[Senate Hearing 106-750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-750
A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S
CERTIFICATION PROCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before the
SENATE CAUCUS ON INTERNATIONAL
NARCOTICS CONTROL
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2000
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-601 WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
SENATE CAUCUS ON INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
one hundred sixth congress
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Delaware, Co-Chair
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan
Wm. J. Olson, Staff Director
Marcia S. Lee, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
Senator Charles E. Grassley...................................... 1
Senator Dianne Feinstein......................................... 3
Senator Paul Coverdell........................................... 6
Senator Jeff Sessions............................................ 9
PANEL I
The Honorable Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary of State for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department
of State....................................................... 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 13
Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration.. 17
Prepared Statement........................................... 21
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration.. 51
The Honorable Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary of State for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department
of State....................................................... 68
A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL CERTIFICATION PROCESS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Caucus on International Narcotics Control,
Washington, DC.
The Caucus met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room
SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, chairman of the Caucus, presiding.
Present: Senators Grassley, Coverdell, Sessions, and
Feinstein.
Senator Grassley. I want to thank everyone for being here
today, and I know we have sparse attendance because of the bad
weather and we have some witnesses yet that have to come, but
we will go ahead and get started anyway.
Our hearing today is to look at the certification decisions
that the President forwarded to Congress under law March 1. The
law requires that on each March 1 the President submit to
Congress his assessment on international cooperation to control
illegal drug production and transit. It also requires details
on cooperation to combat money laundering and the sale of
chemicals used to produce illegal drugs. In addition, it also
requires the submission to Congress of the International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report, and that is this voluminous
document that I am holding up here.
The report is the single most detailed drug report on
international drug production, and also the efforts that we are
putting forth to combat it. The International Narcotics Control
Strategy Report gives us the factual basis for understanding
the current state of illegal drug production and international
cooperation that is being conducted to stop it.
I believe the certification process is very, very
important. It is important to focus at least once a year the
attention of Congress and the administration on drug policy. It
is important as a key element in protecting U.S. national
interests.
There are some basic principles that I think we need to
grasp about this very serious matter of drugs. We don't do drug
policy as some sort of luxurious process or as an add-on item
for either Congress or for the executive branch of Government.
Most drugs consumed in this country are produced overseas and
smuggled here. Those drugs actually kill thousands of Americans
and endanger many more every year.
This is something that we all believe we need to fight,
although sometimes we tend to forget how seriously we ought to
take it and how intensive our fight ought to be. And, of
course, we have partners in this fight, and that is the other
countries that are engaged in it. We have a moral obligation
and responsibility to ensure the general welfare and, of
course, that general welfare involves the lives of our young
people and the safety of our schools and streets.
Certification is not some abstract policy for a bunch of
Washington bureaucrats to play with. It is about taking drugs
seriously and doing something serious about drugs both here and
abroad. This is something that we all need to be engaged in and
working together on the combating of. The drugs that we are
talking about are in every town and in virtually every rural
community in Iowa and on Main Street, USA.
I just saw statistics from my own State, from counties that
had hardly any drug arrests 4 or 5 years ago that are having an
incomprehensible number of drug arrests in rural counties
numbering in the hundreds now. Well, these drugs got there
because some drug thug is pushing them, and in most cases the
fields and the labs for making the drugs are overseas.
Congress, in a bipartisan consensus, created the
certification process in the mid-1980s for a clear reason to
accomplish a clear set of goals. The country was in the midst
of a major drug epidemic, and still is. At that time, the
public was deeply concerned about it. Congress shared that
concern and recognized that all of the major illegal drugs
consumed here were produced overseas. Those illegal drugs were
grown illegally in some other country. They were processed
illegally in those countries. They were smuggled out of those
countries illegally, and they were illegally smuggled into the
United States. Drug traffickers broke local laws in the
countries of origin internationally and in the United States.
That did not bother them.
It was also clear that many of the producing and transiting
countries for those drugs did not much care either. Corruption
and intimidation of local officials accounted for much of the
indifference. But in many cases, local authorities were content
to ignore local drug production. Doing this required ignoring
or not enforcing local laws, international agreements, and
bilateral agreements with our country. That was then and still
is not acceptable.
We need to take the drug problem seriously and we need to
ensure that we aren't the only country that does. Certification
is one tool to do that. It is only one tool, but it is an
important tool. In today's world, despite many changes, this
country taking something seriously still counts and has an
influence upon other countries. We ought to make sure that we
are still standing up and being counted on this issue.
Although the State Department opposed this idea initially,
every single drug report in the last several years has
acknowledged the critical importance of the certification
process in winning cooperation, of fostering it where it did
not exist, of shoring it up where it did, and of setting a
standard for international cooperation.
Of course, not many foreign governments liked the process,
but then they obviously might not. But they still worked with
us to varying degrees, but tried to satisfy us. More recently,
however, some in the administration have helped to create the
impression here and abroad that the certification process is
not helpful. Senior officials of this administration have
attacked the process overseas. They have supported efforts to
circumvent it, they have endorsed efforts to cut it and
basically use it to play games.
Last year, the administration dropped Iran and Syria from
the majors list. They did this without prior consultation with
Congress, and they resorted to flimsy legal gimmicks and
sleight of hand with the facts in order to pull off the
dropping of Iran and Syria. I don't know why it is that such
rogue states and enemies of this country seem to get such
special treatment.
Similarly, North Korea, long reputed to be deeply involved
in drug trafficking, has avoided serious scrutiny. It is kind
of game of catch-22 that is played. The administration did not
report on North Korea until Congress required it. And despite the fact
that the President assured Congress that North Korea would be the
subject of a closer watch, this year's drug report reads almost the
same as it did last year.
I had my staff ask senior intelligence officials how these
numbers were arrived at, the numbers that were being reported,
and we did not get an answer. The answer turns out to be that
they are the same because no one took a harder look.
So here is the catch-22 in play: in order to know the
answers, you have to ask the questions. You can't report on the
scale of opium production unless you look, and no one is
looking to see what that scale might be. The administration
cannot find any hectares because they are not looking for
places of production. How convenient.
It was never the intent of Congress, nor was it understood
by previous administrations that major drug-producing and
transiting countries could escape scrutiny on a technicality.
So we get back to the legislation. I think the legislation and
its intent is very clear: to make international trafficking in
illegal drugs a major U.S. national security concern, and more
than a concern, to make a subject of serious action.
This ought to be something where we see more cooperation
and more serious commitment. That is why I find the
gamesmanship on this issue very disappointing. I hope that
today we can get some answers on how to do better in making the
certification process work to accomplish serious policy goals.
I call on Senator Feinstein, and then Senator Sessions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let
me just say that I very much agree with you. I think if there
is a soft underbelly in this Nation, it is drugs. And I am one
that agrees that we have a demand problem and we are trying to
address that problem. I am one that also believes that there is
one area which is the total responsibility of the Federal
Government, and that is in interdiction and enforcement. No
local government can do it and no State government can do it.
Mr. Chairman, last year you, Senator Coverdell, Senator
Sessions, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Senators
Torricelli, and myself sent a letter to the administration
suggesting new benchmarks in certifying Mexico as a partner in
the war on drugs. I want to just quickly go over what those
benchmarks are and then I want to comment on progress, as I
understand it, in each of the areas.
The benchmarks were extradition of major drug traffickers
wanted in the United States on drug charges; secondly, arrest
and prosecution of the leaders of the major drug syndicates;
third, enforcement of money laundering laws; fourth, improved
eradication and seizure efforts; fifth, increased cooperation
between the United States and Mexico counter-narcotics forces;
and, lastly, conclusion and implementation of U.S.-Mexico
maritime agreement.
Now, let me begin by saying that there is evidence to
suggest that the Mexican government is now cooperating with the
United States on a number of levels. On the other hand,
certainly not enough progress has been made on any level to
have a real impact on the massive, ever-expanding and ruthless
drug cartels throughout Mexico.
Extradition, I believe, is the key to judging cooperation
between the two countries. The willingness to apprehend and
turn over those criminals facing justice for crimes against
this Nation would be one true sign that our two nations are in
sync. We have turned over more than 80 people to Mexico in
recent years, including at least 12 United States citizens.
Only by removing powerful drug kingpins from their
surroundings in Mexico can we ever hope to dismantle these
complex and sophisticated criminal organizations. Left in
Mexico, even in jail, these kingpins can continue to run their
businesses, order hits on their enemies, and reap the profits
of their corrupt and illegal activities.
There is some evidence to suggest that things are getting
somewhat better in this area. The Zedillo administration's
policy for the first time allows the extradition of Mexican
nationals. As a result, last year saw the first Mexican
national ever extradited solely for drug offenses, Tirzu Angel
Robles, and the government has agreed to turn over a number of
key drug traffickers of Mexican nationalities; for instance,
Jesus Amezcua and his brother, of the methamphetamine cartel.
Unfortunately, that case, like many others, is now bogged down
in the Mexican court system.
Further, the average number of persons extradited per year
from Mexico has jumped from just one in 1994 to more than ten.
However, there is much more to be done on the extradition
front. For instance, not one major drug kingpin of Mexican
nationality has yet been extradited, and the number of pending
cases remains well over 100; about 125, according to the
Department of Justice.
I do recognize that much of the problem now rests with the
system of judicial appeals in Mexico which is, at least to some
extent, beyond the control of the Zedillo administration.
However, I will be watching closely to see how the Mexican
supreme court rules in the Arturo Paez Martinez case. If the
court rules, as some expect, that no more Mexican nationals can
be extradited to this country, I would hope that the Mexican
legislature would take swift, sure steps to correct the fluke
in the law that will allow this to happen.
There is also significant evidence that the Mexican
government is cooperating on interdiction, seizures, and
eradication. Seizure numbers for many drugs are at an all-time
high, and I want to quickly go through them. From 1998 to 1999,
cocaine seizures increased 7 percent, from 24.1 tons to 25.74
tons. Marijuana seizures increased 47 percent, heroin seizures
82 percent, opium gum seizures 409 percent, and marijuana
eradication seizures 38 percent. Additionally, close
cooperation between the Mexican Navy and the Coast Guard has
led to an increasing number of multi-ton seizures of cocaine:
over 6 tons in June, 8 tons in August, 8 tons in September, and
2.6 tons in December.
Now, I think it has to be pointed out that never before in
history have these kinds of tonnages been found in drug
trafficking, and the point I would like to make is that tons
suggest that heroin and cocaine aren't coming across the border
in backpacks; it is coming across the border in large loads.
And this would bring to bear Senator Coverdell's and my drug
trafficking kingpin legislation, and my hope that our
Government will begin as soon as possible to enforce that
legislation.
I think we both believe that those who transport these
large loads of narcotics are equally guilty, and the
drugkingpin legislation sets into motion a procedure to deal with this.
I, for one, will be looking very closely at the administration to see
that this law is put in place and enforced and carried out as we mean
it to be.
Let me touch on corruption. There is evidence that the
Mexican government is stepping up its fight against corruption.
Mexican authorities have reportedly fired more than 1,400 of
3,500 federal police officers for corruption, and so far more
than 350 have been prosecuted. In fact, when a court demanded
the reinstatement of fired officers, the Mexican government
rectified that situation by changing the law, and I for one
appreciate that.
The Mexican government showed an unprecedented level of
cooperation late last year in allowing the FBI to participate
in the Juarez investigation on Mexican soil. I know that not
everyone within Mexico was pleased with having the FBI on
Mexican soil, but the Mexican government went forward with
cooperative efforts despite internal dissent and this indicates
a strong desire to cooperate. Recently, when Tijuana saw its
second police chief gunned down in less than 6 years, the
government arrested 7 suspects in that investigation. This
details cooperation on the rise.
On the other hand, significant problems do remain. There
are frequent DEA reports of a lack of cooperation below the
border and of a system so corrupt and so full of leaks that
mounting a secret operation against a major drug trafficker is
simply impossible.
No real progress has been made toward dismantling the major
drug trafficking organizations, which was one of the benchmarks
the six of us suggested to the administration. Known drug
kingpins are still too free to move about the country with no
fear of arrest even when our own officials warn the Mexican
government of the whereabouts of those criminals.
A good case in point is the governor of Quintana Roo that
everybody agreed was guilty of criminal complicity with drug
traffickers. He had at least two teams of detectives on his
tail. He was scheduled to be arrested the day he left office.
The day he left office, despite the tails, he and his family
disappeared. Their whereabouts are unknown as of today. When
arrests and prosecutions do occur, it is often only the low-
level operatives that face eventual prosecution. The high-level
traffickers still escape the system.
Some Mexican courts have begun to rule that no extradition
may take place if the person in question faces life
imprisonment in the United States. This is extremely
problematic. Our treaty already eliminates the death penalty as
an option for any person extradited from Mexico, and some
crimes carry the possibility of only two sentences--life in
prison or death. If our Government must forego both
possibilities, we will face an extremely difficult situation.
And we may soon face a decision by the supreme court of
Mexico in the Arturo Paez Martinez case that bars the future
extradition of any Mexican national. Let me be clear. This
sends a clear and dangerous signal in the wrong direction. If
such a decision does occur, I believe it would be vital to
continued cooperation between our two nations that the Mexican
legislature take swift steps to correct the law because without
extradition, the drug cartels will never, in my view, be
brought to justice.
There are several questions that must be answered. Is
Mexico doing everything it can, given the political situation,
to extradite drug traffickers? Is Mexico doing everything it
can, again given the political situation, to eradicate crops of
illegal narcotics? Is Mexico doing everything it can, given the
political situation, to intercept drugs on their way to this
country, and are they doing everything they can to root out
corruption within their own ranks?
Another signal recently was the person in the attorney
general's office who committed suicide with $750,000 in a bank
account. Where did that money come from? Did this indicate
complicity on the part of that office? If not, what were the
circumstances? These are major situations and they have to be
addressed.
Additionally, as far as I am concerned, I will be
interested to hear from the DEA whether there has been improved
intelligence between Mexican authorities and our authorities in
the drug battle because only if there is good intelligence-
sharing and the ability to have mutual trust on the both sides
of the border are we really ever going to be able to get at the
major traffickers who are the heads of the drug syndicates or
the five large Mexican cartels.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Now, Senator Coverdell, then Senator Sessions, and then we
will go to our panel.
Senator Coverdell. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank you for
calling this hearing. And in the name of time, which the Senate
is always too pressed to accomplish, I will just submit my
statement to the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Coverdell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.002
Senator Coverdell. I will just make a comment that I
appreciate the extensive statement of Senator Feinstein of
California, and have appreciated the ability to work with her
on this question. It is a complicated dilemma. Clearly, there
are signs, as she has noted, that progress is being made, but
it is the scope of the problem, I think, that raises the
questions that we continually confront. It is just so large
that it does raise questions about what our ally, the Republic
of Mexico, can do and accomplish.
I think there are some pretty serious questions about what
we are doing and what we are accomplishing. You could read a
pretty rugged list for ourselves. But, again, I am very
appreciative of the work she has done, the chronology of data
that has been presented here in her statement. I will look
forward to continuing to work with each of the members that are
present here today in trying to determine what is the best use
of our time and energy as we try to develop the appropriate
tools to deal with this international crisis.
I will just end with it does appear to me that government
to government we are making some headway. There are the legal
ramifications of extradition, but the scope of the problem and
the depth of it in the Republic of Mexico is very deep and very
broad. I have thought to myself, well, if I were president of
that republic, just what would I do,given all the depth of the
problem there.
I will stop with that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grassley. Senator Coverdell, thank you for your
leadership as well as your statement.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think my friend from Georgia
raises a good question. If you were president of Mexico, what
would you do? I believe that the president of Mexico and the
leaders of a lot of these nations need to ask themselves that
very question and to recognize that the danger of the
increasing narco empire is so great that they had better take
strong leadership to make changes.
Bolivia has made that decision without a lot of Federal
money from the United States Government. If we have got to give
money to countries to help them fight drugs, I say give it to a
country that has made progress. I think Bolivia ought to be a
beneficiary of our support.
But, fundamentally, a nation is not going to be successful
until that nation itself desires to eliminate drugs within
their borders, to stop the ever-growing corruption and big
money that comes from it. And, frankly, Mexico is not there,
Mexico is not there. If you extradite one or two more people,
what is that? Zero, nothing.
The Senator from California was looking to some of these
supreme court rulings and other matters, but I would just
suggest we will come back here next year and you can count on
one hand the number of people that have been extradited. These
narco businesses are so large and so prominent they cannot be
overlooked. You have to be blind not to know they exist, with
the wealth they are accumulating in a country that is not known
for wealth.
So I have been hearing these speeches since the 1980s,
1970s. I have been reading and following the testimony in these
hearings, and Mexico and Colombia have promised to do better
and better, but it hasn't gotten any better. From all I can
see, nothing substantially has changed because it is going to
take leadership with a firm will who is willing to pay some
significant prices to eliminate or substantially reduce drugs.
I am asking myself why are not large numbers of these
Mexican cartel members in Mexican jails, why do they have to be
indicted in the United States. They passed last year, or the
year before last, laws for money laundering. How much money has
been taken from the drug cartels? It doesn't do any good, it is
nothing but a meaningless gesture to pass money laundering
legislation if it is not going to be used. What good is it to
have laws that allow forfeiture of illegal assets if drug
cartel members live in huge homes and amass large tracts of
land and drive the most fancy automobiles and that sort of
thing, and have huge amounts of cash that is not being seized?
So I would just suggest that Mexico is not where it needs
to be. Colombia, as we know, has had a huge increase in the
last year, I believe nearly double the increase in exporting
and production of cocaine to the United States. How can that be
considered progress? I don't know.
I have suggested here previously that I am not sure this
certification process is of any benefit. If a nation wants to
sink into this kind of narco corruption, I am not sure the
United States has any power to stop it. It will take an
individual decision by that country perhaps more than acts from
the United States to change it.
And, frankly, we ought not to misunderstand. If our concern
is about the United States and the drug problem we have in this
country--and I don't like the trends in the last 7 or 8 years--
if that is our concern, we have got to do it here. We are not
going to be able to blame our drug problem on Colombia or
Mexico.
When we have a consistent, strong, steadfast anti-drug
policy in this country, as we have had, we can win this war on
drugs. We have, in fact, driven down, from 1980 to 1992, by 50
percent the number of high school seniors, according to the
University of Michigan study, who have used drugs. That was a
great success. It has gone up in recent years and now the last
year or two it has sort of flattened out, but we have had a 40-
percent increase since 1992 in drug use, and I think it is a
lack of will at the top in this country.
We need to send a clear and certain message, and I know the
previous head of DEA is not happy about the Mexican situation.
He testified courageously last year at this committee that he
could not see--basically, I would interpret his testimony to be
that he could not see how Mexico could be certified, and he
cited a litany of bad news from Mexico.
So I don't know the answer. I know this: Mexico is a great
country, it is our neighbor. We had a great conference down in
your State last year with a large number of Mexican members of
parliament and we were able to discuss these issues and others.
I long for continued and improved relations between our two
countries, but how to achieve it I am not sure.
So I am not sure I have said anything worthwhile, Mr.
Chairman, other than having been involved in drug matters for a
long, long time, I remain concerned about our ability to effect
anything in some of these nations. When you have got leaders
like in Bolivia that put their mind to it, they can make great
progress, and that is what I would like to see in a number of
other countries. And I am concerned about the Netherlands, I am
concerned about North Korea, I am concerned about Jamaica, and
I am glad you will be talking about that, too.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
We will now go to our panel. We are going to hear from Mr.
Beers first and then Mr. Marshall, and we will hear from both
of you before we ask questions. I welcome you and thank you for
your time and attention, and particularly for listening to our
opening statements.
Rand Beers is Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. He has
held that position since 1998. This is the bureau responsible
for producing the strategy that I referred to, the
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. He will be
followed by Donnie Marshall, who currently serves as Acting
Administrator of DEA, and has been in that position since July
of 1999. Both of you have testified before Congress at past
hearings, and we appreciate that cooperation as well as this
morning.
Mr. Beers.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAND BEERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, Senator Grassley, and distinguished
members of this panel. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before this body and to discuss the issue of certification.
We in the administration agree with you completely, Senator
Grassley, that this is an important instrument available to the
administration. We may not have been happy originally to
receive this instrument, but as one who has been responsible
now three times for carrying it out, I am here to tell you that
we consider it a useful and important tool that we will
continue to work on and improve and make as effective as
possible.
I have submitted to you in advance a longer piece of
testimony which I ask be submitted to the record, and I will
very briefly make two or three comments before turning it over
to my colleague, Mr. Marshall.
Senator Grassley. In both cases, your statements will be
printed in the record as you submit it.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir.
With respect to certification in a general sense, to take
your point, Senator Grassley, about its importance, I would
just like to highlight what I think are two very important and
significant results of the overall certification process, and
that is the efforts in the Western Hemisphere, starting with
the Miami Summit of the Americas which built upon the Cartagena
and San Antonio summits, whereby the nations of this hemisphere
came together, wrote up a hemispheric strategy, followed that
with a plan of action, and now most recently in Montevideo,
Uruguay, with a multilateral evaluation mechanism.
This process within this hemisphere, I think, was born of
the certification legislation and the efforts by the United
States to make ourselves and nations around the world aware of
the seriousness of the drug problem and the need for all of us
to work together to do something about it.
Similarly, the UN General Assembly special session of two
summers ago, in which all the nations of the world came
together and wrote out a plan of action with goals and
objectives for the entire globe to look forward to over the
next 10 years, I think represents a second area in which the
level of awareness of nations around the world of the
importance and seriousness of the drug problem and the need to
do something about it again came as a result of the increased
attention that we and other nations have paid to this problem
and the need for nations to work together to deal with it.
That said, with respect to individual nations, which is
after all what certification is specifically about, there is a
mixed result. But we come to you today with the intent of
answering your and the other Senators' questions in order to
have a full and frank exchange.
Let me stop there. You all have raised a number of
interesting and good questions. I won't try to answer them in
my opening statement, but I look forward to answering them
individually.
Thank you.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Beers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beers follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.006
Senator Grassley. Mr. Marshall.
STATEMENT OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Marshall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
caucus. I also appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
discuss these very important issues, and I also have submitted
a detailed statement for the record.
First, I want to thank the caucus members for your support
to DEA and to drug law enforcement in general. Your support and
the support of the American people, I think, is absolutely
essential for DEA and law enforcement to do their efforts, to
do their missions. I also believe that the certification
process is a very effective tool in the international anti-drug
effort.
Each year, DEA provides the Attorney General what we
believe is an objective assessment of the drug trafficking
situation in the major source and transit countries, and we
base that upon evidence and factual information that comes to
DEA. We present those facts to the policymakers so that they
can make an informed decision on the certification of each
respective country.
Now, as a part of my written testimony, I have included the
drug trafficking assessment for many of these countries,
particularly the ones that have been either decertified orgiven
a waiver recently, countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia,
Paraguay, Nigeria, and Haiti. But because of the magnitude of the
threat posed by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, I am going to
direct my opening comments to the drug trafficking situation in Mexico.
DEA's primary mission, as you probably know, is to target
the highest levels of international drug trafficking
organizations operating in the world today. And I believe
personally that the Mexico-based organizations are the greatest
threat that we face in the United States today, perhaps the
greatest threat that we have ever faced. And I believe this is
especially true when you consider the Mexican trafficking
organizations' alliances with the Colombia-based traffickers
and their involvement in all four of the major drugs consumed
in the United States--cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and
methamphetamine.
Now, in addition to drug trafficking, these criminal
organizations are responsible for violence; they are
responsible for corruption and intimidation. And these things,
I believe, threaten the safety and stability of communities and
cities and towns in both Mexico and in the United States.
Now, with the disruption of the Medellin and Cali cartels
in Colombia in the early 1990s, the Mexican trafficking groups
really grew in importance to our country. They consolidated
their power and they started to control drug trafficking not
only along the U.S.-Mexican border, but in many other parts of
the United States as well.
So in response to that increasing role of the Mexican drug
traffickers, DEA and other Federal agencies established a
Southwest Border Initiative to attack the command and control
structure of these organized criminal groups associated with
the Mexico- and Colombia-based organizations.
Now, the DEA, the FBI and the U.S. Customs Service, along
with many, many of our State and local counterparts across the
country, have been very successful and very effective at that
strategy over the last several years. We have conducted major
operations inside the United States that have wiped out
Colombian- and Mexican-controlled cells operating here in this
country. We have done that time and time and time again in
operations like Zorro and Reciprocity and Limelight and others.
The most recent of those operations was Operation Impunity,
and I want to talk about that for just a moment. That was a 2-
year international investigation that was conducted
predominately by DEA, FBI, Customs, and our counterpart State
and local agencies here across the country. That operation
culminated back in the fall and we arrested 106 individuals
that were linked to the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes organization
based in Mexico. Now, in addition to the arrests, that
investigation resulted in 36 separate drug seizures totaling
over 12,000 kilograms of cocaine and over $19 million in U.S.
currency.
But I also have to add that the limitation of operations
like this is really that the cell heads operating inside the
United States, the people that we predominately go after at the
highest level inside the United States, can be easily replaced
by the traffickers. And we have not yet been able to
successfully reach inside Mexico to arrest and imprison the
real leaders of these organizations, leaders such as Vicente
Carrillo-Fuentes, leaders such as the Arellano-Felix brothers
and many, many others. And I will add also that many of those
command and control figures are indicted here in the United
States.
Now, we do have ongoing efforts inside Mexico. In fact, we
worked very well with a small core of dedicated people inside
the Mexican attorney general's office. And I would point out
that the Mexican attorney general himself, Mr. Jorge Madraso, I
believe to be a dedicated professional who is trying to do the
best job possible under the circumstances that he is dealing
with.
Within Mexico, the DEA and the Mexican equivalent of DEA,
an organization called the Fiscalia Especializada Para la
Atencion de Delitos Contra la Salud--that is a mouthful for me,
so I am going to refer to them by their acronym, FEADS--DEA and
the FEADS continue to conduct joint investigations throughout
Mexico. And we cooperate with that organization very well on a
day-to-day basis.
But the investigative achievements of the FEADS and the
other law enforcement agencies in Mexico--the achievements
against the command and control structures of the major Mexican
drug trafficking organizations have been minimal. And I
certainly agree with Senator Sessions' assessment in that
regard.
Additionally, it is no secret that elements of the Mexican
government have just been mired in corruption in recent years,
and certainly the government of Mexico recognizes that as well.
In fact, the Federal Preventive Police was created in 1999 in
response to that corruption problem.
The government of Mexico reported that since April of 1997,
as Senator Feinstein pointed out, more than 1,400 federal
police officers have been fired for corruption. Unfortunately,
some of those have been rehired. Of those, over 350 were fired
in 1999, and I am told that that situation that resulted in the
rehiring is corrected and that these more recently people will
not be rehired.
Now, it is gratifying to me that this action is being taken
against corruption in Mexico, but when you look at the numbers,
I think those are sobering numbers and it is an indication of
the large scale of corruption that exists in Mexico.
Now, I want to give you one very alarming example of an
incident involving corrupt Mexican police officials which
occurred on November 9 in Mexico, actually in Matamoros. We had
DEA and FBI special agents de-briefing a confidential source in
Matamoros. During the course of that activity, they were
surrounded by a well-known trafficker by the name of Osiel
Cardenas and about 15 of his associates.
Now, each of these associates, one of whom, by the way, was
brandishing a gold-plated, I am told, automatic assault
weapon--each of these associates were identified as either
municipal or state police officers. And it was only due to the
resourcefulness and the quick thinking of those two agents that
they were able to escape from that incident unharmed. Now, that
incident, I think, serves to very vividly highlight the
vulnerability of DEA and FBI agents working in Mexico day in
and day out, very dedicated special agents, I might add.
Now, in addition to the police firings that I described
earlier, there has been one judicial effort to fight corruption
in the judiciary. On January 11 of this year, there was a
Mexican federal judge who actually issued an arrest warrant for
a magistrate who erroneously or wronglyfreed a methamphetamine
trafficker, Adan Amezcua. But in direct contradiction to that incident,
however, there was a Mexican court, on February 4 of this year, who
freed an Amezcua associate, Jaime Ladino, whose extradition had been
requested by the United States.
Now, there has been a treaty in effect since 1978, but as
Senator Feinstein pointed out, there have been no extradition
requests actually signed or granted until 1996. Consistent with
the pattern, in 1999 no major drug traffickers were extradited
from Mexico to the United States. They did extradite 10
fugitives on narcotics or money laundering charges. Eight of
those were U.S. citizens and two were Mexican citizens.
So, in conclusion, I would say that we all recognize, I
think, that Mexico is a country of great strategic importance
to the United States. Counter-narcotics is one of the critical
aspects of our relationship with Mexico, but the effectiveness
of the national and our bilateral efforts against drug
organizations depends, I believe, on demonstrable progress in
the area of extradition, in the area of disrupting and
dismantling major trafficking organizations.
And I would point that that includes on their own
apprehending, prosecuting, indicting, convicting and
imprisoning major drug traffickers. It includes exposing and
prosecuting individuals and businesses that are involved in
providing support networks to these traffickers, such as front
companies, security, transportation, communication companies,
and the like.
And I really believe that the command structure of the
Mexican attorney general's office is genuinely committed to
trying to do those things. So it is vital that DEA and other
U.S. Government agencies continue to engage, continue to
support the government of Mexico in their efforts and in our
efforts. And in turn, I hope that the rest of the government of
Mexico will provide adequate investigative manpower, financial
resources, equipment, things of that sort that are necessary
for them to make progress in this bilateral law enforcement
effort.
I want to thank you again for your support, and thank you
for the opportunity. I will be happy to try to answer any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.024
Senator Grassley. We will have 5 minutes for each person,
and then we can have more than one round if there is interest
of the caucus to do that.
First of all, some basic things. Mr. Beers has already said
that he thinks the certification process is a useful tool. Mr.
Marshall, would you say that it is a useful tool?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, it is. In my opinion, it is a useful
tool.
Senator Grassley. Okay, then three questions that would
make some reference to statements from the report. The extent
to which the certification process is taken seriously--this
report says that the certification process is useful in forcing
corruption to the surface and it is useful in efforts to combat
corruption. It also says that the certification process has
been a powerful foreign policy tool. And the report says that
the certification process may be uncomfortable, but it is a
healthy process.
Mr. Beers, would you agree with what the report says on
those three very fundamental questions?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Grassley. Is it your view that the administration
as a whole shares these views and takes the certification
process seriously?
Mr. Beers. Overall, I believe that is true, sir, but I am
sure you can find people within the administration who would be
critical of aspects of it or the process as a whole.
Senator Grassley. Regardless of some disagreement, as you
say, I might be able to point out, based upon what you have
told me from your own point of view, could you explain why the
majors list has been perpetually late?
Mr. Beers. Sir, having participated in this now for several
years, I can only say that the discussions that occur within
the administration over the list, which begin with plenty of
time, one would think, to complete them, have certainly under
my tenure--I can't speak before that--ended up in issues being
surfaced and discussed at the most senior levels, and
disagreements over judgments one way or the other leading to it
being late. I regret that that is the case, sir, but it is.
Senator Grassley. Let me emphasize that and say that it has
never been on time.
Mr. Beers. I am aware of that sir, painfully.
Senator Grassley. How much heroin or opium gum transits
Iran?
Mr. Beers. Sir, we don't--at least I am not aware of a
figure of how much specifically transits Iran, but I can ask
the intelligence community, unless you know that, Donnie.
Mr. Marshall. Well, no, I don't have that number right
offhand. I do know that southwest Asia heroin constitutes,I
believe, something on the order of 12 to 14 percent of the U.S. market.
I will try to get that number and submit it for the record.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Beers, did you recommend removing
Iran from the majors list in 1998?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I am being careful here. This is a
presidential decision and I don't want to talk about individual
participants, but it was a consensus recommendation to remove
Iran from the majors list.
Senator Grassley. Based on earlier decisions to remove
Iran, were you involved in the decision not to put it on last
November's list?
Mr. Beers. This past year?
Senator Grassley. Yes.
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Grassley. You made that decision without knowing
how much heroin transits Iran?
Mr. Beers. Sir, the amount of heroin that transits Iran
would not be the relevant figure for us. The relevant figure
for us would be the amount of heroin that transits Iran and
comes to the United States. And with respect to that issue, we
have Mr. Marshall's agency's signature program which can
distinguish between--Donnie, correct me if I am wrong--between
Afghan heroin, Burmese heroin, and heroin from Mexico or
Colombia.
The figure that Mr. Marshall quoted, which is 12 percent--I
thought it was actually a little lower, but then what portion
of that actually comes through Iran? At those points, our
degree of ability to determine precisely that amount is not
highly precise. But I think it is fair to say that the
understanding is that those drugs from southwest Asia which
come to the United States are more likely to come through
Pakistan rather than Iran or the northern tier.
But beyond that, Donnie, I don't think we have the degree
of specificity precisely as to what that----
Senator Grassley. How much southwest Asian heroin comes to
the United States?
Mr. Beers. Mr. Marshall quoted 12 percent. I thought that
the last number that I had was 5 percent, but that is why we
need to give you the precise number.
Senator Grassley. Well, it gets to a definition of
``significant.'' There are some estimates of a metric ton
coming to the United States. Is a metric ton of heroin out of a
market of 15 metric tons insignificant?
Mr. Beers. No, sir. It is significant. I judge it to be
significant.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Marshall, what does the DEA currently
know about opium and heroin production in North Korea?
Mr. Marshall. I will have to look up particularly the opium
and heroin production. It is my impression from what I know
about it that there is not a great deal of opium and heroin
production. It is my impression that methamphetamine precursor
chemicals are the predominant problem in North Korea. If I may
please submit that for the record, I will look it up and be
sure that my recollection is correct on that.
Senator Grassley. Well, is the DEA dependent upon the State
Department and intelligence resources for information on that
point, in that you aren't in a position to give detailed
information from your own sources?
Mr. Marshall. Well, we have information from sources in
that general part of the world. We have an office in Seoul,
South Korea. We do not have an office in North Korea, so we
have to go kind of a roundabout way.
Senator Grassley. So you are dependent upon the State
Department, then?
Mr. Marshall. We are dependent on the State Department and
perhaps other surrounding countries where we can get whatever
information is available to come out of North Korea, yes.
Senator Grassley. Well, okay. Let's go back to Mr. Beers
and see how long have there been reports of drug trafficking
out of North Korea.
Mr. Beers. Certainly, as long as I have been in my current
position, sir, but I believe it goes back some time before
that.
Senator Grassley. How many North Korean diplomats and
officials have been arrested in the last several years
internationally for any kind of drug smuggling, but
particularly for heroin?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I will have to get you that figure. I don't
know that, don't have that in my information.
Senator Grassley. I will stop there because I want to keep
on time.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marshall, do you agree that extradition is a hallmark
of cooperation?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, I do, and extradition is a very
important tool. The reason I believe that is because I sort of
lived through that problem when we were dealing with the
extradition issues out of Colombia and it proved to be a very
valuable tool back in the mid-1980s. I was involved in the very
first extradition, or expulsion at that time with extraditions
to follow, and that was Carlos Leider.
And when we began returning those Colombian criminals, the
Medellin cartel people, to justice in the United States, that
was really the thing that they feared most, Senator. Actually,
the expulsion of Carlos Leider was the beginning of the end for
the Medellin cartel, and it has worked well in Southeast Asia,
I might add. Operation Tiger Trap from several years ago--we
extradited a number of heroin fugitives, and the disruption
that that caused along with a few other market forces, which we
were lucky enough to have several things coincide, but the
extradition played a significant role in reducing southeast
Asia heroin from something like a 65- or 70-percent market
share in the United States down to its present level of
virtually not existing in the United States.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. It is my
understanding that the Mexican supreme court will soon release
a much-delayed ruling in the case of Arturo Paez Martinez, and
that ruling may well prohibit any future extradition of Mexican
nationals to this country, which would give almost carte
blanche to the cartel leadership to continue to operate with
impunity and, even if they are in Mexican jails, to direct
their operations from within the Mexican jails.
Should that happen, what would be your view of the success
of a relationship that could deter Mexican cartel activity?
Mr. Marshall. Well, I think that an unfavorable ruling
would just really render a bad situation much, much worse. As
you point out, as long as these traffickers--even if theyare in
the jails down there, they are in that general location. They are in
that country, they are free to communicate with their drug
organizations, they are free to continue some degree of intimidation,
bribery activities, that sort of stuff, essentially to run drug
operations from their jail cells.
We saw that intimidation level back in the days of
Colombia. That was very much at work then, and the reason that
Colombian extraditions were so successful and the reason that I
think Mexican extraditions would be successful is if you get a
dozen or so of those key figures out of their own sphere of
influence, so to speak, where they can't run their operations,
where they can't bribe and intimidate, than that gives, I
think, the hope of breaking the cycle of violence and bribery
and corruption and intimidation. It gives the authorities, the
good people in the Mexican attorney general's office, I think,
a little bit more chance of success in their efforts. So I
think it is very important.
Senator Feinstein. Along those lines, because I happen to
agree with you--I happen to think it is number one for any
country in terms of assessing a level of cooperation--there are
a number of cases that I am following. I mentioned Arturo Paez
Martinez. They are all on appeal--Jaime Aguilar Castellum,
Miguel Angel Martinez, Francisco Rafael Camarena Macias, Luis
Amezcua-Contreras, Jesus Amezcua-Contreras, and Jesus Emilio
Rivera-Pinon. These cases are all on appeal. The Jesus Emilio
Rivera-Pinon case has been on appeal since June of 1995.
Do you have any specific information about why these cases
remain pending or how soon they will be resolved?
Mr. Marshall. No, unfortunately I don't, Senator. I have
talked about that very issue with the Mexican attorney general
and unfortunately that is under almost the complete control of
the Mexican courts.
Senator Feinstein. Last year, I pressed for implementation
of a U.S.-Mexico maritime agreement which would assist both
countries in the pursuit of illegal narcotics by allowing quick
refueling stops while in hot pursuit of a drug boat or by joint
operations to arrest and prosecute traffickers found on the
high seas. I am told that there is no such agreement in place
today, although informal cooperation has resulted in the
seizures that I have mentioned, all of which are very
substantial seizures of several tons each.
Why has such an agreement not been reached, Mr. Beers?
Mr. Beers. We have had discussions with the Mexican
government about such an agreement, and we have focused our
primary effort on the actual cooperation and that is basically
what has happened. Our Coast Guard officials have been working
over the course of the year, and I think have worked out an
effective working relationship with the Mexican Navy and the
Mexican government.
I would note that we do not have a maritime agreement with
Canada. We have a working relationship with them of the first
order.
Senator Feinstein. So you are not pursuing an official
agreement?
Mr. Beers. No. We just don't have it yet, and we have
focused primarily on the issue specifically of day-to-day
cooperation. That has been Mexico's desire to focus first on
that and build on that foundation.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you might want to also consider
getting an agreement with Canada because if we tighten up at
our ports, stuff is going to come into Canada as well. It might
be nice to be ahead of the curve for once.
Mr. Beers. I understand, but the point the Coast Guard
makes to me is--and they should speak for themselves--the
relationship with Canada is of such a sort that they don't feel
they need an agreement. And I am not saying that that
necessarily applies to Mexico, but we are definitely trying to
build the elements of cooperation so that we have the basis for
the best possible agreement.
Senator Feinstein. One quick question of Mr. Marshall. You
told us about the problem at Matamoros where more than a dozen
federal police, all armed, surrounded two of your men.
Mr. Marshall. State and municipal police, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Pardon me. State and municipal police
surrounded two of your men. What has been done by the Mexican
government to see that that doesn't happen again?
Mr. Marshall. Well, there is some indication that the
attorney general's office is investigating that and trying to
locate the main player in that, Osiel Cardenas. They have not
yet located him. They have told us that they are doing an
investigation. We are, in fact, trying to cooperate with them
in that investigation.
Senator Feinstein. Was the implication clearly that the
state police were on the payroll of the drug cartel leader?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, that was the clear implication, sure.
Senator Feinstein. And so would your department's
expectation be that there be action to apprehend those people
who well could have killed your two people?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, that would be our expectation, yes.
Senator Feinstein. It will be interesting to see what
happens.
Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
Senator Coverdell.
Senator Coverdell. The President has certified Mexico full
cooperation. As I indicated in my opening statement, there are
a lot of incongruities here. I will pose the question to both
of you because there will be a congressional reaction to this
ultimately.
Give me your explanation of why the certification occurred
and why it is the correct thing to do, in light of the
testimony--lack of extradition, the impunity with which some of
these cartels operate in the country, corruption in the
judiciary. You both alluded to it.
Step back from it and, in a broader picture, what is your
assessment of full cooperation? What constitutes full
cooperation in your mind, Randy?
Mr. Beers. Sir, as I have indicated in earlier testimony,
we have looked at the phrase ``full cooperation,'' and in an
attempt to make the most clear and deliberate decision on this
process we interpret the phrase ``full cooperation'' not to
mean perfect cooperation, that that is a standard that no
country is able to effect, in some cases only by inadvertence.
And so we have looked at a basket or a range of activities
regarding which cooperation would be an important factor and
tried to determine whether or not thatcooperation constitutes a
serious and significant effort on the part of the government to work
effectively with the United States or, as the law says, to comply with
the 1988 Vienna Convention. That is the basis on which we come to each
and every decision that we make about countries on the majors list.
With respect to the decision on Mexico, in many ways
Senator Feinstein, I think, has fairly laid out the good, the
successful, the areas of cooperation, and has fairly noted
areas in which we have not had full cooperation or perfect
cooperation.
With respect to the issue of extradition, I don't think
there is anybody in this Government who doesn't want an
extradition process that works with the government of Mexico.
Where we are now is largely a system in which the government as
a whole, the executive, has made a decision that they are
prepared to fully support extradition. And it is, as Senator
Feinstein correctly said, in the courts; that is, we are
waiting for a test case, if you will, in the courts.
I share her concern--I think we all do--if it goes the
wrong way, but this is also a case that the Mexican government,
in selecting which case to take to the supreme court, has
sought to find the case that they thought they had the best
chance of winning. That remains to be seen.
My main point here is that extradition is not an issue in
which the government hasn't been cooperating with us. It is an
issue that the due process of the Mexican system has left
within the domain of the courts. The Senator correctly
indicated that the seizure statistics this year and the
eradication statistics this year are all up, and that progress
is clearly being made and that the effort, I think, is
significant. That is certainly something that we would rate in
the area of forward movement.
With respect to the issue of combatting criminal
organizations, I think again that the Senator's remarks are
correct. Donnie Marshall has said it; they haven't taken down
fully a major organization in that country. They have
successfully disrupted the Quintana Roo segment of the
Carrillo-Fuentes organization, but even there they haven't
arrested the leadership.
This is an area of serious concern on our part, but their
failure to actually successfully take down the organization is
not what we are measuring. We are measuring whether they have
been trying, whether they are judged to be fully cooperating.
And where we have come down as a result of that, I think, is
that at the level of senior level of the government there is a
serious commitment and there are serious actions on the part of
the government that we judge to be in the nature of fully
cooperating.
That is how the administration has come to make this
decision, and I can appreciate that others may not necessarily
agree with that decision process, but that is how the
administration made the decision.
Senator Coverdell. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Senator, I have to confine my comments to my
area of expertise, and that is law enforcement. As you have
heard from Mr. Beers, there are certainly other elements that
go into certification, but I think what I would be looking for
in this area would be what has been their progress toward the
benchmarks that were laid out. I would look at progress in
terms of extradition, in terms of arresting and prosecuting the
leadership of the organizations, in terms of general
cooperative counter-narcotics programs, and their efforts to
clean up corruption.
Certainly, I have pointed out some progress that they have
made in each of those areas. However, when you get right down
to the bottom line, there have been no major extraditions.
There have been no major organizations that have been disrupted
or dismantled, in spite of their well-placed intentions, and
they should get credit for that, to clean up the corruption
problems. There are still massive problems there. So those are
the kinds of things that I would look at from a law enforcement
perspective.
Senator Coverdell. A quick question to each of you. Time is
up. These major cartels, are their leaders under pressure
sufficient that they are in permanent hiding, or do we
generally know where they are? I mean, are they figures that if
they were in the United States they could be apprehended or
not?
Mr. Marshall. Well, with regard to your last question----
Senator Coverdell. The Fuentes and the Felixes.
Mr. Marshall. If they were in the United States, I think we
would have a much greater expectation of apprehending them in
the United States. Now, with regard to what is their situation,
I think it varies with the individual traffickers.
In many cases, we have information from time to time and we
know general areas in which they operate. We hear of sightings.
We hear of them traveling in large convoys often, as in the
Cardenas situation in Matamoros, with police escorts and
protection and that sort of stuff. I mean, they don't any
longer go out wide open and, you know, give press interviews
and that sort of stuff like they did a few years ago.
So I have to believe that there has been some degree of
greater pressure by the Mexican authorities to drive them a
little bit further underground. But certainly when you look at
a person with the magnitude of the operations that they have,
were that level of violator in the United States, I think that
it would be fairly quickly that we would be able to locate
them.
Senator Coverdell. Mr. Beers, do you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Beers. I concur with what Donnie said. I mean, I think
that the pressure has increased, but it is certainly not a
perfect system yet. The fact that one of the leaders died under
the knife trying to change his face is an indication of the
pressure, but it is not a perfect system by any means.
Senator Coverdell. Thank you.
Senator Grassley. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I think you said, Mr. Beers,
failure to take down organizations is not what we are
measuring. It is well that it is not because you wouldn't be
able to certify them. To me, that is the number one test of
whether any country is serious about its effort against drugs,
not whether they extradite. They don't need to extradite
anybody if they put them in jail themselves. If they take over
these farms, if they eliminate the vehicles and transport
systems, and arrest and sentence people and do that kind of
thing, that is a grass-roots, tough law enforcement job.
And I know law enforcement is never perfect around the
world. I won't reveal how many sheriffs in Georgia were
convicted a few years ago when I was United States Attorney,
but it was over 20.
Senator Coverdell. It was a lot.
Senator Sessions. I think it was 30, but most of those were
smaller acts of corruption, frankly. But there was drug
corruption even within my State of Alabama. As a Federal
prosecutor, I have seen it, and it is easy to happen. You
cannot expect there won't be some corruption. The question is,
is there a response to it and are we creating a circumstance
when it is plainly obvious to everyone who has their eyes open
that large illegal organizations are continuing uncontrolled.
Mr. Marshall, in the relief package, the assistance that
the President has proposed to Colombia, I notice and have heard
some concern that there is no money in that for the Colombian
police. Some people that I respect have told me the Colombian
police by and large have been courageous, and some of the best
support we have gotten in the war against drugs is from the
Colombian police department.
Have you had occasion to express an opinion within the
administration on that? Are you concerned about it, and would
you share with us your views?
Mr. Marshall. Yes. Certainly, first of all I would like to
echo your statements about the Colombian National Police. Under
the leadership of General Serrano, that organization has paid a
tremendously high price. They have faced the problems down
there--assassinations, bribes, intimidation, that sort of
stuff--they have faced it with the utmost courage, and the
majority of the men and women of that organization are nothing
short of heroic.
With regard to Plan Colombia, I support the general
approach of Plan Colombia. The idea is to deal with the
insurgent groups, the FARC, the ELN, the paramilitaries, who
control certain areas of Colombia and prevent the national
police from getting into those areas to effectively do their
job. So I endorse that concept. We need to give that aid so
that they can root out those insurgent groups.
Now, we have had quite a bit of discussion within the
administration about the mix of that package, and it is my
understanding that there are some proposed changes there that
would increase DEA and Justice's share to some degree. Now, it
is my understanding that there, by one version, some $17
million that may go to DEA programs to support the Colombian
National Police, things such as Operation Copperhead which
supports their communications intercept, things such as
Breakthrough which assesses the amount of traffic coming out of
there, a fusion to integrate intelligence and investigative
information between the United States and Colombia. We need to
do those things.
Senator Sessions. Well, thank you for sharing that. If our
primary goal in this effort is to reduce drugs, I think we need
to make sure that the police are not being cut out of it
entirely.
I frankly believe, and have said during one of our hearings
that Colombia has a responsibility to defeat the insurgents,
and it is astounding to me that they have granted a safe harbor
within the nation of Colombia the size of Vermont, I
understand. Are there drug labs operating within that area, Mr.
Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, there is some cultivation there and
there is some drug----
Senator Sessions. I think we have encouraged them to create
this safe zone. Isn't it true that no law enforcement or army
from the nation of Colombia can even go in there to break up
the labs?
Mr. Marshall. That is my understanding at the present time,
yes.
Senator Sessions. I just think that is astounding. I think
it would be hard to understand how this goes on. I am troubled
about Colombia. I really care about that nation, and I have
worked with Colombian police officers as witnesses who have
feared for their families when they have come up to the United
States to testify in drug cases, and they are courageous. A
young guy told me he was doing what he believed was right and
he wasn't worried about it, and I was impressed.
With regard to extradition from Mexico, I think it is fair
to say there really has been no real extradition from Mexico
ever. I remember as a prosecutor we were going to go to Mexico
to pick up an individual who was indicted in Mobile who was
involved in the Kiki Camarena murder, at least that
organization was, supposedly. There had been a lot of pressure
from the United States, and within 10 days of the pickup date,
he was reported to have escaped. Hardly anybody ever gets
extradited.
You noted that 10 were extradited and 8 were U.S. citizens.
So we had two extraditions. Of those two, one was extradited
because he had been in jail in the United States and escaped.
The other one had been involved in the murder of a Border
Patrol agent. Now, if they want to extradite somebody for
murdering a lawful American Border Patrol agent, presumably a
crime committed in the United States----
Mr. Marshall. Yes, it was.
Senator Sessions [continuing]. Then I mean that is almost
an act of war, as far as I am concerned. We have every right to
expect a nation like Mexico will act to defend the safety of
our officers. And apparently they did so in this instance, but
no real indigenous drug traffickers have been extradited. This
is a myth. This has been talked about for 20 years, and we are
not having extraditions. We ought not to even discuss it until
we see bodies start coming across the border. It is not a sign
of success.
So my concern is how do we support Mexico in an effort that
is their effort to eliminate the increasing power and
corruption of drug organizations in that great country. The
people of Mexico do not favor drug dealers; they do not. I have
met with their parliament members for the last three
consecutive years, and I don't believe the members of the
Mexican parliament do.
But we are confused in our thinking, and a lot of people
don't realize how tough the battle is for the Mexican
leadership. My only concern is, as a lawyer, certification
ought to mean what it says. If all we are doing is going
through a game in which we are not being honest about what
fully cooperating means and we are conjuring up acts to justify
our conclusion that is already made, then I don't want to be a
part of it. I would just as soon not have it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
Before I continue my questioning with Mr. Beers, I want to
digress just a minute. Because methamphetamine is such a
problem in my State, I wanted to ask you, Mr. Marshall, if you
are running out of funds to support meth lab cleanups byState
law enforcement agencies. Is that true?
Mr. Marshall. That is true, Senator. Actually, we have run
out of the funding for that activity about a week ago.
Senator Grassley. And that is for this fiscal year?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir, that is for fiscal year 2001 that
we are in. Now, it is my understanding that there is money in
the COPS program that is earmarked for methamphetamine
training, cleanup, investigations, that sort of stuff. It is
earmarked for, I believe, 14 specific States. But regard to the
remainder of the States, DEA unfortunately does not have the
money to continue the activity.
Senator Grassley. What do you think is needed for that to
continue this fiscal year?
Mr. Marshall. I am sorry?
Senator Grassley. How much money do you think is needed,
then, to finish the fiscal year?
Mr. Marshall. We are projecting something on the order of
an $8 to $10 million shortfall. And if you would like, I will
get you an assessment of that and get you the exact number.
Senator Grassley. Please do.
Before I ask more specific questions, Mr. Beers, I kind of
want to make some sort of a summary of my first 5 minutes of
questioning with you. It seems to me that the administration
has taken Iran off the majors list on the grounds that it is
not a significant transit route for heroin, even though the
administration can't say what the flow is.
The administration says that countries like Iran should
come off the list because significant amounts of southwest
Asian heroin aren't coming to the United States. But if you
cannot say how much is coming through Iran and that southwest
Asian heroin is a significant part of the U.S. market, it seems
strange that Iran then would come off the list. It is
disappointing in light of how serious we are supposed to take
certification.
Does my summation, as ironic as it sounds, seem legitimate?
I mean, that is the way I view the first round of questioning
that we have had.
Mr. Beers. Sir, I think that the difference that I would
have with your conclusion is the point that I tried to make
earlier, which is in terms of trafficking routes that come to
the United States, we see more coming through Pakistan to the
United States than through Iran. Iranian heroin seems to flow
in the direction of Turkey and onto the European market.
So it transits Turkey and goes to a western European
market, whereas Pakistan heroin, while it also feeds the
European market, also appears to come through Nigeria to the
United States. And as a result of that, while you are correct
in saying we don't have the precise figures, we are still
expected to draw some conclusions from the information and that
is the conclusion that we have drawn from that information,
sir.
Senator Grassley. But you draw the conclusion without
knowing what is transiting Iran, don't you?
Mr. Beers. Sir, our transit figures are all estimates on a
global basis. We have some greater precision in the Western
Hemisphere because our information provided by DEA and the
intelligence community is far better. With respect to southwest
Asia, it is not as good, and with respect to Iran, it is even
less good because of the lack of contact that we have from the
intelligence perspective and the law enforcement perspective
with Iranian officials. But what we know is what I am telling
you the basis of our decision is.
Senator Grassley. Going on with North Korea where I left
off with you, when did the State Department first report on
North Korea's drug production in the Strategy Report?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I will have to get back to you on that. I
just don't have that.
Senator Grassley. Was it included because of congressional
action?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I am sorry I don't know the answer to that
question.
Senator Grassley. When was the last aerial survey of North
Korea opium production made?
Mr. Beers. Sir, to the best of my knowledge, we have never
had a successful aerial survey of North Korea. We have had
efforts at such a survey, two of which I am aware of, one of
which I specifically requested over the course of the last
year. The number of----
Senator Grassley. Was a survey made last year?
Mr. Beers. There was an attempt at one, sir, and it was
deemed unsuccessful for the failure to have enough pictures to
be considered to be a valid sample of North Korean opium poppy
likely cultivation sites. There are some problems associated
with North Korean sampling. One is the weather, and two is the
competition.
The competition is with respect to concerns on the part of
the Department of Defense about North Korean military
intentions toward South Korea, and on the part of both the
Defense and State Departments and the whole U.S. Government on
the course of North Korea's possible efforts to obtain weapons
of mass destruction.
Senator Grassley. Now, if this survey for 1999 reporting on
1998 indicates that North Korea is not on the majors list but
will be the subject of greater attention to determine its role
in illegal drug production and transiting, and if you attempted
to get an aerial survey and didn't get one, just how is the
administration monitoring closely opium production to make a
determination if it should be in the report?
Mr. Beers. Sir, the effort is to get a satisfactory survey
of the areas of potential opium production. Given the geography
of North Korea and the expectation that if there is a crop, it
is a single crop in a calendar year, the survey effort has to
be done at a particular time of year because the survey looks
for the crop at its height when it is most visible to overhead.
We therefore look in a specific time frame of the year, not
a day or a week, but a several-month period in which we would
expect those crops would come to final bloom, and we have
sought to do that. We sought to do it last year. We will try to
do it again this year, but until we have that we can't tell you
with confidence that they do or do not have such a crop. And we
have not put a country on the majors list without having the
benefit of that confirmation from imagery with respect to
cultivation. So, that is where we are now and that is what we
are seeking to do.
That is one part of our effort to monitor the activities in
North Korea. In addition to that, the intelligence community
and the law enforcement communityhave been asked to bring to
bear information that is derived from other sources, and we have
received regular reports on that and we have had some lengthy analysis
done over the course of the last year in order to determine just what
is happening there, in part to be responsive to your known concerns
about that, but also because we are concerned as well.
Senator Grassley. I am going to ask Senator Sessions to not
only take his turn now, but then also when you are done to
adjourn the meeting.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you folks for your
attendance here and your participation, and I will have some
questions to submit for answer in writing.
[The questions of Senator Grassley follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.034
Senator Sessions [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your consistent and strong leadership on this important issue.
I know you have taken the lead in your State of Iowa and you
travel all over the State having meetings with citizens about
the drug problem. I know it is a deep concern of yours, and it
is translated into public policy here.
Let me ask, Mr. Beers, the certification of Colombia this
year, will that be under the national security exception?
Mr. Beers. It was full certification this year.
Senator Sessions. Full certification?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. Not utilizing the national security
exception?
Mr. Beers. No, sir, there was not a national interest
waiver.
Senator Sessions. Well, didn't we have a major increase in
the amount of drugs shipped from Colombia last year, and
production of coca in Colombia last year?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, we do.
Senator Sessions. How do we show that as an improvement?
Mr. Beers. We had a major effort on the part of the
Colombian government to eradicate as much coca as possible. In
part, what has happened in Colombia with respect to cultivation
is that the traffickers have been able to move more quickly and
more expansively than the government's efforts to eradicate
that. So in that area, you are correct, but they have made a
significant effort.
With respect to the issue of trafficking, Mr. Marshall is
in a position to comment about a very significant law
enforcement activity which was only one of several that
occurred in Colombia called Operation Millennium. And in
addition to that, we have seen a major effort on the part of
the Colombian government to pull together a strategy and effect
operations in the field around the country to deal with drug
trafficking.
But let me let Mr. Marshall comment specifically on
Millennium, which we think was a very significant activity.
Senator Sessions. Please.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, Mr. Beers is correct about Operation
Millennium, and that was a partnership operation with the
Colombian National Police. And certainly we have already spoken
of how effective the Colombian National Police are.
What we did for the first time was we had a Colombian
investigation essentially at the request of the United States.
We identified through our investigations here in the United
States a group that was operating in Colombia and supplying
many of these cells that I spoke of in my opening statement
into the United States. And what we did was we shared all of
the information that we had with the Colombian National Police.
They then took that information in a joint operation, both
in Colombia and back and forth between Colombia and the United
States. And we built a case against 34 of the top drug
traffickers in Colombia, including Fabio Ochoa and Alejandro
Bernal Madrigal, two of the absolute biggest traffickers
operating in the world today. What was significant about this
is that there was not a----
Senator Sessions. Well, Ochoa has been recognized as that
for 20 years.
Mr. Marshall. Oh, yes, many, many years, he and his family.
Mr. Beers. He has been in and out of jail.
Mr. Marshall. What was most significant about this is that
there was not a parallel Colombian investigation with the
intention of Colombian prosecution. This was done solely in
order to extradite these 34 traffickers back to the United
States and, as I mentioned before, get them out of their own
sphere of influence and into American jails, which is the thing
that they fear most.
Now, if that process comes to fruition, which I am
optimistic it will, and if we are successful in gettingthose 34
back into U.S. jails, I have to predict that that would be probably the
single most important and effective thing that we have done in the area
of drug enforcement in many years.
Mr. Beers. And the Colombians have extradited two last year
already, indicating that they don't have any legal judicial
impediments to carrying through on the constitutional amendment
that they passed the year before in order to effect
extradition. That is, I think, a significant demonstration of
cooperation and government will.
Senator Sessions. Well, that would be dramatic, and I would
just say you better hope they don't escape before the time
comes along.
Mr. Marshall. Well, you mentioned that, and frankly we are
concerned that this be an expedited or a timely process so
something like that does not happen.
Senator Sessions. Well, that, and just basically some way,
somehow, the system has consistently not produced the
extraditions that have been promised for many, many years.
Mr. Beers, why do we not think in terms of certifying
Mexico under the national security exception? How can we say
that there is any really significant progress there when we
have got police force threatening the lives of American police
at the direction of a major drug dealer?
How can we say that Mexico is really making progress? They
won't sign a maritime agreement. They are not extraditing
anyone. The cartels continue to enrich themselves and get more
entrenched and more powerful. We have a few little things that
we claim as progress, but in the scheme of things it is
difficult for me to see how they are real progress. Why don't
we just do it as a national security exception?
Mr. Beers. Sir, that is always a possibility in situations
like this. We judge them to be fully cooperating.
Senator Sessions. Well, I don't see how that can be
justified. I was just looking here, Mr. Marshall, at USA Today.
The Mexican drug dealers are offering a $200,000 bounty on
United States Federal law enforcement officers' heads for
murder. It talks about the entrenched Tijuana drug cartel. USA
Today knows who they are and where they live and what they do.
Are you concerned about that? Is that a matter that affects
the security for your agents as they go about doing their work
both in the United States and in Mexico?
Mr. Marshall. Absolutely, I am concerned about that, and it
is one of the major issues that we have in Mexico with our
operations there.
Senator Sessions. And when was it, just a few months ago,
that the chief of their police, Alfredo Delatore, was murdered?
Mr. Marshall. A few weeks ago, actually, is my
recollection.
Senator Sessions. A few weeks ago, and another police chief
was murdered 6 years ago in Tijuana.
Mr. Marshall. Yes.
Senator Sessions. I guess my deep concern is that Mexico's
very existence as a healthy nation is at stake here. Wouldn't
you agree, Mr. Beers? If this kind of activity continues,
business can't afford to invest in Mexico as they would like to
because they are afraid for their lives or their people's
lives. Isn't this a threat to the economic growth that Mexico
is capable of?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, I would agree that it is, and I think
that the current administration in Mexico would agree with you
as well. They have come to us and spoken in as dramatic a set
of terms as you are using now, and they are making their effort
to deal with that.
Senator Sessions. Well, we have had some increase in
seizures, I note. Mr. Marshall, do you have any indication as
to what percentage of the drugs being imported into this
country are being seized on the Mexican side?
Mr. Marshall. Well, certainly, that is all kind of an
estimate because you don't know----
Senator Sessions. Well, you have estimates of how much
comes across the border from Mexico, do you not?
Mr. Marshall. We do, and we estimate that in the aggregate
of all the drugs that come in here, on the order of 55 to 60
percent transit Mexico en route to the U.S.
Senator Sessions. I see in the USA Today article,
apparently, 75,000 pounds of cocaine were seized along the
Mexican border near San Diego; that is 30-some-odd tons. Do you
know what percentage of the total supply is being seized? I am
first asking about in Mexico.
Mr. Marshall. If you look at our total estimate of the
world supply, I think our current estimate is some 765 metric
tons of cocaine worldwide. And if there were 75,000--did you
say pounds?
Senator Sessions. Yes.
Mr. Marshall. That would be 35 tons seized in Mexico, so
that would be 4 percent, by my mental math, of the world
supply.
Senator Sessions. Not enough to affect the supply in the
United States in any significant way, it strikes me.
Senator Feinstein, who has done such a fine job on this and
has been steadfast in her concerns about it, noted, I believe,
there were 6 tons seized of marijuana on the part of the
maritime agreement. Well, I remember we called cases in Mobile
the 10-ton case and the 6-ton case. I mean, 6 tons of marijuana
is insignificant in the world supply.
Can you say, Mr. Marshall, with confidence that the supply
of narcotics--I will just say marijuana, cocaine and
amphetamines--coming into the United States from Mexico has
been reduced? Would you compare 1997, 1998 and 1999? Are the
numbers still increasing in quantity coming across the border
based on DEA surveys?
Mr. Marshall. I don't see any evidence that those numbers
have been reduced in the areas of heroin, cocaine and
marijuana. There have been perhaps some spot shortages
following operations like Impunity and Millennium and that sort
of stuff, but they don't really last. There are also some
indications that we may finally be making a bit of progress in
the methamphetamine issues coming out of Mexico, things like
lower purities coming out of the labs, things like a shift from
methamphetamine to amphetamine, but with regard to the other
three drugs, no indication that that is having an effect in the
U.S. market.
Senator Sessions. Based on our history of 20 years, is it
fair to say that we are not likely to be able to affect the
number of drug users in the United States through cooperative
agreements with Mexico?
Mr. Marshall. I don't think that we will directly affect
the number of users in the United States. I think you have to
count more on the demand side of the equation--education,
prevention, that sort of stuff.
Senator Sessions. You left out law enforcement.
Mr. Marshall. No. I am about to get to that, if I may.
Senator Sessions. Okay.
Mr. Marshall. I think where law enforcement fits in there,
however, is that until you manage through the prevention
programs to get the number of users down, you have a lot of
mean, vicious, violent, evil criminals that are pumping this
stuff into our country, and all the violence and the corruption
and the intimidation that goes along with it.
We have to deal with those as a law enforcement, as a
criminal issue until we can further impact the demand numbers
downward. And I think that one of the Senators in an opening
statement pointed out that since 1979, we have reduced the
number of users in this country. We have to do a better job,
but in the meantime law enforcement has to be right there to
take care of and to impact on the criminals that are doing so
much evil in the country.
Mr. Beers. Sir, if I might interject, I agree with Mr.
Marshall's statement. What our overall strategy is is to try at
each point in the process from cultivation to use to have an
intervention that is the best that we can put together to try
to effect a reduction in the overall amount of supply
available, and then after that process is over also to
intervene with respect to users to try to get them to stop. It
is all part of a large package, but I think Mr. Marshall's
point is correct.
With respect to the Mexican border, the amount of flow that
we have seen has been roughly about the same. And if you look
at the seizures on both sides of the border and if you look at
the seizures in South America overall, what we have seen
overall is that that flow to the United States has been to date
almost impervious to each stage of that effort. And
unfortunately over that period of time, there is more going to
the rest of the world.
Our market to some extent has gone flat. I mean, we can
talk about the perturbations of use over the last 10 or 20
years, but the overall amount, by our estimates, has been
relatively flat over probably the last decade. And where the
increase on a global basis has occurred has been Europe--this
is cocaine--and now Latin America. That is why we have gotten
the attention of governments around the hemisphere of their own
national interest need to try to deal with this problem.
It is sad that it has gotten to that point, but that is
where we are, and that is why we think, to go back to your own
remarks, sir, that we have a chance to make success as
governments perceive it as in their own national interest and
not simply something that the United States is asking them to
do on behalf of the United States.
Senator Sessions. Well, I agree. Surely, that will become
clear to a lot of people. I had occasion recently to be in a
conference with the drug czar in the United Kingdom, and they
are all of a sudden becoming worried. As a matter of fact, I
had some law enforcement people express concern to me about the
Netherlands. They have marijuana coffee shops where they allow
that kind of stuff to go on, and it is becoming a transshipment
point to Europe. With the European Union, once it is in Europe,
it is pretty well easy to transport.
Do you think that is a growing concern, Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Absolutely, that is a concern. I have talked
to a lot of law enforcement officials in Europe and they share
that assessment and they are quite concerned about it. They are
very displeased with the situation in the Netherlands.
Senator Sessions. I am sure the Netherlands thinks they are
just sophisticated, you know. They have prostitution everywhere
and drugs everywhere, and they think that makes them more
sophisticated. But we are going to find out it is not going to
work. They are not going to be happy with what happens to that
country when they allow more and more use of drugs. It is not
going to be good for them and it is not going to be good for
their reputation.
Have we taken any steps, Mr. Beers, as part of this process
to examine whether or not the Netherlands is cooperating
sufficiently in our efforts?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, we have looked at that, and that will
be an ongoing area of concern. You are right in raising those
questions, sir.
Senator Sessions. I hope that we would look at that.
Well, this is a real challenge for our country, and I do
believe we have a responsibility to the world. It would be
better for the United States and for all nations of the world
if other markets for cocaine and illegal drugs are not created.
It is not going to help us if the Colombians begin to focus on
other countries around the world and create additional markets.
They will just be stronger. And those nations, many of whom are
our allies, are going to be damaged by this and it is just not
good for anybody.
So I do not mean to suggest we should not be vigilant in
encouraging nations in this hemisphere particularly to reduce
their production of illegal narcotics. What I do deeply believe
is that ultimately there will probably be enough into this
country to supply the demand that exists here. And if we want
to deal with our demand, then we need to have a strong public
relations education campaign. We need to have very strong law
enforcement at the street level.
I think it was proven in New York City by Rudy Giuliani
that if you prosecute smaller crimes on the street, the drug
dealers and the pan-handlers and the two-bit thieves, you
cannot begin to break up criminal activities and reduce all
crime. I have believed that for a long time. There is no doubt
in my mind that if you want to reduce the amount of drugs used
in my hometown of Mobile, if you go in there and steadfastly
break up the virtually open sales of drugs and put those people
in jail and send a message that users will be prosecuted, you
will see it go down.
As a matter of fact, I have seen drug use go down under
intensive pressure. I just believe we don't need to lose our
focus from that critical aspect of the war on drugs in a more
unconnected effort to reduce supply, over which we have such
little control ultimately. Those are my concerns.
Thank you for your testimony here again. We will keep the
record open to allow others to submit questions and any
comments or supplements that you would like to submit. Mr.
Beers, do you have anything to add to this?
Mr. Beers. No, sir, except to thank you for the hearing. We
regard this as an important opportunity to go beyond the actual
administration expression of certification to bring it to the
attention of the Congress and the American people. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. I would say I am very concerned about
Colombia. I am not sure what my thinking is at this point, but
if our assistance could help them preserve the second oldest
democracy in the Western Hemisphere against a Marxist group of
drug traffickers, I think we need to be considered what we can
do to help.
Mr. Beers. Sir, I think that the proposal that the
Colombians and the administration have presented to the
Congress represents the best chance that we will ever have to
accomplish both your goals and our common goal of dealing with
drug trafficking as it emanates from South America.
Senator Sessions. I am not convinced that our position of
not even endorsing the democratically-elected government of
Colombia against these Marxist drug traffickers and protectors
and kidnappers is a good policy. That may not be in your
bailiwick, but Mr. Pickering testified in this very room, I
believe, a few weeks ago that we have not even officially
endorsed the nation of Colombia in their effort.
We are trying to have peace talks and that sort of thing.
We are encouraging them to allow large areas of their country
to be a safe zone. We ought to be encouraging, in my mind, the
nation of Colombia to defeat these insurgents who have taken
over 40-plus percent of their country. And until they do so, I
don't see how we can ever expect Colombia to control production
if they don't even control their territory. So I think we ought
to help Colombia, and I just want to be sure that we are doing
it in the right way.
Mr. Marshall, do you have any further comments?
Mr. Marshall. Just a brief comment, Senator. I would like
to also thank you for your support, and the entire caucus as
well. As I said earlier, we can't do our jobs without the
support of Congress, the Senate, this caucus, and the American
people.
With regard to your comments about cleaning up our streets
at the neighborhood level, I agree with your viewpoints on
that. In addition to the national, international and major
command and control investigations that we conduct, we have a
couple of programs that do focus on helping local jurisdictions
out with those types of crimes. I would be happy to give you or
your staff a briefing on those programs, if you would like.
Senator Sessions. I would be delighted to hear that. I
think cooperative law enforcement is a key step. I believe in
the task forces; I have seen them work successfully. How do you
find who the big dealer is in your town? You start prosecuting
the little dealers and you make them tell who they got it from,
and pretty soon you have gotten the big dealer. But to say you
are going to start at the top is silly, from my experience.
With regard to the HIDTA program, I understand that the
management of that has been turned over to the drug czar's
office and away from the Department of Justice. Are you able to
make any comment on whether you think that is an effective
organization structure for HIDTA, or should it be within the
Department of Justice?
Mr. Marshall. It has actually always been, to my
recollection, in the Office of Drug Control Policy. It is their
funds and they manage the overall program. DEA has quite a bit
of involvement in that program, as does the FBI, Customs, and
the Department of Justice. You know, I think that is a
legitimate question. I think that it maybe bears further
examination as to where the management of that program should
be.
Senator Sessions. Well, DEA, in my opinion, has a single
mission and it is very effective in that mission. I salute you.
My experience is that DEA agents know what their job is and
they go about doing it effectively, and they put their lives at
risk. Over the last decade or so, they have become much better
in working with State and local law enforcement, to the benefit
of both. If we keep that up, I believe we will be in good
shape.
Sometimes, I wonder about the billions we are spending
there and we can't find a few million for you to hire just a
few more agents to work within the cities and communities ofthe
United States. If I have a criticism of the war on drugs, I think it is
that we are looking for causes outside ourselves, and if we utilized
our resources effectively, particularly through DEA, and the local
police increase their narcotics units, we can as a Nation make a
reduction in narcotics possible.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Unless there is
anything else, we will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Caucus was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7601A.093