what the time frame is here, but I thought you were talking about in the last year or so there's a lot more drugs coming from Mexico. That's not the information I have. I don't see any assessment from DEA or others that suggests that. There is -- there were -- there was a -- there were reports of an interruption of flow right after the attacks of September 11th, when the border was thought to be more -- was more heavily policed at that time.

       There was information that some of the organizations stopped or reduced flow. There were reports of drugs backing up at northern Mexico, fueling consumption there. And then there were reports that there was some additional flow.

       But in fact, through the hard work of both U.S. personnel and Mexican and others, we actually have greater seizure rate this year for a comparative period last year. We don't think seizures are the right measure. We want to reduce the flow and reduce the availability of drugs in this country across the border. But in fact, through a lot of hard work with less resources because of personnel and energies being diverted to other domestic threats caused by terror, we nonetheless have people working hard enough and in cooperation in an unprecedented way to be doing a better job against the smuggling and trafficking, especially from Mexico.

       Thank you.

       MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Walters. Thank you, Ambassador Moreno. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your good questions.